Sitting of 7 December 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
North British Railway Order Confirmation Bill (by Order).—Considered; an Amendment made to the Bill; Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Copy presented, of Orders made by the various County and County Borough Councils in England and Wales under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board [by Act] to lie upon the Table.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890.
Copy presented, of Statement of further modification permitted by the Local Government Board in the City of Leeds (Quarry Hill Area) Improvement Scheme, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MOTOR CAR ACTS, 1896 AND 1903.
Copy presented, of Regulations made by the Local Government Board under the Acts. Borough of Kendal [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to the Education Bill [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Order [4th December] that the Paper relative to Board of Education do lie upon the Table read, and discharged.
SECONDARY SCHOOLS, ETC. (PUPILS).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 18th November; Mr. Illingworth]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 349.]
SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Borough of Barnstaple, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops within the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1906.
Copy presented, of Regulations, dated 9th November, 1908, and entitled the "Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs (Methods of Analysis) Regulations, 1908" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
Copy presented, of an Order No. 7616, dated 28th November, 1908, entitled the "Foreign Animals (Amendment Order of 1908 (No. 3)" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACT, 1907.
Copy presented, of the Designs Rules, 1908, (Second Set), dated 14th November, 1908, [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC HEALTH (REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD) ACT, 1907.
Copies presented, of Regulations made by the Local Government Board for Ireland: (1) Public Health (Foreign Meat) (Ireland) Regulations, 1908; (2) Public Health (First Series, Unsound Food) (Ireland) Regulations, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
Inquiry into Charities (County of Berks).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 28th March, 1905; Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 350.]
Inquiry into Charities (County of Devon).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered-26th July, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 351.]

LAND PURCHASE PRICES (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "showing, by counties, the average number of years Purchase under the different Land Purchase Acts from 1885 to 1903, with the average
40
percentage of reductions, the number of holdings purchased under each Act, and the amount of interest and sinking fund payable by the tenant purchasers; also, by counties, Return showing the same particulars with respect to the Purchase Act of 1903 up to the 1st day of November last."—(Mr. William O'Brien.)

Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    French, Russian, German, and British Battleships.
    MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the number of capital ships now in commission in the navies of France, Russia, Germany, and Great Britain respectively.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am not aware what interpretation my hon. friend places upon the term "capital ships." The number of first-class battleships now in commission is as follows:—

    Fully commissioned.

    Nucleus crews.

    France

    12

    2

    Russia

    4

    2

    Germany

    18

    —

    Great Britain

    30

    10

    Foreign Tariffs.
    MR. WYNDHAM: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will lay upon the Table of the House the new French tariff, so far as it has been published, and cause the same to be circulated among chambers of commerce in this country, in order that His Majesty's Government may be informed of the character of the representations which may most usefully be made to the French Government in the interests of British and Irish traders.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The right hon. Gentleman may be assured that the subject of the projected new French tariff is receiving my careful attention, and that I shall not fail to consult the chambers of commerce through the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade on Commercial Intelligence with regard to it when matters are

    41
    further advanced. The new tariff proposals are those of the Customs Commission of the Chamber of Deputies and not of the French Government, and the Commission have up to the present only published a small portion of their recommendations. I understand, however, that their complete recommendations will shortly be made public and as soon as they are received I will see that they are laid upon the Table of the House.
    MR. WYNDHAM: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the increased number of items separately tariffed under the proposed new french tariff, and to the finer differentiation and more extended classification which is characteristic of all revisions of foreign tariffs in recent years; and, seeing that these changes tend to annul the value of our mostfavoured-nation treaties, will he say what steps His Majesty's Government propose in order to regain the advantages in foreign markets which these treaties were designed to give us.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I am aware of the tendency towards more minute classification of foreign tariffs. The subject raised in the last part of the Question is too wide and controversial to be dealt with in an answer to a question.
    MR. WYNDHAM: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of the Ways and Means Committee of the United States Congress on the subject of the tariff revision of that country, and especially to the declared policy of the Republican Party now in power to introduce a maximum and a minimum system of tariffs; and whether he can inform the House of the steps he proposes to take to acquaint himself with the probable effect of those changes on British and Imperial interests, and to make such representations as may be necessary to the proper authorities in the United States.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) My attention has been drawn to this matter,
    42
    and I am already in communication with the principal chambers of commerce with regard to it.

    Medical Inspection of School Children.
    MAJOR DUNNE: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will, either by legislation, if necessary, or, if not, by administrative action, provide the means to enable local education authorities to proceed against parents who wilfully withhold their children from medical inspection and thereby reduce the effectiveness of Section 13 (1) (b.) of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Board have reason to believe that the number of children withheld by their parents from medical inspection is inconsiderable, and that as the benefits of such inspection become better known the number will decrease. At present the Board do not consider that any special action on their part is required or is desirable.

    National Society's Schools.
    MR. ESSEX: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the provisions of Clause 3, subsection (4), on page 5, of the Education Bill (No. 2), exclude the schools of the British Schools' Association or other similar associations of schools from such liberties and advantages as may be enjoyed by the schools of the National Society.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) This Question does not now arise.

    Post Office Writers Association.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: To ask the Postmaster-General under what circumstances he has refused to recognise officially the duly-constituted association of Post Office writers, seeing that he has announced to the staff generally his readiness to recognise any duly-constituted organisation or federation of postal servants, and has already granted that privilege, not only to the service associations generally, but, in the case of the London postmen,

    43
    to two distinct organisations; and whether he is prepared to reconsider his decision, with a view to removing the disabilities under which the members of the Writers Association now labour.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The officers to whom the hon. Member refers are members of the general class or sorters employed temporarily on writing duties, and, as I have already informed them, I am not prepared to recognise more than one association as representing the class to which they belong.

    Telegraph Appointment at Dromod, County Leitrim.
    MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that a vacancy in the telegraph service at Dromod, County Leitrim, has recently been filled by the appointment of a person who had no previous Post Office experience, and was admitted as a learner at the age of thirty; were there any other, and how many, applications by qualified persons for the vacancy: is he aware that this applicant was, until shortly before his appointment, employed in commercial business in London; and whether he will take steps to prevent such appointments, seeing that they operate injuriously in causing stagnation in promotion of men in the Postal Telegraph Service.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The vacancy to which the hon. Member refers is apparently that for an assistant to the sub-postmistress of Dromod. It is not an established post. For that situation there were three candidates. One of these was only seventeen years of age and was considered unsuitable, as the position demanded the performance of night duty on alternate weeks. The appointment of another candidate was considered undesirable in view of his previous record in the Post Office. The remaining candidate who was selected is the husband of the sub-postmistress, and is considered the most suitable for the situation; his appointment
    44
    is, of course, subject to the attainment of full qualifications within a reasonable time.

    Foreign Children and Music Hall Performances.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that large numbers of children of tender years are sent to the Continent from this country under contracts for public performances; that these children perform in Continental halls where, in consequence of their environment, they are placed under temptations that are detrimental to their moral welfare; and that the hours of work are such as are not permitted in England; and whether, having regard to the legislation recently enacted in England for the protection of children, he will consider whether steps can be taken to prohibit the transference of young children to the Continent for the above-mentioned purposes.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The only such case of which I have heard in which a troupe of young children was sent out to perform as dancers at a place of amusement on the Continent is now forming the subject of inquiry. I shall be glad to consider any facts on this head with which the hon. Member can furnish me. My attention has been drawn from time to time to cases of young, girls engaged to perform in Continental music halls under very unfavourable conditions, and representations have been made on the subject to authorities abroad. I understand that the London County Council are considering the question of applying to Parliament for power to control the theatrical agencies through which such performers are engaged.

    Resales of Irish Estates.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state, relative to advances which were made by the Congested Districts Board in cases of resales to tenants in the year ended 31st October, 1908, the county, number of estates, number of tenant

    45
    purchasers, total rental, total advances and number of years purchase of the rental.

    Counties,

    Number of Estates.

    Number of tenant purchasers.

    Total rental

    Total re-sale prices.*

    Average number of years purchase, of rental.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    Donegal

    3

    37

    62

    11

    9

    1,651

    26

    Sligo

    3

    250

    2,192

    4

    11

    50,544

    23

    Mayo

    32

    651

    3,933

    9

    7

    87,723

    22

    Roscommon

    6

    68

    787

    13

    0

    18,284

    23½

    Galway

    17

    176

    1,755

    19

    9

    42,742

    24

    Kerry

    3

    217

    2,704

    6

    4

    61,924

    22½

    Cork

    3

    69

    467

    9

    2

    9,518

    20

    67

    1,468

    11,903

    14

    6

    272,386

    22¾

    These are the prices agreed to, the actual advances are made at a later date by the Land Commission.

    Associations of Ex-Volunteers.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the actual formation of an association of ex-Volunteers at Gloucester; and whether the Government, by way of encouraging the formation of similar valuable organised Reserves in other big towns in the country, could see their way to a grant of free ammunition to the members of such associations.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The War Office has no official information regarding this association, and for obvious reasons it will not encourage such bodies. Under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act powers exist far forming a Reserve for the Territorial Force; and later on, when men who have completed their service with the Colours in the Territorial Force have begun to pass out, the question of forming a Reserve will be taken up in conjunction with the County Associations.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The following Return gives the required particulars—

    Boyton Estate, Tullydonnell—Interest on Purchase Money.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on the D. A. Boyton estate, at Tully-donnell, County Donegal, the tenant purchasers are obliged to pay, pending the advance of the purchase-money, interest at the rate of 4½ per cent. in lieu of 2¾ per cent., as provided by the Purchase Act of 1903; and can he give any indication how long this extra charge will continue.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The interest referred to is that payable under Section 35 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1896, from the date of the purchase agreement to the date of the making of the advance, and the rate of interest payable is a matter of agreement between the parties. The Land Commission inform me that there are some 186 tenants on the estate in question, and the rate of interest payable varies

    47
    in the different cases from 3¾ to 5 per cent. Having regard to the place of this estate in the order of priority, it is not likely that the advance can be made for upwards of a year.

    Inspection under the Food and Drugs Act in County Cavan.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state for how many years back there is a record of samples taken under the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act in Cavan; for how many counties are similar records kept; what steps are taken to secure that the results? of analysis are scientifically accurate; and will he say, of the 680 samples submitted in Cavan in 1907, how many were analysed by the public analyst, and how many by deputy.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board inform me that they are satisfied as to the qualifications of the analyst for County Cavan. There is no official information as to the other matters referred to in the Question.

    Hussey Estate, County Meath.
    MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a Mrs. Tiernan, on the estate of the Trustees of Hussey, Rathkenny, County Meath, purchased her holding; and, if so, how much money was, or will be, advanced to her for the purpose.
    To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners received a memorial from the inhabitants of Rathkenny, County Meath, asking them to purchase the untenanted land on the estate of the Trustees of Hussey for distribution among the occupiers of uneconomical holdings in the district, and, having regard to the fact that the people were willing to take the land, upon whose authority the Commissioners decided that the land was unfit for distribution; whether the Commissioners propose to advance money, and how much, to Mr. John Tiernan for the purchase of land on this estate that he held on the eleven months system;
    48
    if they are aware that he is the only son of a lady who holds many hundred acres of land, and that it reverts to him on her death; and under what section of the Land Act of 1903 the advance will be made.
    To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, when the estate of the Trustees of Hussey, Rathkenny, County Meath, was sold to the occupying tenants, and the purchase agreements lodged with the Estates Commissioners, any agreement was lodged by John Tiernan for the 201 acres it is now alleged the owner sold him; if not, when was the purchase agreement lodged and upon what date was the tenancy created; whether and to what amount the Commissioners are empowered to advance money for the purchase of tenancies created since the passing of the Land Act of 1903; and whether, before advancing cash to John Tiernan, they will make further inquiries into his ability to farm the land he occupies.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I will reply to these three Questions together. The Estates Commissioners inform me that an advance of £5764 has been made to Mrs. Tiernan for the purchase of a holding on this estate, held by her prior to the sale on a lease made in 1886 for a long term of years. The Commissioners received and fully considered the Memorial of the inhabitants of Rathkenny, but did not consider that, having regard to all the circumstances, they could comply with it. I have already explained to the hon. Member the circumstances in which the 201 acres were sold to Mr. John Tierman, who was in immediate occupation. The Commissioners cannot say whether he is or is not an only son and his mother's heir. The lands have been vested in him, and an advance of £4,422 has been made to him for the purchase. The matter is therefore closed. The residue of the lands referred to is being distributed among small occupiers.

    Pay of Inspectors of Irish Intermediate Education Boards.
    MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state

    49
    from what funds it is proposed to pay the inspectors to be appointed by the Irish Intermediate Board.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The inspectors appointed by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland will be paid from funds of that Board.

    Validation of the Public Bodies Order—Opposition of Local Bodies.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolutions passed by local authorities in County Down and other parts of Ireland in opposition to the proposed validation of the Public Bodies Order of 1904; and whether these representations will receive his personal consideration.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am aware that resolutions have been adopted by several local authorities in opposition to the clause in the Local Government Amendment Bill for the validation of the Public Bodies Order of 1904. These resolutions will receive consideration.

    Jurors Objected to at Limerick.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the trial of the Riverstown prisoners at Limerick on Tuesday last the Crown ordered thirty-one jurors to stand by; and whether, in view of the pledge given by the Attorney-General for Ireland in this House, he will say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) My right hon. friend the Attorney-General has inquired into this matter. The Crown Solicitor for the County of Sligo informs him that the reason why he ordered so many jurors to stand aside in the case referred to was because he had trustworthy information that an active canvass of the jurors had been made on behalf of the prisoners, and that persons had actually come from Sligo to Limerick for the purpose of influencing the jurors. The Crown Solicitor was bound to exclude from the jury all persons whom he had reason to believe
    50
    had been influenced by this improper practice, and who would, in his opinion, have been hindered thereby from giving an impartial verdict. In taking this course the Crown Solicitor was acting strictly within his instructions and not in violation of any pledge given by my right hon. friend in this House or elsewhere.

    Southern Nigeria Preventive Force.
    MR. ARMITAGE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the strength of the preventive force in Southern Nigeria, its organisation, distribution, and duties.
    (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The preventive service in Southern Nigeria is carried out partly by the water police, of whom there are twenty-one in the Eastern and fifteen in the Western Province. The only land frontier which at present requires special supervision is a portion of the boundary between Southern Nigeria and Dahomey, where a force of twenty-five men is employed. These can be supplemented, if required, from the ordinary police. The duty of the preventive force is to prevent smuggling.

    Southern Nigeria Police Force.
    MR. ARMITAGE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the nature, strength, and distribution of the police force in Southern Nigeria, particularly in the larger towns of the western, middle, and eastern districts.
    (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The police in Southern Nigeria is an armed and disciplined force of African natives. The actual strength in 1907 was 1,122 rank and file, with twelve African and ten European officers. The distribution was: Western Province, 536, Central, 247; and Eastern, 339. The force stationed in the six most important centres was: Lagos, 303; Calabar, 119; Warri and Gana Gana, 66; Benin, 25; Forcados and Burutu, 22; Sapele, 21. The large towns of Ibadan and Abeokuta are not policed by the Southern Nigeria force, but provide their own police.

    Distilleries in West Africa.
    MR. ARMITAGE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are any distilleries of spirits in Southern Nigeria, or in any other of our West African territories; and whether, if any exist, they are owned by natives or Europeans.
    (Answered by Colonel Seely.) I am not aware of the existence of any distilleries in the West African Colonies, but inquiry will be made of the local governments on this point.

    Central (Unemployed) Body and Workmen's Compensation.
    MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal, holding the Central (Unemployed) Body liable for accidents to workmen employed by them under the Unemployment Act; was this liability foreseen and covered by insurance; and, if not, out of what funds will the liability be met.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware of the decision referred to. I understand that from January, 1906, to July, 1907, workmen were insured by the Central Body with a firm of underwriters, and that since the latter date all risks of the kind mentioned are covered by an inclusive policy of insurance effected by the Central Body with the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation.

    Outdoor Relief.
    MR. R. HARCOURT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his Department forbid local authorities to give a higher rate for outdoor relief than 3s. weekly.
    Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The reply is in the negative.

    Old-Age Pensions Regulations.
    MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland whether he can state the application of the Pensions Act in the case where a male applicant being one of a married couple living together in the same house
    52
    having an income of £2 per annum and his wife no income; and whether he is entitled to a pension under the Act, being otherwise eligible.
    (Answered by Mr. Redmond Barry.) I assume that £2 is a misprint for £32 and, this being so, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the President of the Local Government Board to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow on the 9th ultimo.

    Stornoway Isolation Hospital.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that there is a population of nearly 30,000 in the Island of Lewis, will he state the extent of the accommodation for cases of infectious disease in the isolation hospital at Stornoway.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am informed that the hospital referred to contains ten beds.

    Dumping of Refuse on Alexandra Embankment at Stornoway.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the complaints from the inhabitants of Stornoway in regard to the insanitary conditions arising from the dumping of refuse on the Alexandra Embankment, Stornoway, will he state whether the Local Government Board have yet heard from the sanitary authorities on the subject, and what steps are being taken in order to secure an abatement of the nuisance.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I understand that steps are being taken to abate the nuisance, but as action has been taken by the procurator fiscal and the case is now before the sheriff it is not proper that I should enter into detail.

    Women Inspectors and Clerks in Government Departments.
    MR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there are any women inspectors or clerks in the first or second division in his Department; and, if any, will he give the number, respectively.

    53
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The staff of the Local Government Board includes four female inspectors and also twenty-five female typists. There are no female first or second division clerks in the Department.
    MR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any women inspectors or clerks in the first or second division in his Department; and, if any, will he give the number respectively.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) There are no women inspectors or clerks on the establishment of the Board of Trade. There is a senior investigator for women's industries and an assistant investigator.
    MR. COOPER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether there are any women inspectors or clerks in the first or second division in this Department; and, if any, will he give the number respectively.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) There are no women inspectors or clerks employed by the Board other than women typists, of whom there are fifteen.

    Strength of the Navy (Personnel).
    MR. J. M. MACDONALD: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the number of officers and men borne in all the ships in commission in the Royal Navy, the number employed in the dockyards and other special work, and the number in naval barracks.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) According to latest available Returns, the Answer to the first part of the Question is 121,499; the Answer to the second part of the Question is 1,824; and the Answer to the third part of the Question is 12,357, a number which is included also in the first figure given.

    The Public Trustee and Shares not Fully Paid up.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Public Trustee may have transferred to himself shares in joint stock companies upon which there
    54
    is an uncalled liability; if so, whether the Public Trustee is liable to pay calls that may be made subsequently upon such shares; and whether this is included in the liabilities which may be placed upon the Consolidated Fund under Section 7 of the Public Trustee Act, 1907.
    (Answered by Sir William Robson.) The Public Trustee may, if he accepts the trust, have, transferred to himself shares in joint stock companies upon which there is an uncalled liability. The question as to his liability in such cases is one of law depending on the construction and effect of Sections 2 and 7 of the Act of 1906 and of the rules made or to be made thereunder as applied to the circumstances of the particular case.

    Relief of Aged Poor.
    MR. R. HARCOURT: TO ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received representations from local authorities in favour of a grant from the Imperial Exchequer, so that the rate of outdoor relief to deserving paupers over seventy may be made up to the amount which would be paid weekly if they were receiving an old-age pension; and, if so, what action he proposes to take.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have received such representations from the Arbroath and St. Vigeans Parish Council, but I am not, as at present advised, in favour of dealing with the matter in the manner suggested. The whole question will be carefully considered when an opportunity arises for dealing with the disqualification on account of poor relief generally.

    Old-Age Pensions—Arrangements.
    MR. BRODIE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the great pressure of work which is placed upon the old-age pension officers during the initiation of the scheme, and the inconvenience and possible loss entailed upon the prospective pensioners who, as at present arranged, will have to remain at home to receive their pension order books which are to be personally delivered to them by the pension officers, he will give instructions for the books to be sent by registered post in the case of those persons to whom

    55
    pensions will be payable on the first Friday in January next.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am afraid that it would not be practicable to adopt this suggestion. The pension officer is required to witness the pensioner's signature upon the cover of the book. If this requirement were dispensed with the danger of the use of the books by unauthorised persons would be very seriously increased.

    Fixing of Fair Rents in Moira Rural Districts.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the powers of the Local Government Board under Section 29, subsection (3), of the Labourers Act of 1906, and of the fact that the labourers in the Moira Rural District Council, for whom cottages have been erected, have requested the Local Government Board to fix the fair rents of these cottages, and that the Local Government Board has informed the Moira Rural District Council that these rents ought to be submitted for their approval, he will say if the Moria Rural District Council has refused to do so; and, if so, what action is proposed to be taken to compel the administration of this section of the Labourers Act of 1906.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The fixing of rents for cottages erected under the Labourers Acts is a matter for the local authority and not for the Local Government Board. The Board have called the attention of the Moira Rural District Council to Section 29 of the Labourers Act of 1906, which provides that the council shall make and submit to the Board regulations for the letting of cottages and allotments, containing amongst other things a schedule of rents. The council have postponed the consideration of the matter till their next monthly meeting, and the Board will await their further action before deciding what steps, if any, should be taken.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Devonport Dockyard Regulations.
    MR. W. T. WILSON: I beg to ask the First
    56
    Lord of the Admiralty whether a petition has been received from the workmen engaged in His Majesty's dockyard at Devonport asking that the Order prohibiting them from leaving the dockyard during the interval allowed for the midday meal on Fridays should be withdrawn; and whether, in view of the fact that the men are not on duty and are not paid for the time, the Admiralty is prepared to accede to the request.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): A petition has been received from some of the workmen employed in Devonport dockyard, asking that such of the workmen as desire to do so may be permitted to leave the yard during the three-quarters of an hour mid-day meal on Fridays. The petition is still under consideration.

    Naval Manœuvres—Speech of Rear-Admiral Finnis.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in order to prevent needless alarm being caused by the reports in the Press of a speech by Rear-Admiral Finnis, he will state how many vessels were under the command of the Rear-Admiral, representing, as alleged by him, a fleet of transports carrying 70,000 men, when he successfully eluded the British defending force in a fog and reached the coast of Scotland unobserved.
    I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to statements made by Rear-Admiral Finnis, in a speech at Dover, on 2nd December; whether the alleged successful invasion of Scotland by a fleet supposed to represent transports carrying 70,000 men, under the command of Rear-Admiral Finnis, was a part of secret manœuvres on which all information has been withheld from the House; and what steps he proposes to take in reference to the matter.
    MR. MCKENNA: Rear-Admiral Finnis has been on half-pay since January last. He was not entrusted with any command at the recent manœuvres. In reply to inquiries as to the speech which he is reported to have made, Admiral Finnis

    57
    states: "This report is a great misrepresentation and exaggeration of a very small part of the speech I made, and needless to say is not correct; the words 'during manœuvres,' etc., etc., and many others, were of course never used." I am taking further steps to discover the precise language used by Admiral Finnis. No such incident as is alluded to in the report of the speech, occurred in the manœuvres, nor did anything happen which could in the smallest degree give the slightest foundation for such a statement. I trust that with this information the public alarm which my hon. friend apprehends may be prevented.

    H.M.S. "Barfleur."
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the fact that H.M.S. "Barfleur" in a period of forty months ending 1st June, 1908, had nine successive captains, whether he can state what steps the Board are taking to prevent the evils arising from the undue frequency with which the captains of His Majesty's ships are shifted about.
    MR. McKENNA: My hon. friend has referred to the case of only one of His Majesty's ships, the "Barfleur," which is in the Special Reserve. The captains of His Majesty's ships are not shifted about with avoidable frequency, and it is not considered necessary to take any steps as suggested by my hon. friend.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Will it be possible for my right hon. friend to grant a return in regard to the commands of ships generally?
    MR. McKENNA: No, Sir. I am quite satisfied that the captains of His Majesty's ships are not shifted with any avoidable frequency.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is there any special reason why the captains of the "Barfleur" were shifted so very frequently? Is the "Barfleur" used as a training ship for captains?
    MR. McKENNA: No, Sir. The "Barfleur" was used for sending out to China a new crow for the "Vengeance" and for bringing back the old crew, and, as the old crew were time-expired men, they were paid off, and at the same time the captain was changed. That was the special reason I gave.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: But that applies to only three out of the nine captains.
    MR. McKENNA: It applies to four captains. With regard to the other changes, I explained that in one case the captain was only in command a few days because another captain unexpectedly retired from the service.

    Anti-Torpedo Armaments.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state whether, in the opinion of his naval advisers, the four 7·5 guns carried in the "Natal," "Achilles," "Cochrane," and "Warrior" are equal as an anti-torpedo armament to the ten 6-inch guns carried by the two vessels of similar class, the "Duke of Edinburgh" and the "Black Prince."
    MR. McKENNA: I am not prepared to discuss, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, the comparative merits of different types of gun as an anti-torpedo craft armament. There is much difference of professional opinion on the subject.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the opinion that the armaments afford adequate protection?
    MR. McKENNA: Yes, I do not think I can go beyond my present statement and say I am not prepared to discuss the matter.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what constitutes the secondary or anti-torpedo armament of the "Bellerophon" class and the "St. Vincent" class respectively.
    MR. McKENNA: When no longer confidential, details of the armament

    59
    of these ships will be published in the Return which stands in the name of my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman try and secure that in future the Return is published a little earlier, as the information comes too late to be of use here?
    MR. McKENNA: Yes, I greatly regret that it was published so late this year.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that it is published before the threatened invasion of this country comes off?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Naval Shipbuilding.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to complete all the large armoured ships, including the three vessels of the "St. Vincent" class, within the specified period of two years; and will they consider the advisability of enforcing a penalty upon the contractors who delay the delivery of ships they may be building for the nation.
    MR. McKENNA: Of the large armoured vessels now under construction by contract, it was the intention of the Admiralty to complete the "Invincible" in two and a half years, and "Superb" and "Vanguard" in two years. The "Invincible" and "Superb" have been delayed by labour troubles and other causes, and will not be delivered within the expected periods. The "Vanguard" will, so far as the Admiralty can at present foresee, be delivered within the two year period. It is the present intention of the Admiralty to allow two years for building and completing large armoured ships in future. The contracts for building warships for His Majesty's service invariably provide for the payment of liquidated damages for delay in delivery, unless such delay shall have been outside the control of contractors for such causes as strikes and lockouts.

    The Navy Estimates.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give the date at which the next Navy Estimates will be presented.
    MR. McKENNA: The Naval Estimates will be introduced next session at some time between the conclusion of the debate on the Address in reply to the King's Speech and the close of the financial year.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: This question has been somewhat truncated, unfortunately, but will the right hon. Gentleman give orders for the laving down of one or two battleships before the Estimates are laid before the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: That hardly arises not of the Question.

    Internal Combustion Engines.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have any intention of testing internal combustion engines for propulsive purposes in any of the five protected cruisers for which orders have recently been given.
    MR. McKENNA: All these five protected cruisers have been designed with steam turbine machinery. There is no intention of testing internal combustion engines for propulsive purposes in any of them. Steps are, however, being taken to test these engines in another direction.

    Commutation of Army Pensions.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Army pensioners can be allowed to commute a portion of their pensions at forty-five years of age instead of fifty as at present, seeing that men and noncommissioned officers are not infrequently compelled to retire from the service shortly after completing forty years of age, and that the commutation of their pensions would enable them to make a new start in life in some trade or business.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The Army Council are considering the desirability of allowing Army pensioners, in

    61
    receipt of more than 1s. a day, to commute the excess over 1s. at an earlier age than fifty.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will provision be made for this concession in the forthcoming Estimates?
    MR. HALDANE: The matter, as I have said, is still under consideration.

    Army Quartermasters.
    LORD J. JOICEY-CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to make any alteration in the status or numbers of quartermasters in the Army.
    MR. HALDANE: I have no knowledge of any proposal to alter the status of quartermasters; but, of course, the numbers employed may vary from time to time according to the requirements of the Army.
    LORD J. JOICEY-CECILwas understood to ask if the Answer applied equally to riding-masters?
    MR. HALDANE: No, it is confined to quartermasters.

    Weedon Ordnance Factory Foremen.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in connection with a pension scheme for foremen at the Weedon Ordnance Factory there is a rule that any foreman participating in the scheme must cease to be a member of any trade society; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter, with a view to stopping the imposition of this disability on trade unionists in Government employ.
    MR. HALDANE: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a Question on the subject of the pension scheme for foremen of the Army Ordnance Department put by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin on 17th June last, and especially to the last sentence of that reply.

    Quarters for Married Soldiers.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
    62
    War if he will state how many married couples are now living in one room in barracks situated in the Dinted Kingdom.
    MR. HALDANE: No Returns are forwarded to the War Office containing the required information.
    MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to find out before he comes to the House for money to remedy the evil?
    MR. HALDANE: There is no question of coming to the House for money. We are remedying it.
    MR. ASHLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman no idea how many couples there are living under these conditions?
    MR. HALDANE: I cannot say how many; there is a great number, but we are reducing it as quickly as we can.

    Married Officers Quarters at Tidworth and Bulford.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what decision has been come to with reference to the provision of quarters for married officers stationed at Tidworth and Bulford.
    MR. HALDANE: The question of the provision of quarters for married officers is still under consideration. I may point out that the existing pressure will be somewhat relieved in the near future.
    MR. ASHLEY: As this matter has been under consideration for six months, can the right hon. Gentleman give an idea when it is likely to be decided?
    MR. HALDANE'Sreply was inaudible.

    Carlow Barracks.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to keep troops permanently stationed in the barracks at Carlow; and, if so, whether repairs of an extensive character will be undertaken.
    MR. HALDANE: No, Sir.

    The Unemployed and the Special Reserve.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what number of unemployed have availed themselves of his offer of service in the Special Reserve.
    MR. HALDANE: The number of recruits for the Special Reserve between 16th January and 1st October was 17,781; from that date to 1st November was 3,372; and from that date to 28th November, the latest date for which figures are available, was 2,748; amounting in all to 23,901. I assume that every recruit offering himself for the Special Reserve is at the time unemployed.
    MR. ASHLEY: May I ask whether at this rate of recruiting the Special Reserve will be filled up in a few months?
    MR. HALDANE: Well, recruiting is going on at the rate of 1,400 or 1,500 a fortnight.

    Accommodation in Barracks.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the rank and file living in barracks in the United Kingdom sleep and eat in the same room.
    MR. HALDANE: There are no statistics available to give the proportion. Wherever possible, that is, when accommodation exists, dining-rooms are used. The proportion, moreover, varies, as a barrack which may not be able, from pressure on its accommodation, to find dining-rooms at one time may be able to do so at another time. Every effort is made administratively to allow dining-rooms to be provided. In new barracks, dining-rooms are being arranged for.

    Children in Barracks.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many of the married couples living in one room in barracks in the United Kingdom have children living with them.
    MR. HALDANE: No returns are forwarded to the War Office containing the required information.
    MR. ASHLEY: Is there no limit at the War Office as to the number of people allowed to sleep in one room?
    MR. HALDANEasked for notice.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is it a fact that there are actually married men in the service with children living in one room only? If that is so, what step is the right hon. Gentleman taking to inquire with a view to remedying that disgusting state of affairs?
    MR. HALDANE: I succeeded to a great mass of these cases, and I am doing all I can to remedy them. Wherever we can, we provide two rooms.

    Rifle Ranges.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention that county associations should be under the necessity of applying to private individuals for assistance in defraying the expenses of rifle ranges, extra ammunition for practice, expenses of going to and from annual training, and similar outgoings.
    MR. HALDANE: The funds placed at the disposal of the county associations from Army Votes for these services are considered sufficient to meet necessary expenditure.
    MR. ASHLEY: Then am I to understand that no county association is to be obliged to appeal to private individuals to be given the use of land for rifle ranges at lower than the ordinary rent, on the ground that they have not sufficient funds?
    MR. HALDANE: I do not know about that, but we have provided what we consider sufficient funds to enable all these requirements to be satisfied.

    African Cable Companies and the Indian Joint-Purse Pool.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can state the express terms on which the Eastern and South Africa Telegraph Company became a partner in the Indian Joint-Purse Pool, and to what extent, if any, India has

    65
    suffered loss in her transit tax from the diversion of Australian telegraph traffic to the Australia-to-Africa cable; and whether the traffic from the Dutch Indies, formerly transmitting through India, has been diminished, and, if so, to what extent, by the establishment of the spur cable lately laid from Batavia to the Cocos (or Keeling) Islands to join the Australia-to-Africa cable.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN, Perthshire, E.): It would be necessary to obtain the consent of all the partners in the Indian Joint-Purse Agreement before the express terms on which the Eastern and South African Telegraph Company became a partner in this Joint-Purse could be made public. The opening of the Australia-to-Africa cable has diminished the volume of traffic yielding a transit tax to India. This loss for the official year, 1907–1908 is estimated to have been about £23,000. The opening of the Batavia-Cocos cable in April last allows of the diversion of traffic from and to the Dutch Indies. Figures are not available to show the loss to India by diversion.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to secure that the public shall have due notice of these arrangements?
    MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think I can promise that.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: But, in view of the position of affairs, it is very necessary.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down another Question.

    Beluchistan Land Telegraph Line.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if the telegraph land line from Kerman, through Beluchistan to Kalat and Quetta is yet completed, and if on such completion it will be possible to send a telegram by land wires alone from any Continental town, say Calais, to any part of India, Assam, or Burmah; and, in the case of a message sent from
    66
    Calais to Rangoon, would he state the cost of such message, and the amount of the terminal tax at each end, as well as the transit tax payable according to the rules of the International Telegraph Convention to each intervening State on the normal route.
    MR. BUCHANAN: A telegraph land line from Teheran, via Kerman, Robat, and Indian Baluchistan, to Karachi, was opened for traffic in November, 1907, as an alternative and additional line to the one from Teheran, via Bushire and the Persian Gulf, to Karachi. The cost of a message sent from Calais to Rangoon, which passes over either of these lines, is 2·50 francs per word. According to Table B of the International Telegraph Convention the terminal tax per word on such a message would be 0·15 francs for France and 0·35 francs for India. The transit taxes payable would be 0·20 francs for Germany, 1·13 francs for Russia, 0·44 francs for Persia, and 0·68 francs for the Persian Gulf. The total of these conventional rates would amount to 2·95 francs. The lower through rate accepted of 2·50 francs per word has been brought about by arrangement between the Administrations concerned.

    Indian Finance.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India what precisely are the general purposes of the Government of India for which the Secretary of State is to be empowered by the East Indian Loan Bill to borrow in the United Kingdom the sum of £5,000,000, in addition to the sum of £6,200,000 already borrowed and apparently spent; upon what specific object this sum of £6,200,000 has been spent, and whether the details of this expenditure have been regularly brought to account in the annual financial statement issued by the Government of India.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The power to raise £5,000,000 for general purposes is asked for in order that the Secretary of State may be able to borrow in England to meet any emergency that may arise, such as a deficiency in remittances from India due to a reduction of the resources

    67
    of the Government of India, or to unfavourable trade conditions. The Secretary of State comes to Parliament from time to time for borrowing powers for these purposes. The net indebtedness incurred under the Act of 1898, which was shown in the Memorandum presented last July as £6,200,000 is now £8,700,000. The total transactions under the Act are that £17,700,000 have been borrowed at various times and £9,000,000 of temporary debt have been repaid. The loans of each year and the total expenditure of each year are shown in the annual accounts of the Government of India; but so far as the loans are required to meet a shortage of remittances from India it is not practicable to exhibit them in the accounts as appropriated to meet expenditure under particular heads.
    MR. SMEATON: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question? Are details of this expenditure exhibited in the account?
    MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I shall later on be able to explain more fully the exact position.

    Flogging of Natives in Rhodesia.
    MR. BENNETT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that four white settlers in Rhodesia recently flogged three natives, suspected of theft, with the result that two of them died from the treatment received; and that at the Battlefields criminal sessions, in spite of the summing up of the Judge, the four settlers were acquitted by the jury on all counts; and whether, under the terms of the charter given to the British South Africa Company, any appeal in such a case lies to the Imperial Courts.
    MR. MACKARNESS: At the same time may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information about the recent trial of four Europeans at Salisbury, in Rhodesia, for the manslaughter of two natives alleged to have been so severely flogged that two of them died; whether the four men charged
    68
    were all acquitted; and whether he has received any intimation, either from the Administrator of Rhodesia or the Judge who tried the case, as to the circumstances under which the verdict was given.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY, Liverpool, Abercromby): I have seen a report in the Press, but have no official information on the subject. Inquiry shall be made of the High Commissioner for South Africa. I am advised that no appeal lies to any Court in this country.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Does no appeal lie to the Privy Council?
    COLONEL SEELY: My reply is that no appeal lies to any Court.
    MR. BYLES: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest what is the use of Imperialism if it cannot prevent iniquities such as these?
    COLONEL SEELY: But it does prevent iniquities such as these.
    MR. BELLOC: Has the Congo Reform Association reported on this matter.
    COLONEL SEELY: Not that I am aware of.

    Somali Protectorate.
    SIR C. HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why no allusion is made in the latest Report on the Somaili Protectorate to the military forces of the Protectorate, as is usual in similar Reports on the African Protectorates; and whether he will lay before the House a statement showing the number and nature of the troops now in the Protectorate and the stations at which they are posted.
    COLONEL SEELY: It has not been thought desirable to publish the information referred to in the annual Report.

    British Officials and African Native Girls.
    SIR C. HILL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the case

    69
    of Mr. Silberrad, who has been accused of immorality towards a native child in the East African Protectorate; and whether he will lay before the House any official correspondence which has passed in regard to it.
    The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper—
    SIR GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information concerning the alleged procuring of young native girls for immoral purposes by high European Government officials of the East African Protectorate; is he aware that the allegation against one of the officials was inquired into privately by His Honour Judge Barth, of the High Court, at the request of His Excellency the Governor, and that the offender was punished by the loss of one year's seniority; and does the Secretary of State propose to take any further steps in the matter.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that last February Mr. Silberrad, Deputy-Commissioner at Nyeri, in British East Africa, used his official position to procure a native child of thirteen for immoral purposes, and that on complaint being made by a British settler a private inquiry was held and Mr. Silberrad received some trifling disciplinary punishment; whether he will explain why an open inquiry was not held in this case; and what steps the Secretary of State proposes to take to prevent the recurrence of such cases in British East Africa, and to secure the same standard of conduct in this Protectorate as obtains in other British Colonies.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the inquiry undertaken by Judge Barth by the instruction of the Governor at Nyeri into the conduct of an official; and, in view of the state of corruption alleged, will he grant a public inquiry in order that a Report may be presented to Parliament.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if any complaints have been made to the Governor of British East Africa respecting the conduct of officials other than the case which was recently referred to Judge Barth of the High Court; and, if so, have any inquiries been held as the result of the complaints.
    MR. BENNETT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to certain grave charges recently brought against two officials in British East Africa; and whether, if such charges are well founded, he will see that adequate punishment is meted out to the offenders.
    MR. CATHCART WASONasked the hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that, so far from the offender in this case having received some slight disciplinary punishment, he had already been severely punished, and was still labouring under that punishment; that since this occasion his conduct had been most exemplary, and that the suggestion that he had procured a child was entirely and absolutely unwarranted; and whether, under all the circumstances, he would leave the matter where it was, in the hands of the Governor of the Colony, and not consent to retry the case on ex parte statements.
    COLONEL SEELY: I trust the House will permit me to reply to the six Questions on this subject together, and to make a short statement. Perhaps it will be convenient to deal, in the first place, with the particular case of the officer mentioned by name, and, in the second place, with the general aspect of the matter referred to in some of the Questions on the Paper. With regard to the particular case, the officer named was not a high Government official, but one of the junior grade of administrative officers. He was charged with the offence referred to in the Question, and a Judge was nominated to investigate the charge, and to report to the Colonial Government. Before stating what subsequently took place, it is right to clear up two points on which the House will wish to be informed, so as to understand the nature of the offence more clearly. With regard

    71
    to the use of the word "child," it is the case that women in East Africa, as in other tropical countries, develop so rapidly that they are commonly married at the age of thirteen or fourteen, which is the age stated in this case; secondly, unwillingness was not found by the Judge to be proved. The Judge investigated the charge and reported, and on his report the officer was suspended from duty, and his case considered by the Executive Council, who advised that he should lose one year's seniority, and not be put in charge of a district for two years. The whole matter was subsequently reported to the Secretary of State, who gave it his most careful attention. He had, of course, no opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses or of weighing the value of their evidence, and he, therefore, considered it right to accept the decision of the Executive Council. But he did not do this until he had satisfied himself that, since the pecuniary loss involved was considerable, and since the officer's opportunities for advancement must necessarily be affected to a far greater extent than might at first sight appear, the punishment was undoubtedly a severe one. Since then the officer has returned to duty, and the Governor reports as follows: "Silberrad is an able and energetic officer, who has done good work and has been favourably reported on up to time of his fault, for which he expressed deepest regret and gave me the fullest assurances. He lately married in England, and I understand that before doing so, he told all to his future wife. His conduct since his return has been exemplary, and he should make a valuable officer." With regard to the general question, the Government of East Africa on their own initiative issued a strongly worded Memorandum in September last condemning such practices and warning all officers of the consequences of disobedience. I think the House will agree that it would not be well to lay Papers on this matter, but I need not say that the Secretary of State associates himself with the condemnation which has been expressed. He is taking steps to impress upon members of the whole Colonial service, through the Governors, that such actions, all questions of morals apart, are damaging to the public service, and
    72
    that the gravest consequences must be the penalty for conduct which is unworthy of a servant of the Crown.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why no action was taken or inquiry made in regard to the other official about whom a complaint was made by Mr. Routledge; and in regard to the Question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, is he aware that Mrs. Routledge went to the house of Mr. Silberrad and took these girls of twelve and thirteen away from him?
    COLONEL SEELY: With regard to the first Queston I have only replied on the specific case put before me. I shall be glad to answer any Questions on that subject if the hon. Gentleman will give me due notice. With regard to the second Question, I understand that is the case. We must all be very grateful to the lady for the action which she took.
    MR. WEDGWOODinquired whether the hon. Gentleman was aware, that three out of four hon. Members who put down Questions on this subject had had charge of natives under the British Crown and that they were all disgusted and horrified at this occurrence, and also at the attitude taken by the Colonial Office and the Governor towards it?
    COLONEL SEELY: The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these malpractices against native women are alleged to have been the cause of disturbances in that district which led to a punitive expedition 'Did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, during his recent visit to East Africa, make any inquiry with regard to these allegations?
    COLONEL SEELY: Really, I must have notice of that Question. But I repeat that the Secretary of State regards this question as one of the utmost gravity.
    SIR H. COTTON: Is Mr. Silberrad still exercising any judicial functions?
    COLONEL SEELY: He is doing the usual work of a subordinate officer, and the Governor has telegraphed to me that he is endeavouring to do his best to redeem his character by leading an exemplary life. It is rather difficult to define the term "judicial." Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a further Question down on that.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: Is he in the same district?
    COLONEL SEELY: I think not.

    Spirit Duty Allowances.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an allowance or bounty to the amount of 3d. to 5d. per gallon is still paid by the State on whisky and other British spirits exported from this country; and, if so, whether the export of spirituous liquors is the only bounty-fed export from the United Kingdom, what is the total sum per annum paid as bounty, and what is the reason that the trade in spirituous liquors enjoys such exceptional advantages and protection.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): No bounty is paid upon the export of British spirits from this country. An allowance of 3d. per gallon is granted on British plain spirits on exportation, as an equivalent to the British distiller for the cost to him of the requirements and restrictions imposed by the Revenue laws and regulations in connection with his plant and methods of manufacture. A further allowance of 2d. (i.e., 5d. in all) is granted an British compounds in consideration of the loss due to the manufacture being required by law to be carried on with duty-paid spirits on premises distinct from those of a distiller. These allowances are granted in order to put the British distiller on an equality with the foreign distiller, who is not hampered to the same degree by the Revenue laws of this country. The sum paid as allowances on the exportation of spirits (plain
    74
    and compound) for the year ended 31st March, 1908, was £113,807.

    Surpluses and the Sinking Fund.
    MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what was the surplus of the financial year 1907–8 available under the old sinking fund for the reduction of the funded debt; how much of this surplus has already been applied to the reduction of the funded debt; and when it is proposed to apply the balance.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The old sinking fund for the year 1907–8 amounted to £4,725,595 16s. 7d., and will be applied in the reduction of debt. Since 1st April last, £2,000,000 has been issued to the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt; and the balance will, subject to Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1908, be issued from time to time during the present financial year. It would not be in the public interest to give the details of the application of sinking fund money in anticipation of the Annual Returns presented to this House.
    MR. LEVERTON HARRISasked whether any part of the surplus referred to would be applied to meet any possible deficit on next year's Budget.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked the hon. Gentleman to give him notice of that Question.
    SIR F. BANBURYasked whether there was any power to use the surplus of last year for anything but the reduction of the debt.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he thought there was no such power. That was why he hesitated to answer the hon. Member for Stepney.

    Hop Substitutes.
    MR. NAPIER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now say when the Bill to prohibit the use of hop substitutes in beer and to secure the marking of foreign hops imported into the United Kingdom will be introduced.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have been in consultation informally with representatives of the interests concerned, and shall, I hope, be able to introduce in a day or two the Bill for the prohibition of the use of hop substitutes, and for the marking of imported hops.

    Notices to Licence Holders.
    SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether notices to licence-holders, sent out by post, by county councils in connection with the collection of local taxation licences, will require to be stamped; and whether, having regard to the inadequacy of the amount proposed to be allowed to county councils for the cost of collection, it can be arranged that they shall not be called upon to pay postage on circulars and notices issued by them in connection with these licences.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As I explained in the course of the debate on the Finance Bill on 15th July last, the grant of £40,000 to county councils in England and Wales should, in my opinion, provide a sufficient margin to cover all costs of collection; but I shall be glad to consider any representations on the subject which may be made to me by councils who, after due trial, think that the amount allotted to them is inadequate for the purpose.
    SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in the case of Middlesex the collectors will find this a very heavy burden, representing two-thirds of their percentages.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I shall be prepared to consider any representations on the subject.

    Telephone Connection with Police Stations.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that residents in the Metropolitan districts are deprived of the safeguard obtainable by ringing up the police-stations in cases of burglary, because the police stations have no connection
    76
    with the exchanges of the National Telephone Company; and, having in view the frequent cases of housebreaking both in London and elsewhere, as well as recent cases in Glasgow, whether he will, with a view to the security of householders in the event of attempted burglaries in the Metropolis, give instructions that the police-stations be at once put in communication with the National Telephone Company's Exchange.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The work of connecting Metropolitan police stations with the telephone system is steadily progressing, there being now ninety-nine stations on the public telephone system, and 130 on the police telephone system. The majority of police connections are with the General Post Office telephone service, which gives communication also with the National Telephone Company's exchanges.

    Motor Car Smoke Nuisance.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the increase of public discomfort due to the nuisance of the thick offensive smoke sometimes discharged from the exhaust-pipe of motorcars; whether he has made inquiries as to the possibility of preventing this; and, if so, whether he will now cause special investigation to be made with a view to a regulation that the discharge of this offensive smoke shall be in the front of the car, so that the driver on the driving seat, or the owner inside, may see it and take the means necessary to obviate or prevent it.
    MR. GLADSTONE: As I stated in reply to a Question earlier in the year, I do not think this nuisance is on the increase in London. I have no power to take any action except in respect of motor-cabs and motor-omnibuses, and the police report to me that in their case, at any rate, the smoke nuisance has undoubtedly decreased. Improvements in design have tended towards this result. I shall always be ready to consider any practicable proposals for diminishing the nuisance; but I am

    77
    advised that the suggestion made by the hon. Member is impracticable.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: Seeing that steps have been taken so far as public vehicles are concerned, will the right hon. Gentleman see that similar action is applied to private cars?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid the same action should apply to both classes. He was in communication with the President of the Local Government Board on the subject.

    Third-Class Season Railway Tickets.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to require all railway companies to issue third-class season tickets.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I do not see my way to introduce legislation of the nature suggested by my hon. friend, but I may remind him that third-class season tickets are now issued by many of the railway companies voluntarily, and their number appears to be increasing.

    Provincial Homes Investment Company.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that thousands of people have been deprived of their whole savings by such companies as the Provincial Homes Investment Company, he will take immediate steps to have such companies wound up and the promoters prosecuted.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Companies registered under the Companies Acts can only be wound up in the manner provided by those Acts, and the Board of Trade have no power to take any steps to obtain or order a winding up. Nor is it within the province of the Board of Trade, except in the case of companies ordered by the Court to be wound up compulsorily to take steps for the prosecution of the promoters. If my hon. friend has facts in his possession disclosing a criminal offence it is in his power to submit them to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    78
    I may add that, for the protection of the poorer and less instructed classes of investor, Is caused a Memorandum to be issued last week drawing their attention to certain definite points which require careful consideration before entering into a contract with a company doing house purchase business. I am having this Memorandum printed with the Votes:—Investment Companies and House Purchase Companies.—Memorandum by the Board of Trade.—The Board of Trade have recently received many complaints from persons who have invested their savings in bond investment or house purchase companies, and, as it appears that there is often a misunderstanding on the part of subscribers as to the terms on which subscriptions are paid to such companies, the Board desire to draw the attention of persons who think of investing their money with any company of this class to certain matters which should be understood clearly before any contract is entered into. Inquiries made by the Board of Trade show that the usual course followed by a company of this class is to offer bonds or certificates for subscription and to contract to pay the subscriber a lump sum at the end of a period of ten, twenty, or thirty years in return for monthly subscriptions of a fixed amount payable by the subscriber. In some cases the subscriber has, in addition, after the subscriptions have been made for a short period, the right to an advance from the company up to the nominal amount of the bond or certificate for the purpose of buying a house, subject, however, to the condition that the advance will in no case exceed the value of the house. The bonds or certificates issued by investment and house purchase companies always contain a penalty for failure to keep up the subscriptions, and, in many cases, this penalty is the absolute forfeiture of all moneys paid by the subscriber. The complaints laid before the Board of Trade fall generally under one or other of the following heads: (1) Before the end of the period the subscriber wishes to draw out what he has already paid, but finds that the terms of the contract do not allow him to do so; (2) The subscriber for some reason cannot continue his payments, and finds that the whole or part of what he has already paid is liable to be forfeited

    79
    to the company if future payments are not kept up; (3) The subscriber enters into a contract to purchase a house and thinks that he is thereupon entitled to an advance from the company up to the face value of his bond or certificate, but finds that the company's surveyor places a lower value on the house than the price agreed to be paid, and he is consequently unable to complete his purchase. The Hoard of Trade therefore deem it important to advise that, before entering into any contract with an investment or house purchase company, intending subscribers should find out exactly the conditions as to the withdrawal of payments before the end of the period for which the payments are to be made and as to the risk of forfeiture. They further recommend that persons who are thinking of entering into such a contract with the object of purchasing a house should also find out exactly how the value of the house is to be ascertained, and on what terms the advance will be made under the terms of the contract—28th November, 1908.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will supplement the warning issued recently regarding house purchase by ordering a thorough investigation by an independent firm of chartered accountants into the methods of the Provincial Homes Investment Company, against whom there are now some hundreds of cases down for hearing in the Law Courts; whether he is aware that a firm of chartered accountants gave up the audit of this company because the directors were borrowing money from the funds without giving security; and whether he will order the company to be wound up in order to prevent further loss to the people who have invested in it.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Board of Trade has no power to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of a company except in the case of a company which is in compulsory liquidation. The Board have, however, power to appoint inspectors to examine into the affairs of a company upon the application of members holding not less than one-tenth of the whole of the shares of the company for the time being issued. No such application
    80
    has been made to the Board of Trade in the case of the Provincial Homes Investment Company, and, consequently, the power to appoint inspectors has not arisen. I have no knowledge of the resignation of the auditors of the company, and have no power to order the company to be wound up.

    Imports of American Boots and Shoes.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many pairs of boots and shoes were imported into the United Kingdom from the United States of America, and their value, in each of the years 1905, 1906 and 1907.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member will find the information he requires on page 196 of Volume I. of the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom for the year 1907, a copy of which may be seen in the library.

    Distress at Maesteg.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received an application from the urban district council of Maesteg for sanction to create a distress committee; whether the reasons assigned were that 9 per cent. of the colliers in the district were idle owing to bad trade, and that the council were prepared to put work at roadmaking in hand at once provided they could obtain a share of the Government grant to permit of unemployed labour being used; and whether the application was refused; if so, for what reason.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. BURNS,): The facts are as suggested in the Question. It appeared that the bulk of the colliers out of employment had only ceased work a fortnight before, the Poor Law statistics showed no increase in able-bodied pauperism, and the district council had schemes of road-making which they could execute. In the circumstances it did not seem to me that sufficient ground had been shown at that time for establishing a distress committee, and I so informed the district council.

    Instruction in Welsh in Welsh Schools.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what was the expenditure incurred by the teaching of Welsh as an extra subject during the past year in primary schools in Wales.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): No special grant is given for the teaching of Welsh. I have no information as to the expenditure incurred by local authorities upon the teaching of this particular subject.

    Education Returns.
    LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education under what powers, statutory or otherwise, he secured the Returns upon which the figures in the recent White Paper [Cd. 4406] are based; and why it is not possible for him to have secured under such powers the precise figures required to show the cost of contracting-out schools.
    I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, under Article 47 of the Code, local education authorities and managers of public elementary schools are required to furnish duly all Returns called for by the Board of Education or by Parliament; and why he did not use his powers under that Article to obtain Returns showing the outlays which would have to be incurred by managers of contracting-out schools.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The Returns referred to are obtainable under Section 95 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, upon which Article 47 of the Code is based. The analysed form of financial statement of the expenditure of local education authorities upon public elementary schools, which was prescribed in consequence of the Act of 1902, does not require the separation of expenditure upon voluntary schools and council schools except as regards teachers' salaries and rent, rates, and taxes upon teachers' houses. Moreover, inasmuch as fuel, material, etc., is frequently obtained by a contract covering the requirements of a large number of
    82
    schools, it is impossible to require the local authority to separate their expenditure on individual schools or on the voluntary schools in their area as distinct from the council schools. Apart from this point, to obtain information as to a given financial year, the necessary instructions as to the form in which the accounts of local authorities must be kept must be sent out several months before the beginning of the year, and the results could not be available for more than a year and a half after the information was first asked for.
    LORD BALCARRES: Under these circumstances may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that he has power to order these Returns in any form he likes, why he stated that he had no such power to ask for Returns for the so-called contracting-out schools?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: For the very good reason that I have no power to ask from local authorities information of which they were not possessed.

    Small Holdings—Delayed Confirmation of Schemes.
    VISCOUNT VALENTIA: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that serious inconvenience, if not loss, is caused to tenants of small holdings by their inability to occupy and work land let by county councils owing to the delay in confirmation of schemes by the Board; that some schemes have been months in the hands of the Board awaiting confirmation; and does the Board insist that all land proposed in each scheme to be let should be individually inspected by an officer of the Board; and, if so, whether some addition to the staff of the Board is necessary to obviate the delay complained of.
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): There has been no delay in the confirmation of satisfactory schemes by the Board. The noble Lord probably has in mind three schemes submitted by a county council at the end of September last, which have not yet been confirmed

    83
    owing to a difference of opinion between the council and the Board as to whether the rents proposed to be charged by the council are not unnecessarily high.
    MR. MORRELL: Is there to be any addition to the staff?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: There will be some additions.

    Loans for Buildings on Small Holdings.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, where money is borrowed by county councils for the erection of buildings on hired land under the Small Holdings Act, 1907, the interest on such loans and a sinking fund for the repayment thereof are to be included in the rent to be paid by the small holders; and, if so, to whom will the buildings belong at the expiration of the lease: to the county councils, the landowners, or to the small holders, who will have paid for them.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The rents will be fixed at sums sufficient to cover the interest and sinking fund. Buildings erected on leasehold land belong at the expiration of the lease to the landlord in the absence of any right to remove them.

    Instruction in Gaelic in Scottish Primary Schools.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what was the expenditure incurred by the teaching of Gaelic as an extra subject in primary schools in Scotland during the past year.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): No grant is paid in Scotland for the teaching of Gaelic or of any other language as an extra subject. Grants are made on account of the curriculum as a whole and it is within the discretion of local managers to decide what language or
    84
    languages they will teach, if any. But a special grant is made for the employment of Gaelic-speaking teachers to teach Gaelic-speaking children and the amount of this grant in the last completed year was £1,580.

    Island of Barra Crofts.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what was the price paid by the Congested Districts Board (Scotland) for the land at North Bay, in the Island of Barra, in the outer Hebrides, which was purchased by that Board and subsequently sold to the tenants; in what year was the land so sold; on what principle were the annual payments agreed on; how were the crofts laid out; for how many years were these annual payments to be made without re-valuation or variation; whether he is aware that there has been a total failure of the potato crop in North Bay and that the fishing industry, on which the crofters have mainly relied for a livelihood, has this year been unproductive; that nine crofters, who have been reduced to the deepest distress, have been summoned by the Congested Districts Board for non-payment of the arrears of their annual payments before the sheriff-substitute, to a Court to be held at Loch Maddy, a great distance from North Bay attendance at which will entail great inconvenience, expense, and difficulty; and whether, having regard to the fact that these men have been placed in their present difficulties by the failure of their crops and the bad fishing season, and through no fault of their own, the Congested Districts Board will stay proceedings against them till they are in a position to meet these charges, seeing that the present proceedings if carried out must involve them in destitution.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The price paid by the Congested Districts Board for the lands near Northbay in Barra was £7,500. These lands (except a house and grounds rented at £25) were re-sold in small holdings to the fifty-eight original purchasers for £5,512 10s. at Whit-Sunday, 1902. The price, principal and interest at 2f per cent. is repayable by annuities of equal amounts for fifty years.

    85
    The annuities for the various holdings are—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Twenty at £5

    100

    0

    0

    Five at £4 10s.

    22

    10

    0

    Thirty-two at £2 10s.

    80

    0

    0

    One at £1 13s. 4d.

    1

    13

    4

    204

    3

    4

    The holdings were laid out by Mr. P. B. Macintyre, of the Crofters Commission, and Mr. John Taylor, land surveyor. The transaction being one of sale and the price being payable by instalments agreed upon, there is no ground for re-valuation. After the most careful deliberation it has been determined to take action against those whose arrears have accumulated for several years, and I am unable to accept the view of the hon. Member that proceedings should be stayed.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the destitute condition of these people and are these proceedings calculated to deprive them of their homes?
    MR. SINCLAIR: The circumstances are well known to the Congested Districts Board who have taken this action after the most careful consideration.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are these really ejectment processes?
    MR. SINCLAIR: Preliminary steps only have been taken. It will depend on future events what further steps may be necessary.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is the principal and interest combined repayable by annuities at 2¾ per cent?
    MR. SINCLAIR: The principal and interest stand at 2¾ per cent. and the whole sum is repayable in instalments extending over fifty years.
    MR. FLAVIN: Then at what rate is it?
    MR. SINCLAIRasked for notice.

    Boycotting at Riverstown.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland
    86
    whether he has made inquiry into the alleged boycotting of Catholics by Protestants and of Protestants by Catholics in the Riverstown district, Count Sligo; and, if so, whether he will state the result of his inquiries to the House.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): As a prosecution is pending in reference to the alleged boycotting in the district referred to, it would be against the public interest to make any statement in this House upon the matters which may be in controversy at the trial.

    Compulsory Land Purchase in Ireland.
    MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state upon what precedent he relies for the compulsory taking of lands, leaving the expropriated owner to bear his own costs of making title to the lands, all charges thereon, and to all head rents and superior interests, in order to obtain payment of the purchase money awarded to him; is he aware that in the case of a small estate with a difficult title cost of title would form a very large proportion of the value of the property; and will he consider, in framing the Irish Land Bill, 1909, the propriety of indemnifying persons who wish to keep their land, but are expropriated in the public interest against all costs of fixing the price and making title which are thus forced on them.
    MR. BIRRELL: The hon. and learned Member is, I think, right in assuming that when lands are taken compulsorily for public purposes the vendor is generally indemnified against the costs of making title.
    MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that the Irish Land Bill of 1908, while providing for the compulsory deprivation of landowners in Ireland of lands in their own occupation, and which they may desire earnestly to retain, leaves them to bear all costs of making title to the lands of which in the presumed interest of the State

    87
    they are to be deprived, and whether the area of the land taken be large or small, and however difficult and expulsive making title may be, he will consider the advisability of making provision for the costs of title and also of the assessment of the value of the lands proposed to be taken so that the landowners may get the value of their land without deduction.
    MR. BIRRELL: Under the Bill as introduced, I do not think that the costs of the assessment of the value of lands proposed to be taken would fall upon the vendor in the case of compulsory sale, as the hon. and learned Member assumes. As regards the costs of title, I shall be prepared to favourably consider any suggestion in Committee for indemnifying vendors from such costs in case of compulsory sale, as was done by the Evicted Tenants Act of last year.

    Clooncruffer Evicted Tenant.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of the Earl of Kingston, County Roscommon, is now under treaty for sale to the tenants; whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed unanimously by the Boyle (No. 1) Board of Guardians, calling for the restoration of Mr. Bernard Martin, Clooncruffer, who was evicted from his farm upon the said estate seventeen years ago; and, if so, whether, in view of the urgency of the case, he can see his way to directing that the compulsory powers of the Act be put in force to place Mr. Martin in possession of his old home with the least possible delay.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received the resolution referred to, but have decided not to take any action on the application of Bernard Martin. The holding in question was put up for sale at the suit of a creditor who had obtained a judgment against Martin, and the landlord exercised his right of pre-emption.

    School Attendance Regulations.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
    88
    Lieutenant of Ireland can he state what days are excluded in calculating the quarterly and yearly averages in primary schools in Ireland and England, respectively; whether it was the Commissioners of National Education or the Treasury made the recent rule in Ireland to the effect that only days in which the attendance is under one-third of the monthly average can be excluded in computing the quarterly and annual average attendances; and whether he would recommend that the old rule be enforced in future, namely, that days in which the attendances were under one-half, and not one-third, should be ex-eluded in calculating the quarterly and annual average attendances.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that in Irish National schools the rule on this subject is as stated in the Question. I understand that in England every meeting of a school is included for the purpose of calculating the average, but meetings may have occasionally to be abandoned when the attendance is very small owing to inclement weather. The rule was made by the Commissioners in communication with the Treasury, and has been in force for the past ten years. It is not a matter on which I can make any recommendation to the Commissioners.

    Land Purchase in Queen's Connty.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the average number of years, including the bonus, paid in the county of Queen's County for land sold under the Act of 1903, and the average number of years purchase paid for land in the same county under the Ashbourne Act.
    MR. BIRRELL: A Return is being moved for, and will shortly be laid on the Table, giving the required information for the whole of Ireland. I must ask the hon. Member to await the issue of this Return.

    Broughal Evicted Tenant.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners

    89
    gave notice in the Gazette in June last to acquire compulsorily the farm from which Rody Dooley, Broughal, King's County, was evicted; and will he say when Dooley may hope to be reinstated.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have already answered this Question on the 1st inst., and would refer the hon. Member to that reply.

    Connaught Assizes.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Justice Kenny at the opening of the Connaught Winter Assizes at Limerick on Tuesday, when the Judge called attention to the fact that a small proportion of the perpetrators of outrages had been amenable, and pointed out that there was a summary remedy open to the police, namely, to have the cases investigated by two resident magistrates at Petty Sessions, instead of sending them on to Assizes or the absolutely futile one of binding to the peace; and whether he intends to allow the police to take action in accordance with the suggestion of the learned Judge.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative; to the second in the negative.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it usual for a Judge to give advice to the Executive Government as regards its policy, and when it is given is it not usually disregarded?
    MR. BIRRELL: Really, I know nothing about that.

    Evicted Tenants and Game Eights.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if evicted tenants are entitled to the game when reinstated by the Estates Commissioners.
    MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to Section 9 of the Evicted Tenants Act and Section 13 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The disposal of the sporting rights is a matter of agreement with the vendor in each case.
    MR. REDDY: In case the land is taken compulsorily, who gets the game? Is it the tenant?
    MR. BIRRELL: I am quite sure the Government do not retain it.
    MR. REDDY: But will the tenant get it?
    MR. BIRRELL: I should think it is a matter of arrangement.

    Teaching Irish in Irish Schools.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to terminate the expenditure resulting from the payment of extra fees for teaching Irish in National Schools, amounting in the past year to £17,250, and to allocate an equivalent amount to educational objects of a practical and beneficial character, such as have been pressed on his attention by the Commissioners of National Education and indicated in their published Reports.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have no present intention of departing from the existing scheme which was arrived at in response to a widespread demand and after long and careful consideration.

    Threatening a Gaiway Magistrate.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the nature of the threat contained in the letter received by a Galway magistrate in July, 1907, warning him against attending Loughrea Petty Sessions; and will he ascertain from the Inspector-General whether this was the only threatening letter of the kind received by local magistrates in Ireland and brought to the knowledge of the police during the past two years.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that the letter addressed to the magistrate in question contained no actual threat, though it was no doubt intended to intimidate. He can trace no other case of the kind during the past two years in the records of his office. If the hon. Member has reason to believe

    91
    there were other cases, and will furnish particulars, inquiries will be made.

    The Police and the United Irish League.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it forms part of the duty of the police, as conservators of the peace, to keep under observation the proceedings of branches of the United Irish League that have been engaged from time to time in passing intimidatory and boycotting resolutions which were subsequently published in the local newspapers; whether the reports of the police in connection with such proceedings are duly filed and placed on official record at county headquarters; and whether, having regard to the fact that the frequency of publication of such resolutions and the injurious results following their publication have led the Executive to address warnings to the proprietors of these newspapers, he will now consent to ascertain from the county inspectors of Leitrim, Longford, Galway, Roscommon, Clare, and Westmeath, as has already been done in the case of Sligo, the number of branches of the League that have been active in passing resolutions of this character during the past twelve months.
    MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question asked by him on 26th November.

    Lord Kenmare's Kerry Estate.
    MR. J. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners propose to take any action to deal with the tenants on Lord Kenmare's estate, County Kerry, who have not yet purchased.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the proceedings for the sale of this estate were only instituted before them in October last. When the estate is being dealt with in its proper order of priority, the Commissioners will consider the cases of those tenants who have not signed agreements for the purchase of their holdings.

    Kenmare Estate Grabbers.
    MR. J. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that in the cases of evicted tenants on the Kenmare estate, County Kerry, whose farms have been grabbed, the landlord refused to sell to the grabbers so that the Commissioners should have the power to secure the reinstatement of the evicted tenants; and whether the Estates Commissioners have taken, or propose to take, any steps to effect the result indicated.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners will inquire into the cases referred to in the Question.

    Headford Evicted Tenant.
    MR. J. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are now in a position to afford any relief to Mr. Denis Healy, of Knockanes, Headfort, County Kerry, an evicted tenant.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have noted Healy's application for consideration in the allotment of such untenanted land as they may acquire. They will communicate with him as soon as they are able to allot him a holding.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a deceased brother of this evicted tenant bought the interest in the farm for the tenant, and will he take steps to see that he is immediately reinstated?
    MR. BIRRELL: I am in communication with the Commissioners on the subject.

    Marlborough Street College, Dublin.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Marlborough Street College, Dublin, the original college for the training of national school teachers, is still open to and attended by teachers of all denominations on perfectly equal terms; whether he is aware that in

    93
    1890 the then Chief Secretary established what he called a principle which would secure an all-round equality of treatment as between Marlborough Street College and the three denominational training colleges, and that after these three colleges had been provided with free homes in accordance with this arrangement, they were described by the Commissioners of National Education as equipped in every respeect, domestic and educational, in a style that is unsurpassed in completeness in any of the colleges in England and Scotland; whether Talbot House is still retained as the main residence for the girls in training at Marlborough Street; whether during the last session there were 956 absences in less than seven months for 165 girls in training; whether he is aware that in 1898 the then Chief Secretary stated that the girls were not permitted to lift their windows at night lest the disgusting language of the streets should reach them; and whether the condition of things thus described is substantially unchanged.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the opening of the new residence for men in training at Marlborough Street Training College, Dublin, on 24th August, the Resident Commissioner said it was unfair that the lady students who had to live in Talbot Street should be treated so scurvily as compared with the men, and spoke of the clamourous need of a new residence for these young ladies, and that his Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who was present in his official capacity to declare the new residence open, said that the next step, and a most important one, for which it was to be hoped that the way would be cleared as quickly as possible, was the provision of a new residential accommodation for the girl students; and whether in view of these statements and the urgent needs of the case, the Government will provide the funds in the next session of Parliament to erect a residence for the women students of Marlborough Street College on the site already provided for the purpose.
    MR. BIRRELL: Marlborough Street Training College is still open to and is
    94
    attended by students of all denominations. My attention has been called to a Memorandum of the Elementary Education Committee of the General Assembly, containing the statements set out in the first Question. These statements, so far as it has been possible to verify them, appear to be substantially correct. My attention has also been called to the speeches made on the occasion of the opening of the new buildings at Glasnevin. The Lord-Lieutenant, who fully appreciated the difficulties in the way of providing accommodation for female students, said nothing whieh could be construed into a statement that those difficulties could be removed or a pledge that the necessary funds would be provided by the Government. I can only repeat that, while regretting that the Commissioners of National Education have not been able to provide a residence for the female students out of the sum placed at their disposal, I am unable to hold out any hope that an additional grant will be made to them for the purpose.

    Administration of the Small Holdings Act.
    MR. BENNETT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the advisability of informing county councils that if adequate schemes for the provision of land, under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, are not furnished by next Lady-Day county councils will be declared in default and the necessary schemes will be formulated by the Commissioners.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): No, Sir. I am doubtful whether the adoption of my hon. friend's suggestion would be likely to promote the efficient working of the Small Holdings Act. My noble friend, the President of the Board of Agriculture assures me that if any of the county councils refuse to exercise their powers with reasonable expedition he will not hestate to take immediate action. As at present advised I may say that, in my judgment, the moment for taking action must be left to the discretion of my noble friend who alone is in possession of all

    95
    the circumstances of each particular council.
    MR. BENNETT: Is the Prime Minister aware that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture considers the fixing of a time-limit for putting the Small Holdings Act into force an admirable suggestion?
    MR. ASQUITH: I agree with my noble friend. I think a time-limit is an admirable suggestion. I am not sure, however, that that moment has arrived yet.
    MR. MORRELL: Is the Board of Agriculture in a position to postpone the preparation and issue of the Reports made by Commissioners as seems to be suggested by the Question? Is it not the statutory duty of the Commissioners to prepare the Reports at once?
    MR. ASQUITHasked for notice.

    Imports of Canadian Cattle.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister in view of discussion on the new Irish Land Bill and the important bearing free importation of Canadian store cattle would have on the ability of purchasers to pay annuities contracted on the basis of those cattle being excluded, whether he can give any assurance that the present embargo against those cattle will be maintained, and, if so, for how long, or whether it is liable to be removed after tenants have signed purchase agreements and while they are paying annuities.
    MR. ASQUITH: The Government do not purpose as at present advised to initiate legislation at present for the admission of Canadian cattle. I cannot give any pledges as to the future; nor can I predict what action may be taken by any future Government.

    Public Accounts Committee's Report.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state what day he proposes to allot to the discussion by this House of the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee.
    MR. ASQUITH: I am extremely anxious to find some opportunity for a discussion of the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, but I regret to say that I cannot at present see my way to give a pledge on the subject.

    The Commons Bill.
    MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Commons Bill [Lords.]
    MR. ASQUITH: I hope this Bill may be regarded as uncontroversial, and, if so, that it may pass its Second Reading and other stages after eleven o'clock between now and the end of the session.
    MR. CROOKS: Is that a Bill for the abolition of the House of Commons? I see it comes down from the Lords.
    MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member had better possess himself of a copy of the Bill.

    Small Holdings and Allotments Act.
    MR. BENNETT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the amount of work to be disposed of by Parliament this session is now considerably decreased, he will be able to allot a day to the discussion of the working of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act.
    MR. ASQUITH: I regret that the amount of work which still requires our attention will prevent my being able to afford an opportunity for the discussion desired by my hon. friend.
    MR. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a Saturday if we guarantee him a House?
    MR. ASQUITH: That is a public spirited offer which we will consider.

    Proposed Indian Reforms.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the present relations between the Houses of Parliament and to the position of the House of Commons as a controlling power over Indian affairs,

    97
    the promised legislation in relation to Indian reform will be introduced in this House.
    MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the answer which I have already given to the hon. Member. I can make no pledge as to whether the Bill in question will be introduced in this House or the other.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I suggest that hope shall not be deferred till after the 14th? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a considerable body of opinion in this country which does not think the House of Lords the proper medium for the introduction of legislation?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the promised statement of Viscount Morley on the subject of Indian reform is to be made, owing to his elevation to the Peerage, not in the House of Commons but in the House of Lords, the Papers with reference to the subject of Indian reform, whose publication and circulation have been promised, will be in the hands of the Members of this House, as the Assembly primarily entitled to information on public affairs, not after but before the delivery of Viscount Morley's pronouncement.
    MR. ASQUITH: I can say no more at present than that the Papers will be circulated at the earliest possible moment.

    The Education Bill Correspondence.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Will the Prime Minister lay on the Table as a Parliamentary Paper a copy of the official correspondence in reference to the Education Bill? At present it is very difficult of access.
    MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the Prime Minister can give
98
some forecast of the business for this week.
MR. ASQUITH: We propose to take the Prevention of Crime Bill Report and Third Reading to-day, concluding, I hope, about dinner time. After, we shall ask the House to take the Second Reading of the East India Loans Bill. To-morrow we shall put down the Order for the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill after a Motion for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule. On Wednesday, as the first business, I propose to move the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule for the remainder of the session, and then I will make a general statement. On Thursday we propose to take the Report of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, and, I hope, the Third Reading on Friday.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill [Lords]): Sir John Tuke, Mr. Cross, Viscount Helmsley, Captain Craig, Mr. Solicitor - General for Scotland, Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland, Sir James Duckworth, Mr. Idris, Mr. Dillon, Sir Walter Nugent, Mr. Snowden, Mr. Winfrey, Mr. Whitehead, Mr. Vivian, and Mr. George Thorne.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill [Lords]): Mr. Secretary Gladstone; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. T. W. Russell.
Report to lie upon the Table.

REMISSION OF SURCHARGES (DUBLIN) BILL.
"To discharge certain surcharges made upon the accounts of the Muncipal Corporation of Dublin," presented by Mr. Nannetti; supported by Mr. Harrington, Mr. Field, and Mr. Waldron; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 391.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (ADMISSION OF STRANGERS).
The Select Committee on House of Commons (Admission of Strangers) was nominated of, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Stuart, Viscount Valentia, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (No. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT, (Oldham), in the Chair].
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): Sir, I rise for the purpose of moving that you do now leave the Chair. It is, I need not tell the House, with sincere and profound regret that I am about to make this Motion, and in the very few words with which I shall preface it I shall endeavour to refrain, I will not say from anything in the nature of recrimination, for which there is no occasion, but from anything that has even the colour or suggestion of controversy. Let me recall the circumstances under which this Bill was introduced. It was not put forward by the Government as an embodiment of their own views, as the best solution of the problem of national education, nor, again, was it submitted as one of those measures of social reform of which happily there are many instances under all administrations which deal with questions outside the disputed domain of Party controversy. It was peculiar, and, indeed, in my experience, unique in this respect, that while the subject matter was admittedly, and even acutely, contentious, the scheme proposed was one of which some features were naturally and necessarily repugnant to one side, and other features as naturally and as necessarily repugnant to the other. No Government is justified in proposing such a measure unless it is satisfied in advance of two things: First, that the public interest urgently, and even imperiously, calls for a settlement, and, next, that upon
100
the lines suggested there is at least a reasonable probability that such a settlement can be reached. Upon the first point there is in the present case almost complete, if not complete, agreement. Upon the second, while we never pretended that there was a concluded bargain definitely arrived at between representatives authorised to bind the various interests concerned, we did believe that in regard to essential conditions there had been such an actual interchange of give and take, and, in regard to what still remained open, such a willingness to proceed upon the same lines, that we were not only entitled, but bound, to run the risk of failure, and of such discredit as failure may always bring in its train, on the chance and in the hope of securing a national settlement. These hopes, to our great regret, have been for the time being disappointed. I am careful not to trespass on controversial ground, and I make no attempt to apportion responsibility. No one who has read the correspondence which has passed within the last few days between the Archbishop of Canterbury and my right lion, friend the President of the Board of Education can fail to realise that the conditions of an agreed settlement do not at this moment exist. I say nothing—I purposely say nothing—as to the merits of the matters at issue. In regard to one very important point—what is called contracting-out—the Government have come, after very careful consideration, to the conclusion that any material addition to the provisions made in the Bill, must have the effect of largely increasing the number of schools which would take advantage of it—a contingency we feel ourselves bound to guard against, both in the interests of a national system of education, and in justice to those who have made such large concessions on the other side. If there had been a proposal to confine contracting-out to a particular number of schools and to a particular number of scholars the question might have assumed a very different complexion. There is another point emerging from the same correspondence. We here are not likely to exaggerate the representative character of what is called the Church Council. But it seemed to us, and it seems to

101
me still, impossible to ignore the fact that in that council, as lately as Thursday last, the only amendment, moved and supported by the bishops, to a resolution of root and branch condemnation of the Bill was to the effect—I quote the exact words—
"That the Council could not recommend the Church to accept the Bill without serious amendment."
Of course, we entirely accept the statement made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, although no one could have guessed it from the published report, that the specific amendments to the Bill particularised in the Bishop of Salisbury's resolution were not put to the meeting, and if they had been, what I am certain must have been the case, the Archbishop and many of his colleagues would have voted against some of them. How can we, the Government, ask Parliament to treat the Bill as agreed in the face of such a declaration—and of the fact that the only amendments actually suggested in the second branch of the same resolution are of a character—I need only refer by way of illustration to the proposal in regard to the head teachers—as completely to upset the balance of the whole scheme. I do not want to initiate or invite any discussion at this stage as to the merits of these different matters. The question which presented itself necessarily to us was this, not whether in regard to these points or any of them, we were right or wrong, but whether they were points of sufficient importance indicating for a moment at any rate so wide a divergence of opinion as to render the further prosecution of them a sure which in itself and by itself satisfies none of the interests concerned, which is put forward and accepted on the Second Reading as a compromise—to render the further prosecution of that measure a hopeful or even a practicable proceeding. I am afraid the answer must be in the negative. May I add, with the permission of the Committee, as I think it is an appropriate occasion for me to do so, some words of acknowledgment, which I believe will express an opinion widely prevalent on both sides and in all quarters of the House, to those men of different parties, different creeds, different shades of
102
political and ecclesiastical opinion, who have laboured hard in this matter to bring about this compromise. First and foremost, I would venture to mention the name of my right hon. friend who sits by me, the President of the Board of Education. No one knows better than I do, and no one can know so well as I do who have been in daily, I might almost say hourly communication with him during many anxious and laborious weeks—no one can know so well how strenuous, how patient, how considerate, how indomitable his efforts have been. Sir, if ever there was a man who has earned a right to the blessing which is promised to those who seek peace and ensue it it is the right hon. Gentleman. A like tribute is due and ought to be paid to the great Archbishop, who in the face of obstacles and difficulties which would have daunted any man of less courage, has shown himself worthy of the title of Pastor Pastorum Ecclesiœ, and equally to those responsible leaders, both ministers and laymen, of the Free Churches who, for the sake of a national settlement in this matter, have shown themselves ready to lay aside and even to sacrifice greatly cherished ideas. Finally, may I add that the introduction of this measure will never be regretted or repented of by those who had any share in it for the sake of what it has accomplished in bringing into organised existence and articulate expression a vast body of opinion from men of all sections, creeds, and parties in this country in favour of conciliation and agreement? Having said that, nothing is left for me but to perform, which I do with infinite reluctance, the duty, the melancholy duty, of now bidding the Bill farewell. I am not ashamed to confess, if without undue egotism the House will permit me for a moment to refer to myself—I am not ashamed to confess that after a public life now prolonged for many years and spent for the most part, as many here will be ready to acknowledge, in acute and uncompromising controversy, with a fair share both of the smiles and of the frowns of fortune—I am not ashamed to confess that I have never experienced a more heavy and thorough disappointment. I say again I do not regret the attempt that has been made, and I would far rather have made that attempt, so far

103
as my part is concerned, than for fear of failure not to have made the attempt at all.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Asquith.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think everyone must have been impressed by the tone of obvious and pathetic sincerity which animated the whole speech, and especially the last part of the speech, of the right hon. Gentleman. I think he was well advised and had a clear sighted conception as to what is proper on an occasion like this, and on a subject like this, when he declared his intention not to drag in any unnecessary controversy, or indeed to dwell at all on the merits of the measure which he proposes shortly to withdraw from the further notice of the House. I shall follow his example. I shall not touch on the character of the measure or on the probability of its being that lasting settlement, which all those who were directly responsible for it, and all those who encouraged it in the various stages of its proceedings, so earnestly and sincerely desired that it should be. We are not now concerned with the character of the Bill, and, indeed, I am not quite sure that I fully understand what is the object of the right hon. Gentleman in the course he has pursued, in asking us on our side of the House to express our opinion on the transactions and negotiations in which this measure took its origin, and on the course which the Government, now during the Committee stage, are going to pursue. I am very unwilling to utter any note that might be considered of a jarring character on such an occasion. But I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman did desire that we should say something, not on the merits of the Bill, but on the negotiations connected with it. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that it almost seems to me as if the unhappy catastrophe that has occurred was almost-inevitable from the misunderstandings which arose at the very beginning of the negotiations between the Archbishop and the Government. If the Government look back over what has occurred during the last three or four weeks they
104
will see it was scarcely possible that a more fortunate issue should attend these Parliamentary efforts than has in fact attended them, if we remember that the whole essence of this Bill, the whole prospect of its success in the House and the country arose out of its being an arranged Bill between the Government on the one side and the Archbishop and the great majority of the bishops on the other. It might be possible, and many thought it was possible, that a Bill under these auspices could become law and that the objectors on both sides might have found themselves to be false prophets, and that all sections of the community, however reluctantly, might have acquiesced in the settlement. But the one chance of such a settlement surely was that the Government, knowing that they did not carry with them, and indeed did not profess to carry with them, the convictions and ideals of the great mass of the party to which they belong, and knowing that their proposals would be violently resisted by a great section of the community which belong to other parties—the only chance was that there should be a real and thorough agreement at all stages with the Archbishop and the bishops. That, and that alone, it seems to me, could have justified the Government in rushing the Bill through the House. Nobody could defend that procedure on its Parliamentary merits. Everybody knows that to introduce a Bill on a Friday, print it on Saturday, read it a second time on Monday, begin the Committee stage on the Wednesday following with closure by compartments—everybody knows that that is so violent an infraction of the ordinary methods of Parliamentary procedure that the only justification could be that there was such an agreement between the Government and the great central body of opinion in this country that they could drive it through, and that the extremists on either side might be compelled to accept it as an accomplished fact too strong to disintegrate. I do not say that that is a justifiable argument, but it has something to be said for it by those who thought that no other means than unconstitutional or semi-constitutional violence could bring about the result they desired. I do not propose to criticise this Parliamentary action

105
except from this point of view, that in order that it should be justified at all the Government should see that there was a very clear agreement on their part with those on whose co-operation they depended for the success of their proposals before they embarked on the measure. Is it not abundantly clear through the whole of this lengthy correspondence that has passed, the Archbishop over and over again pointed out that in his view the financial proposals and the adequacy of the financial proposals, both as regards contracting-out and the transfer of schools, were not matters of detail which could be left for settlement hereafter, but were of the essence of the settlement? Everything turns on what is meant by "reasonable." It is a phrase which recurs in different forms throughout the correspondence. The Archbishop is constantly bringing it before the Government, and constantly asking the President of the Board of Education: "Are the terms you are going to propose in the Bill terms such as I could accept on behalf of my episcopal colleagues and the Church at large?" Until agreement was arrived at upon that point it surely was very inexpedient to try and force the Bill through the House, and such an attempt could only lead to the unhappy disaster which the right hon. Gentleman has, in such feeling language, deplored this afternoon. Everybody who reads the correspondence will admit that the whole attitude of the Archbishop from the beginning was of a kind which led the Government to know that the financial arrangements which he thought absolutely necessary were at least as great as those which the Government now declare to be inadmissible. Nobody who reads the correspondence can doubt that. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"] Well, I have read it most carefully, and I am driven to that conclusion. Surely, the only hope of success was for the Government and the Archbishop, before the Bill was introduced, to examine into the condition of these schools, to agree upon the statistics, to make out a clear account of what was required for these denominational schools, and state what were the fair terms on which trustees of the schools would be required to part with
106
their property. Unfortunately, most unfortunately, the Government chose to regard that as a detail, and each time put off the Archbishop with the suggestion that that was a matter which could be adjusted afterwards, and that he might be confident he would receive generous treatment. I am sure the Government thought the terms were generous, but I am equally sure that if at any stage in the negotiations the Government had told the Archbishop what that treatment was to be, the Archbishop would have at once said without hesitation: "This is not the generous treatment I was led to expect. This is not an arrangement which I think is possible for the schools, and until we can hammer out some different plan it is vain for me to say, on behalf of the Anglican Church, that I think there will be any acquiescence in the scheme of the Government." That seems to me so obvious that all that has occurred since comes from it by an irresistible process of practical logic. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken, and I think in terms none too strong and none too favourable, of the body of moderate opinion which desired to see a settlement. Who, of all others, may be said to represent that body of moderate opinion semi-officially? Why, the Committee of Conciliation. Who was Chairman of the Committee of Conciliation? The Bishop of London. Before the Second Reading of the Bill was carried through this House, the Bishop of London felt himself compelled to say that if the Bill remained, or if he had to vote on the Bill as it then stood, he would vote against it. That is a most unhappy position. The Bill cannot go forward as an agreed Bill under those auspices, and I do not see how it was possible to foresee any other fate than that which has overtaken it. May I say one word about denominationalists for whom the Archbishop has no title to speak—I mean the Roman Catholics? What are the facts? I do not understand that any negotiations ever took place with the Roman Catholics until just before the Bill was introduced. Conversations with the Archbishop apparently have been going on sporadically since May last, and it is certainly matter for regret that in all the months which have elapsed since

107
May last there could not be an agreement between the Archbishop and the Department as to the actual facts connected with the voluntary schools, and that it could not have been seen whether, on the basis of those facts, an arrangement could be come to. But I do not understand that with the Roman Catholics there was any discussion at all. Was there any discussion?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): Yes, certainly.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was aware that just before the Bill was introduced there had been something said in relation to the Roman Catholic Church, and I certainly thought that they were presented at that late stage with something in the nature of a concluded arrangement, and that they had no opportunity of pointing out, before the Bill was introduced, how it would affect their interests. I must say that a Bill which is really unworkable from the Roman Catholic point of view is a Bill which does carry in itself the seeds of destruction. I think that any Government who really did endeavour to bring forward a Bill which absolutely prevented the Roman Catholics from carrying out that kind of religious training for their children which they conscientiously believe to be necessary, is a Bill which I feel confident would have to be revised, even if it were passed. I may be wrong in that matter, but I think so. But, however that may be, surely before these balanced settlements are gone into, so great an educational interest as that of the Roman Catholic people ought not to have been entirely put on one side, or at all events, consideration of it ought not to have been so late. These are the only observations which I think it necessary to make at this stage of the measure. I abstain from all commentary upon the measure itself, and from all criticisms of the many difficulties which might have arisen, and in the view of many of us were likely to have arisen had the Bill been passed; but I do say that we cannot contemplate those long negotiations between the official leaders of the English Church
108
and the Government without regretting that the Bill was introduced at that critical moment when all that the Church was to give up was clearly ascertained and definitely put down in black and white, while all that the Church was to get was left to subsequent arrangement. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh"]. That is not denied by the authors of the Bill, and it is clearly apparent in the correspondence of the Archbishop; that is to say, up to the very last moment, the Archbishop said: "Everything turns out upon the figures, and you have not shown me any of the figures." I do not think that anybody who has the correspondence in mind can have any doubt about that. The Government, no doubt, sincerely believed that the terms they were giving were generous. It is at least equally certain that if those terms had been known to the Archbishop of Canterbury, he would have told them before the Bill was in print, that it was of no use bringing in that measure in the hope that he would be in a position to express on his own behalf and on behalf of the majority of his colleagues their adhesion to that particular plan. I think it is a very unfortunate state of things. That it is a waste of Parliamentary time is one of the smallest of the evils attendant upon it, but unfortunately it has led to all the evils which an unsuccessful attempt of this kind necessarily carries with it. While, for my own part, I accept in the fullest spirit of assent all that has fallen from the Prime Minister with regard to his keen and earnest personal desire, and that of his colleagues, to obtain a permanent and peaceful solution of this long controversy, I do feel that the actual steps by which they have endeavoured to attain that object, though admirably meant, though carried through in the best of tempers, were from the very nature of the diplomatic errors committed, almost foredoomed from the very beginning to wreck the Bill for which they made themselves responsible. I do not know what the future fate of the measure may be, but in any case it is certain that I can associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman in regretting that such a termination should have occurred to efforts so well meant on the part both

109
of the Government and the authorities of the Anglican Church.
Question put, and agreed to.
[No Report.]

PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate [24th November] on Amendment proposed on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
Which Amendment was—
"In page 5, line 6, to leave out Part II. of the Bill."—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'whether,' in page 5, line 7, stand part of the Bill."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): It will be convenient to the House, I think, if in regard to the Amendments I have put down I make a short statement. I recognise that strong and genuine objection has been taken to certain portions of Part II. of this Bill, and I recognise that all the more readily because of the friendly consideration which the House has given to the Bill. The Amendments which I have put upon the Paper are to meet the main objections which underlay the speeches on the last occasion of my hon. and learned friend the Member for North-West Durham and the Member for Mayo. First of all, as to indeterminate sentences, it is objected that the termination of those sentences must necessarily rest in the discretion of the Secretary of State. In the second place, thereby, too much responsibility was given to the Home Secretary and the Prison Commissioners. Thirdly, that the sentence should not in any case be an indeterminate sentence. Of course, the indeterminate sentence as originally proposed had been seriously curtailed, but I have never denied that the reservation in Clause 12 still allowed the Home Secretary to continue the sentence indeterminately. Therefore I have put down Amendments to meet these three points. Instead of proposing
110
that the sentence should be during the King's pleasure powers will be inserted giving authority to the Court to sentence to preventive detention for a maximum of ten years and a minimum of five. I hope the House will agree that these Amendments meet the root objections which have been expressed against Part II. of the Bill and that they will accept them in the spirit in which they are offered and will give friendly consideration to the clauses.
MR. BELLOC: I gather that for five years a sentence may remain indeterminate?
MR. GLADSTONE: That is so.
MR. BELLOC: And a sentence of three years penal servitude may be followed by a five years minimum of indeterminate imprisonment?
MR. GLADSTONE: Powers are specially reserved to the Home Secretary to remit, if he thinks fit, the five years minimum or any part of it.
MR. LYELLsaid the Home Secretary had made an extremely interesting announcement. The Amendments were put down on objections raised by the hon. Members for Durham and Salford, which he thought were not stated in altogether a very fair way. The hon. Member for Salford's theory of punishment was that when a person had committed an offence he ought to purge his crime. He told them that that theory was some 3,000 years old, and went right down to the roots of all human society, and added that after enduring his punishment, the criminal should be free again. That meant that they were to have a sort of nicely graded vengeance meted out for every single offence, and that they were to have this vengeance, by a sort of judicial system, distilled drop by drop and measured out in regular doses for each offence. The hon. Member believed in this system, and, at the same time, said the system proposed by the Home Secretary was barbarous. When it was a question of barbarity in punishment, the boot was altogether upon the other leg, and the word would be very

111
much more fitted to the idea of the hon. Member for Salford. He was not prepared to argue on the abstract question, as to whether the community had the right to punish. There had been some great criminal judges who absolutely denied that there was any such right, and said that punishment lay with a higher authority. But the community at least, had a right to protect itself in the only possible way, by deterring from crime. They knew the circumstances which had caused the Bill to be brought in. Crime in general was on the decrease, as might be proved by statistics, but professional crime, habitual crime, recidivity was on the increase, as was proved by the statistics of such crimes as burglary and housebreaking, which were essentially professional crimes, and not the results of pecuniary or momentary temptation. The theory underlying the Bill was that punishment was no longer to fit the crime, but was to fit the criminal, and to achieve that they must start upon something in the nature of a study of criminal psychology. He was sure the hon. Gentleman would not deny that all modern science was steadily lowering the barrier which had hitherto existed between crime and disease.
MR. BELLOC: I should deny that absolutely. It is the worst piece of charlatanism that we suffer from.
MR. LYELLwas sorry to hear the hon. Member make such a statement. Did he deny that there was now a very large number of people in asylums who fifty or even thirty years ago would have been in prison? More and more every year offences which used to be treated as crimes, were treated as mental diseases by confinement in asylums. They desired that that treatment should be carried still further. He was not very sure that he agreed with the Home Secretary in proposing that under all circumstances indeterminate sentences should be preceded by a minimum period of three years penal servitude. He knew the arguments put forward in support of it, but he should like the Judge to have power, when dealing with one of these habitual offenders, who was suffering so not so much from a tendency to professional crime as from
112
weakness of will—one of those people on the borderland between criminal impulse and a diseased mind—to give a sentence of detention in one of these asylum prisons without the necessary preliminary of three years penal servitude. He hoped his right hon. friend would reconsider the point. The hon. Member for Salford had complained that this was simply a matter of the protection of property, and he was thinking of the professional criminal who burgled in Park Lane and carried off miniatures or enamels. But why should not the person who owned enamels be protected from the professional criminal? Then he thought those who raised objections to the Bill forgot that there were robberies from the poor as well as from the rich. All the burglaries committeed by professionals were not committed in Park Lane. Again, a good many offences which he thought might be treated in this way by indeterminate sentence were not offences against property. There were such things as offences against children, which ought to be treated more or less as cases of mental disease rather than of criminal impulse. Here was surely a case where long periods of detention, in such asylums and prisons as might have a recuperative effect upon moral character in eliminating, as far as possible, evil impulse, in building up will power if it had degenerated, were proper. Besides the habitual criminal, the weak-willed criminal who had not the resisting power to stand up against temptation or impulse to crime, they had what was known as the professional criminal who deliberately preferred a life of crime and spent his time during occasional incarceration in planning and perfecting intended crimes which he meant to commit when he came out. That was the most dangerous fellow. That was the class which they desired to see dealt with severely, because it was the class for whom our present system had admittedly broken down. They could not go back on the old system of long terms of penal servitude. The system of short sentences had broken down because it did not have a deterrent effect on this particular kind of man. Sometimes people objected to that and said that in the old days the system of barbarous sentences, immensely long, with execution for all

113
felonies, was not deterrent. But that was not because it was not sufficiently severe, but because the criminal had in all cases a very good chance of escaping, because the whole science of the detection of crime was in its infancy. It was 100 to 1 against his being caught, and savage punishment was meted out to a man who was caught. Nowadays the science had advanced so much that a criminal had a much better chance of being caught. He did not think the professional criminals, who had no intention of reforming, were a very big class. Some time ago Sir Robert Anderson threw ridicule upon the advertised statement of a burglary insurance company that there were 70,000 thieves known to the police, but said that if he, as head of Scotland Yard, could be given power to shut up or control the actions of seventy individuals whose names and addresses he could give, he would make an enormous diminution in the criminal statistics of London. To show what was the attitude of these men when in prison: on one occasion an English minister was visiting an American prison, and was shown a man of very good education who seemed to be capable of much better things. He entered into conversation with him. The man said: "You come from England, do you not?" "Yes," was the reply. "And you are fond of fox-hunting?" "Yes." "When you go out and get a fall do you make up your mind never to mount a horse again?" "No." "Well, I am in the same position. I have had a mighty bad fall, but as soon as I am better I shall go out hunting again." As long as a man adopted that attitude and that frame of mind he should not be allowed to go out and prey upon society. He desired that the movements of that man should be controlled instead of being subjected to the cruelty of penal servitude, and as long as that man continued in that frame of mind society should have the right to protect itself against him. They might apply in such cases the test of restitution. In an enormous number of cases a man was brought up, tried, proved guilty up to the hilt, and sentenced, and although he knew he might get a remission of his sentence if he would state what had become of the stolen goods, he absolutely declined. As long as a man declined to say what he had done
114
with the proceeds of the robbery or refused to name the receiver, it was perfectly impossible for anybody to suppose he had arrived at a determination to lead an honest life. In the case of a habitual offender who had received an indeterminate sentence or a kind of detention which would be inflicted under this Amendment, he thought the detention should last to the maximum of ten years where the man declined to assist in the restitution of the stolen property. It was because he believed the Bill was not a method of barbarism but represented a great advance that he supported the retention of Part II.
MR. LYTTELTON: I desire to support the compromise which the Home Secretary has indicated upon the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend below the gangway. I think the logical issues were well stated in the controversy between the hon. Member for Tyneside and Mr. Chesterton. The hon. Member for Tyneside was arguing that prison treatment of criminals should be of the curative kind and prisons should be akin to hospitals. That view was stoutly contested by Mr. Chesterton, who said—
"Supposing I send my maiden aunt to a hospital to be cured of deafness. I ascertain after six months by conversation or the firing of a gun whether a cure has been effected or not. But if I send her to prison to be cured of ill-temper I do not know whether her temper is worse than her gaolers'."
This sums up the extraordinary position of the issues in this matter. In theory, were we all perfect, and if all gaolers were perfect, the original proposal for indeterminate sentences would be preferable. I am sure no one could possibly guarantee absolute security under such a system, and I think we might go as far as the Home Secretary has offered to go. I thoroughly agree that you have not to consider rich people only in this matter, and I know that many of our Judges when dealing with cases of theft or burglary from the houses of the rich do not consider the crime so grave as where the houses of the poor are concerned. I can say from a long experience, that immense hardship and injustice is caused by the continual robbing of small

115
things from small people, and it is absolutely necessary to protect this class of poor people from the depredations of these men. We want to put a stop to that, and that is one of the great things that would be put a stop to. Another advantage is that this proposal would strike at the root of the most dangerous system of crime which exists, namely, the trained receiver. If it be made a condition of release to a prisoner that he explains with truth the persons by whom stolen goods are received, that would strike at the very root of crime. We should do more good by the conviction of one receiver than by the conviction of a score of ordinary criminals. Those are two immensely good results we are likely to get from this Bill. For these reasons I desire to express my entire approval of the system of indeterminate sentences as limited by the proposal of the Home Secretary.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid he did not think the question of indeterminate sentences had been exhausted by the analogy used by the right hon. Gentleman. It was a question of adapting means to ends. There had been hospitals for lepers, and there were hospitals for the segregation of people with infectious diseases, and as the advantages of segregation became better known there would be more and more segregating of people who were afflicted with highly contagious diseases. In all these cases means should be taken to ends, and one end was the protection of the community and not merely the cure of the prisoner. Surely the first and last object ought to be the protection of the community. [Cries of "No, no."] That was the whole issue between the two schools of thought. If they were going to send a person to prison in order to mete out a certain measure of retaliation it was proceeding on the principle of the Chinese who punished crime by so many blows with a bamboo, some with five blows and some with ten, using bigger bamboos for the higher scale, and in more serious cases banishing the prisoner so many leagues from the capital. It was time the community took this subject in hand, and disregarded traditions which were more than 3,000 years old, and belonged
116
to the Stone Age. His hon. friend the Member for South Salford pleaded prescription for that practice with a confidence which he had never seen before. The system of punishment by retaliation and vengeance, having no regard to the person, was one of the most imbecile ever associated with criminology. The whole principle was that, the good of the community and the safety of the community being the end in view, the treatment of the offender was subsidiary to that; but inasmuch as the cure of the offender was one of the best means of protecting the community they should also look to the cure of the offender; but, first and last, they should protect the community. When he first investigated this subject it was on the score of humanity, and he was concerned to find some more rational basis for action than the present system in order to get rid of the enormous amount of cruelty that existed. That cruelty had gone on year after year, and his hon. friend had never moved a finger in regard to it. Let them take the case of the ordinary criminal. The principle underlying the indeterminate sentence was that not only would they detain the bad criminal for a long period, but also that the man who was not a bad criminal would get out sooner than under the present system. The principle had two sides. It was not only the protection of the community against bad offenders, but the protection of the community from the long detention of the offender who was not dangerous to it. Under the present system a man was tried by a Judge who had regard solely to the offence. Surely the theology of his hon. friend the Member for Salford should make him take into account the state of mind of the criminal, if retaliation was to be retaliation, or if vengeance was to be vengeance. The present system could not take account of his state of mind. It could at most take account of the tact whether an offender had committed a first offence or was a young offender. An offence which would be the same in the eye of the law, might be committed by two men, though from the psychological point of view the two offenders might be as wide as the poles asunder in point of culpability. One man might have erred

117
under motives that were hardly to be called criminal, and the other might be one of the worst of his species. Under the Roman system of retaliation for crime both were alike. It was undoubtedly true that modern science was coming more and more to see that crime ought to be treated not as a disease, but as something to be handled as they handled a disease—that was by a scientific prophylactic, and in a spirit devoid of vengeance or retaliation. He should have expected his hon. friend to acknowledge the real differences in respect of the mental condition of offenders. In regard to the question of mental condition, the issue did not turn upon the acceptance of anything like identity in the offence. The hon. Member for Salford failed and must tail to justify the present system, even it they took all criminals being what he called responsible persons. Putting the insane problem out of sight, and putting all criminals on the same footing, still the system of mechanical retaliation was unsound. The system could not be made intelligible. They could not rationally decree vengeance for a given amount of wrong doing.
MR. A. DEWARsaid he supported this measure, but wished to direct the attention of the Home Secretary to two points which might render this clause inoperative or not suited to the object at which he was aiming. He understood that it was the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that all dangerous criminals should be detained beyond the ordinary term of imprisonment with the view to curing them. But not only was some kind of curative treatment required for the criminal who had committed a great crime, but also for the offender who repeatedly committed small crimes. He remembered a case before a Criminal Court in which a woman fifty years of age was charged with an offence of a class of which she had been brought up so frequently that she had spent twenty-six years of her life in prison. She had had seven years penal servitude the last time, and it was clearly a case where the woman ought to be detained. The Judge took a merciful view of the case and would not send her to penal servitude;
118
he sent her to prison for a month or six weeks.
MR. GLADSTONE: That is a point I spoke about on the Second Reading and also in Committee. I tried to show clearly that the cases I had in my mind were those committed by dangerous professional criminals, and that we could not undertake within the scope of the scheme to deal with that large class of offenders who were guilty of small petty crimes. I entirely agree with my hon. friend that that is a class who ought to be dealt with, and I hope they will be dealt with. As regards the mental condition of offenders, that is a matter which we cannot get within the limits of the scheme. This is an experiment and I hope the other one will follow.
MR. A. DEWARsaid that an offender who frequently committed small offences sometimes received a sentence of five or seven years penal servitude. He thought such an offender should have prolonged detention in a place where the treatment I would be partly punitive and partly curative. But under the proposal in the Bill as it stood they would not succeed in getting a person like that into the curative prison. He thought such offenders ought to be sent there. He was certain that there would be more hope of doing good among that class by that means. He did not know whether under subsection (2) they would get one of that class into a house of detention, because there were two things to be proved before a man could be sent there. First of all, he must have been three times previously convicted and, secondly, it had to be shown that he had been persistently living a criminal life. It was easy to prove previous convictions, but how were they to prove to the satisfaction of a Judge and jury that a man had been persistently living a life of crime? The only competent evidence of crime would be in the previous convictions, and he was quite certain that no Judge would allow a charge of crime to be brought against a man except upon indictment. In Scotland, a crime could not be proved against a man unless he was charged on indictment with the crime. Therefore, proof of three previous convictions

119
would not be sufficient for what the right hon. Gentleman wanted. Something else was required. That was evidently to be the statement of a policeman that the man had been associating with criminals and that he was not a respectable man. He ventured to say that no Judge would allow evidence of that sort unless special power was given in the Act. He did not see any proposal to give that power.
MR. RADFORDexpressed the hope that the Home Secretary would not accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh. If he did so, it would introduce into the Bill another element, namely, the evidence of the police as to what they thought was a persistent life of crime. The speech of his hon. friend the Member for Tyneside would have been convincing if he had been referring to a measure to substitute preventive detention for the penalties whim were at present provided by law. But he was left unconvinced, as they were not dealing with a measure for preventive detention simply, but for superimposing that system on the top of the existing one. The hon. Member for East Dorset had stated that the Bill mainly concerned a very small number of hardened and well-known criminals. The hon. Member's speech would have been more appropriate if it had been delivered in support of a privilegium or special law to deal with well-known criminals, whose names might be scheduled to the Bill, but it did not appear to be a convincing argument in support of this measure. When in a previous debate the Home Secretary made a speech explaining Part II. of the Bill the House largely sympathised with him in his condemnation of the futility and cruelty of the present system. If this Bill which introduced the system of indeterminate detention had been accompanied with an entire revision of the penal code, then this part of the measure would have deserved careful consideration and support. But when they had added by the Bill to all the different periods of imprisonment and penal servitude which might be given by the Courts to habitual criminals this indefinite period of from five to ten years, the case was altered. The Home Secretary in urging
120
the Bill on the House on a previous occasion had told them that it was a merciful measure; but if it was to be regarded as merciful he felt tempted to ask what was justice. It would be nothing else than perpetual imprisonment. It might be that that was a right remedy for the habitual criminal, and he was not prepared to say that it was not. He had not had the advantage of sitting on the Committee that dealt with, the details of the Bill, but he had heard nothing in the House which justified them in thus increasing the severity of criminal legislation. His opinion was that the Bill would have the effect of making short sentences long, although the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary assured them in a speech the other day that it would not have that effect; and that there were safeguards against that. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that there was the fiat of the Public Prosecutor, the discretion of the Judge, and finally the discretion of the Home Secretary. He was afraid that these safeguards would not be effective. What could the Public Prosecutor do? He could only ask a clerk in his office to look up and see whether against a particular prisoner there were three certificates of previous convictions, and if he found that that was the case he granted his fiat. Therefore, he regarded that safeguard as purely nugatory. The Home Secretary's argument as to the Judge's discretion was that when the Judge before whom the prisoner was tried knew that there were previous sentences of penal servitude against him he would reduce the preliminary sentence in view of the longer subsequent period of detention. He was not at all sure that that was likely to be the result. It was common knowledge that some of our Judges passed sentences which could only be described as savage, and he thought it was not unlikely that such Judges would have an added pleasure in giving long preliminary sentences to be followed by the longer indeterminate period of detention. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, some Judges had continued to give long sentences without any serious interruption by the Home Secretary. So that the check of the Judge's discretion was uncertain and ineffective. Moreover, the increased power given to Judges would aggravate the

121
existing evil of the inequality of sentences. It was said that the Home Secretary would be ready as soon as a prisoner had shown any signs that he would henceforth lead an honest life, to set him free. But it was well-known that it was the men in prison who had the best character and who knew how to get the highest marks, who were often the very worst scoundrels in the whole crowd. In speaking of the discretion of the Home Secretary he desired to say that it should be received with the greatest respect; but they could not but recognise—there was no use in talking cant about it—that the Home Secretary was really the mouthpiece of the official machine. He could not be anything else. He replied to Questions put by hon. Members in the House by reading answers which he often did not understand—[Cries of "Oh!"]—and which had been furnished to him by his officials.
MR. SPEAKERsaid he did not see in what respect the argument which the hon. Gentleman was now putting forth, had anything to do with the Bill before the House.
MR. RADFORDsaid he understood that what they were discussing was that the period of indeterminate detention of a prisoner was subject to be reduced by the Home Secretary. Now, the Home Secretary had on a previous occasion informed them that he would intervene to reduce the period, when there was an opportunity on report of the behaviour of the prisoner for doing so. To him it seemed that the effect of the Bill would be to make short sentences long, and that the safeguards mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were illusory. He, therefore, could not see his way to support this part of the Bill.
MR. LUPTONsaid he was delighted with the speech of the Home Secretary, but he failed to see perfect agreement between the speech and the Bill. If the Bill had carried out the speech then he would not have troubled the Home Secretary by speaking at all; but would simply have applauded him and voted with him. But he failed to see in the Bill the fulfilment of the beautiful promises the right hon. Gentleman had laid down. There was nothing
122
to show that the preventive detention would be less severe than ordinary penal servitude, and he hoped that the Home Secretary would move some Amendments making it different from ordinary imprisonment. Punishment was supposed to benefit people, but as a matter of fact, as the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted, punishment was not as curative as it was supposed to be. If the Home Secretary proposed to substitute a period of detention for a period of penal servitude, then he would have his hearty support; but he could not agree to superadd a period of detention to a period of three years penal servitude, which was in itself a terrible and awful sentence. Such measures as this were intended in the first instance for the protection of society, and he wished to put himself in the position of a man whose house was being robbed by one of these professional criminals. He did not mind much if anybody burgled him—indeed he should be very glad if his goods were burgled, because he was fully insured if that benefited anybody much. But if a burglar rushed at him with a dagger, as one did at a friend of his, or with a pistol, and inflicted a serious wound, it would be very little satisfaction to him to know that the burglar would undergo a long term of imprisonment and an additional period of preventive detention. He would much rather that the punishment should be excessively mild than that it should be so severe as to induce a wrongdoer to adopt violent methods in the hope of avoiding capture. Therefore, looking at the matter from the point of view, not of criminologists, not of Judges, not of the Home Secretary, who had great ideas of reforming criminals, though probably in this he would not be very successful, but simply from the point of view of the householder, who did not want to be damaged by a rough man, he would be willing to let burglars take his goods so long as they went away quietly. He hoped the Home Secretary would avoid doing anything which would make the desperate criminal more desperate still if that was the effect the Bill would have.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that as his Motion to leave

123
out Part II. of the Bill was mainly directed against the indeterminate period of detention, and as his right hon. friend the Home Secretary had assented that that proposal should be abandoned or greatly modified in other directions, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that by this Bill a person who had had three convictions for the commission of a crime recorded against him, would render himself liable to new and additional penalties. By the Bill it was also provided that the person should be subjected to the new penalties for three previous convictions but that the last of the three might have taken place before the passing of this Bill into an Act. That was retrospective legislation of the worst possible kind. He understood that the Secretary of State said he accepted the Amendment and the next one, and therefore he would say nothing more.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 7, to leave out the word 'whether.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
Question proposed, "That the word whether' stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to say he accepted the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
'In page 5, line 7, to leave out the words 'before or.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the next Amendment in his name was merely a drafting one.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 8, to leave out the first word 'a,' and insert the word 'the.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. PICKERSGILL, in moving to omit the words "and the Court passes
124
a sentence of penal servitude," said he desired to raise the issue to which attention had already been called in the course of the general discussion. Under the Bill as drawn a sentence of penal servitude must necessarily precede the period of preventive detention; that was to say the only avenue—if he might so express it—to this period of preventive detention was a sentence of three years penal servitude. If he might say so, he was very much surprised that the Home Secretary should persist—if he proposed to persist—in that provision, especially after his speech the other night. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman condemned in terms quite as strong as he himself could use the demoralising effect of the penal system, and yet the Home Secretary was now proposing that prisoners should have a period of this demoralising treatment as a preliminary to the reformatory method, which was to follow under the name of preventive detention. Upon what ground did the right hon. Gentleman found this extraordinary proposal? The right hon. Gentleman said that this part of the Bill was only intended to hit the dangerous criminal, but where was that in the Bill? There was nothing whatever about the dangerous criminal in the Bill. It was substantially provided by the Bill that any person who committed a series of petty larcenies might render himself liable to the penalties of the measure. He would not say anything about the Judges of the High Court, but they knew very well that Quarter Sessions throughout the country constantly passed sentences of penal servitude upon criminals who had never committed anything worse than a very small larceny. If that was so, it was perfectly clear that the Home Secretary's object in limiting this Bill to the dangerous criminal would not be attained. His hon. friend across the gangway a little while ago referred to a case in his experience of a woman who had stolen garments from a clothes-line and had persisted in that course of crime for some period. That woman would be liable to the penalties of this Bill. There was nothing whatever to limit it to the dangerous criminal, and as a matter of fact, as he had already said, Quarter

125
Sessions passed sentences of penal servitude for these very small crimes. Apart from that, however, if they passed this Bill in its present form the effect would be that any Court who believed preventive detention and held that it was a good thing, would be compelled to pass a sentence of penal servitude, in order that reformatory treatment might come into effect. He could not conceive anything more—he would not use strong language, but at all events such a course was totally opposed to the principles of our criminal law as it imposed a rigid rule. These rigid rules used to exist in our criminal law, but they existed no longer, and for many years past the tendency had been to make our criminal law elastic and give great discretion to the Court. It might be in some cases right that a criminal should undergo a period of penal servitude or imprisonment before a reformatory treatment was entered upon, but surely they were not going to lay it down that a sentence of penal servitude must on all cases precede the period of preventive detention. He could not think that this particular provision would commend itself to the general feeling of the House. He begged to move.
MR. LYELLseconded the Amendment, and said that the part of the proposals of the Government it dealt with ran directly contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill. The spirit of the Bill was the abolition of imprisonment and to entrust a very great and important discretion to the Judges, but just at the moment they were doing that, the Government were taking a large and integral part of it out of the Judges' hands by laying down this rigid rule, that under all circumstances penal servitude was to be a necessary preliminary for the kind of imprisonment which his right hon. friend contemplated in one of these new establishments. He believed that there were many cases, and that indeed in most of these cases of professional criminals with which they were dealing, three years penal servitude would come into play, but that was no argument for taking out of the hands of the Judge the discretion and saying that three years penal servitude should be a preliminary
126
before preventive detention was tried at all. In a great many cases it would compel the Judge who desired to impose a term of preventive detention, against his wishes and what he felt was right in order to meet the case, to pass a sentence of three years penal servitude. It was a crushing and cruel sentence, but in many cases he might feel compelled to impose it, but on the other hand, he might think that a prisoner ought to be dealt with by this preventive detention, and was exactly the kind of case which this system was designed to meet, and in this case the Judge might feel that it would be a barbarous thing to sentence a person to three years penal servitude, and would not inflict it. Therefore, the very kind of treatment which they wanted to give would not be brought into play, because the Judge could not bring himself to impose three years penal servitude. All they asked for was that the Judge should have a discretion in the matter, and be left to exercise his judgment as to whether he would or would not give a sentence of that kind. He hoped his right hon. friend would, at all events, be able to give them some kind of explanation of the matter. He begged to second.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 9, to leave out the words 'and the Court passes a sentence of penal servitude.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'and the Court passes a sentence of' stand part of the clause."
MR. ADKINSsaid there were many considerations which would possibly lead the House to reject the Amendment. The proposals in the Bill were of considerable novelty, and the modifications made by the Home Secretary at any rate changed his attitude from one of great suspicion to one of considerable hopefulness. It was most important that the new method of sentencing people who were sent to the maximum term of imprisonment should only be tried first in a comparatively small number of cases and in regard to comparatively few types of criminals. If they limited it to those who had

127
already been convicted of penal servitude they would limit it to those who were, in the opinion of the Court, habitual or dangerous criminals, but if they accepted the Amendment and allowed the Court to submit a man to this preventive period of detention without sending him to penal servitude, or, to carry it to its logical conclusion, without sending him to imprisonment first, they would then in his judgment, be leaving too much to the discretion of the Home Office and neglecting that aspect of crime which was penal as well as remedial. From the point of view of one who was sympathetic towards the new proposal and anxious to keep it within definite limits he supported the Government scheme and opposed the Amendment. He did not believe it would lead to savage sentences, nor did he think it would lead to persons being kept in confinement for an undue period. On the contrary, he thought for the Court to sentence a man to three years penal servitude and afterwards to the less severe form of punishment and detention would lead to a reduction of the sentences which were now sometimes too heavy, while on the other hand, he was certain that the new method ought to be tried, first of all, only on criminals who had deserved and received specific punishment for a specific crime, and only when the punishment they had received in the form of penal servitude indicated, as it would do in most cases, that the persons were so far habitual criminals who, in the interests of society and their own good, should be sentenced to this secondary detention. The mover had not alluded to that and to the restrictions contained in the Bill, such as the sanction of the Public Prosecutor and the facilities for criminal appeal, but he was sure the House would bear those in mind.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he had on the Paper an Amendment almost identical with that of the hon. and learned Member for Bethnal Green, and he hoped that the Home Secretary would entertain the proposal. He thought his hon. friend who last spoke was under a misconception. It was not a condition precedent to passing this punishment that men should have suffered from penal servitude. The condition precedent was, that that
128
man should have been three times previously convicted of a certain class of offence, which might, it was true, have been punished by penal servitude, but might, on the other hand, have been punished by a very trivial measure of imprisonment. He was perfectly sure the right hon. Gentleman had an open mind on this question, and he was going to appeal to him by means of a concrete case which everybody who had to do with the administration of justice knew to be extremely frequent in its type in this country. He meant the frequent appearance before a tribunal, on an indictment, of persons who had been convicted of the trivial offences—using the words in a comparative sense—of larceny or false pretences, or of embezzlement or of some cognate offence, and who had been sentenced to three months imprisonment, six months imprisonment, eight months imprisonment continuously. He meant cases in which, if they went back through a long period of years, they would find these unhappy people brought before the tribunals. One would never dream, unless it was in some very exceptional case, of sending these persons to penal servitude, and one kept on giving them short sentences. They gave them a short sentence. He did not quarrel with that view. Personally, he thought sometimes it would be possibly better for their own sakes, as well as for other people, if they were sent to penal servitude. But then came this benevolent Bill, which said in effect that they should reclaim such an individual and sentence him to a period of detention, and that an entirely new reclamatory method should be adopted to bring him back as a proper member of civil society. When they came to examine the Bill they found, however, that as a condition precedent to this reclamatory process the man was to be sentenced to a term of penal servitude of not less than three years. The Home Secretary seemed to think that this was necessary to settle the man's mind and bring him to a proper condition for the reclamatory process. But, unfortunately for the Home Secretary, the Bill introduced quite a different method. It introduced the Borstal system which had no such condition precedent necessitating a man's

129
serving a term of three years penal servitude. The right hon. Gentleman might retort that the Borstal system was not for old offenders; that it was only for tainted persons, and not for those who were steeped in crime. But why should the right hon. Gentleman allow this obstacle of three years penal servitude to lie between the Judge and the unhappy prisoner? He himself might wish to send a man to school and give him an opportunity of being reclaimed. If it were not for this new Act—for he supposed it would be a new Act—he would give a man six months' imprisonment, and there would be an end of it; but now he would want to reclaim him and give him the benefit of this new treatment. But he should hesitate, and he thought many other humane men would hesitate, before accepting the condition precedent of sending a man to penal servitude for three years. Let there be a term of imprisonment, twelve months, six months, or it might be only one month, and then let them try the new method. He really thought the right hon. Gentleman was defeating the object of this Bill by insisting on this term of penal servitude.
MR. GLADSTONEexpressed his gratification at the fact that the beneficent side of this measure was now becoming apparent, and he recognised In the Amendment and the speeches in support of it a desire to extend the good effects of this method to another class. The class they proposed to deal with was another class than that to which his hon. and learned friend referred. The class the hon. Gentleman had in his mind was that with which they were all familiar which came up on indictment time after time for offences for which terms of three, six, or eight months imprisonment were imposed, small offenders. That was a class with which he was anxious to deal. It was a large class and numbered at this moment some 60,000 persons, who were wandering about the roads and cities in a state of semi-vagrancy and crime, sometimes stealing, sometimes begging, but never leading an honest life. In this Bill they proposed to deal with a class which might number as many as 5,000, and it was proposed to build an extra prison which
130
would accommodate something like 500. The whole of that prison would be required for the class of person they desired to deal with. If the class his hon. and learned friend had in mind was admitted they would have to recast the Bill altogether. The difference between penal servitude, imprisonment, and preventive detention must be maintained. If he acted on his hon. and learned friend's proposal the old criminal who made some pathetic appeal to the Judge might be sent red-hot from crime to the society of persons in preventive detention. Preventive detention did not represent the punishment for the particular offence with which a man was charged. The man on whom it was imposed would have an accumulation of previous convictions, and it was not desirable to deal with him in respect of his particular last offence. If the Amendment were adopted and a Judge used the power of sending a man straight to preventive detention, the effect would be that instead of adapting Camp Hill to this special purpose he had spoken of, the discipline and treatment there would have to be levelled up to that of ordinary prisons. His idea of that place was that there should be less rigour than in an ordinary prison, and that the prisoners should be encouraged by the knowledge that they could get out on reasonable guarantees?
AN HON. MEMBER: What sort of guarantees?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid his hon. friend knew that guarantees either by word of mouth or in writing could not be said to be worth very much. They had to judge of a prisoner by his conduct, whether he honestly tried to learn some branch of work while he was in prison, how he conducted himself, and how he was prepared for a fresh career. That would be in the nature of a guarantee, but a guarantee, either oral or written, he confessed would not have any very great weight. He would further ask the House to consider the inequalities which would be set up if this Amendment were passed. His hon. friend must remember that there would be hundreds of men indicted and sent to penal servitude who would not be proceeded against as habitual criminals.

131
Take the case of a full-blooded young man who committed some atrocious crime, and was sentenced to ten years penal servitude. He did not say that the sentence would be unjust, still the young man might not be an ordinary criminal, but one who had committed some atrocious offence in a moment of sudden impulse. In such a case it could not be said, perhaps, that he was a thoroughly bad man, but he would be sent to prison for the full ten years. Then there was the detestable man who had been convicted over and over again of the meanest and worst offences, and who came to be indicted for some act of felony; he made a piteous appeal to the Judge, who, not seeing the distinction which was being made between the two cases, sent him to ten years penal detention. This man, who had lived a villainous life, who had preyed on society, who perhaps had not the slightest wish of his own motion and initiative to reform himself, would come under comparatively mild treatment, totally unsuited to his case; while the other man who had committed one awful offence was—quite properly—undergoing the tremendous punishment of ten years penal servitude. If they adopted this Amendment he undertook to say that they would get serious irregularities and inequalities in the dispensation of justice. Of course, when a Judge had a prisoner before him who was indicted for a particular offence, and was also charged with being an habitual criminal, first of all the accused would be convicted of the particular offence, and then the charge against him on the ground of his being a habitual criminal would be heard. If the jury convicted him on that charge as well, then the Judge would have to proceed to sentence him in regard to the particular offence which he had committed. Of course, the Judge would take the two kinds of detention into consideration. He would know that he must sentence the man to no less than three years penal servitude, and could sentence him to ten years detention or not less than five. But he would consider the case of the man in regard to the nature of the offence and so forth, and then he would proceed to sentence him to so many years penal servitude
132
and so many years detention. His hon. friend the Member for Durham had said that his speech on the Second Reading was inconsistent with the Bill. He did not agree. What he had said was that long sentences of penal servitude were often cruel, but he had not said that of all sentences of penal servitude. As a matter of fact, he thought that hon. Gentlemen should know that the present system under penal servitude was not what it was ten years ago. It was much more humane. Perhaps they did not know to what extent the rigour of penal servitude had been altered, though he admitted it was bad enough still. This Bill was supposed to modify that system still further by this proposal of penal detention, which would enable the Judge to give a much shorter term of penal servitude. He did not hesitate to say that the general effect of the Bill if it passed into law would be greatly to shorten the average sentence of penal servitude.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Why?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had just stated the reason, namely, that there was this penal detention, which, being of a very different kind, would, whenever it occurred, lead the Judges to shorten the terms of penal servitude which they would otherwise give. Of course, he was not entitled to speak in any way for the Judges, but he believed it was a well-known fact that a great many Judges had during the past few years refrained from imposing these long sentences of penal servitude, for the simple reason that they believed that it was too drastic a punishment to which to subject men for long terms. He, therefore, adhered to the opinion which he expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill. He would only remind the House that three of our Colonies, certainly two of them, had got Acts providing for something like indeterminate detention, and that in those cases they found it necessary to have a preliminary period of punishment by imprisonment. He could only say that this matter had been most carefully considered, and it was quite impossible for him to give way. If they were forced to give way on this point of a period of preliminary

133
punishment, he was bound to say that it would be necessary to withdraw this part of the Bill.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he must appeal to the Government to reconsider this Amendment, which, as he understood it, really covered the next Amendment as well, and his hon. and learned friend would probably be equally content if the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Durham was accepted. The text of the Bill in regard to penal detention made it a condition precedent that the man should be sentenced to three years penal servitude. Having regard to the interests of the Bill itself, he submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that this was a most unwise proposition. From the account they had heard it was very difficult to follow what the object of Part II. of the Bill was, but they learned now that the idea of the Government was that there should be a particular prison accommodating some 500 prisoners, where there should be a certain kind of treatment for the purpose of reclaiming the offenders. That was the general idea. The treatment was to be less severe than that of penal servitude, and the idea was to enable a man to have a fresh start in life. What class of prisoner was likely to get the benefit of this treatment? The Bill as drawn was far wider than the right hon. Gentleman thought. It not only dealt with habitual and dangerous and violent criminals, but it dealt also with people who were simply engaged in petty larceny. If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in view of penal detention the Judges passed shorter sentences of penal servitude, then he submitted that it would be an undesirable result of the Bill. The criminal who committed violence ought to go to prison for a long time, but the class of persons who would be sent to this penal detention he imagined would be the class who did not use violence, and who had not been guilty of the very serious crime indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. It would be the class of offenders that habitually committed small crimes who would be sent to penal detention. Perhaps they might have the case of a young man of
134
twenty-two or twenty-three, who had five previous convictions of false pretences of a determined character since he was of the age of sixteen. He had been through the Borstal system twice, and there were four offences against him. That type of young man who wrote letters suggesting that he should go back to the Borstal system might well be dealt with under this Bill. But before that could be done, although he was only twenty-one or twenty-two, he would have to be sent to penal servitude to start with, thus doing away with all the good they hoped to do. If they wanted to deal with that class, the obvious thing was to pass a short, sharp, deterrent sentence, and then send them to these houses of detention for whatever term the Judge thought fit. The Home Secretary was stopping practically the most useful part of his Bill if he did not leave it to the discretion of the Judge whether the offender should be sent to prison or to penal servitude. Probably the House did not realise how the rigour of penal servitude had been remitted during the past few years. In many cases, though worse from the point of view of length of time, it was nothing like so severe as the sentence of eighteen months or two years. One of the hardest sentences that could be passed was two years hard labour. Such a sentence one hoped never to be passed, though it was sometimes passed. Could anything be worse in the case of a prisoner of that kind than to sentence him to the semi-mitigated treatment of penal servitude for the first three years and then the more mitigated treatment of the labour colonies for ten years afterwards. For the sake of the Bill itself, discretion ought to be given so that the Court should not in every case have to pass this three years penal servitude, which in a large number of cases would be a very mistaken sentence even when they wished to punish the man effectively before sentencing him to preventive detention afterwards. The safest thing for those in favour of the Bill would be to allow the fullest discretion to the Judge.
MR. BYLESsaid that in spite of the very copious exposition of the Government position on the point raised

135
by the Amendment he was unconvinced, and he would appeal once more to his right hon. friend whether he did not feel now that a considerable body of opinion in the House desired a modification of the clause. He could not see why, if they determined to take a man and alter his life and try to turn him out an honest man, they should not begin the job at once instead of degrading him by another three years penal servitude. He did not believe they could ever send a man to prison and turn him out as good a man as he went in, though they might make him worse. Prince Krapotkin, who had wide prison experience, a writer for whom he had great respect, called prisons universities of crime. It was because he held those views that he had been very desirous to support the Bill, contrary to the opinion of many friends with whom he associated. The right hon. Gentleman had given hypothetical instances of two men who had been sentenced to penal servitude. The first was a young man who perhaps committed his crime upon impulse and was sentenced to ten years. The other was an old and arch-offender who had been up time after time and served many terms. He should say the young man would be like the old one if they kept sending him to penal servitude. They created these habitual offenders by successive periods of penal servitude. Probably the first crime was committed on impulse. It was a mere accident that many honest men in the world had never once committed a crime. Having once committed a crime and served a term in prison they were ten times more likely to commit another. He hoped the question would be approached with a feeling of real sympathy for these criminals. They had very often a great deal of good in their nature. He held that there were many worse men out of prison than some of those who were in. The object was to bring these men back to be good and useful members of society. He urged the right hon. Gentleman not to insist upon giving one more long period of three years penal servitude to the man they were going to try to reform.
MR. CURRANin supporting the Amendment said he was sure the authors of the Bill were strongly desirous of making it effective in the direction of preventing crime. He did
136
not think penal servitude tended to reform criminals, but to harden them and make it more impossible to bring them back to decent behaviour. He felt, therefore, that the Borstal system should be applied in a great many cases where penal servitude was applied to-day, and the more penal servitude was minimised and the Borstal system adopted, the sooner they would get to a better method of dealing with crime. An official of Portland prison had informed him that the five, ten, or fifteen years convict when he was released was given a railway ticket to the place where he was arrested, and not infrequently he shook hands with the official who bought his ticket and said he would soon see him again. That proved that long terms of penal servitude tended to degrade men to the extent that they became hardened, and when they came out of prison they intended to follow the same profession. The Home Secretary had made a strong point of the people who were tramping the country—the wayward tramp who committed petty larcenies. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman took into serious consideration the conditions that created that class of petty criminals. There were many men now who being thrown out of employment were tramping from place to place. Even respectable men of that class were liable to fall into the crime of petty larceny and might be convicted once or twice. They were the victims of their environment and the creation of industrial conditions, and to allow any Judge the privilege of sending them to penal servitude would have a tendency to increase and not to minimise crime. He hoped the Home Secretary would, by the adoption of some such Amendment as this, make the present system of punishment more humane, because in spite of all alterations and improvements it was still harsh, degrading, and brutalising. He hoped the Amendment under these circumstances would be adopted, so that the Bill would be made in the true sense of the term a Bill for the prevention of crime.
SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid he gratefully recognised that the Home Secretary had abandoned the indeterminate sentence by the Amendments

137
he had placed on the Paper. The question they had now to consider was whether there should be a discretion with the Judge or Chairman of Quarter Sessions to administer that preventive detention or penal servitude or only the preventive detention after the term of penal servitude had been served. He hoped the Home Secretary would make a concession in that direction. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the Report of the Committee of 1894, over which he presided, he would find they recommended that preventive detention in lieu of penal servitude was contemplated, and he would, therefore, by accepting the Amendment, be bringing this Bill into accord with that Report. That Committee recommended a new form of sentence for long periods of detention during which the prisoners would not be treated with the severity of first-class hard labour or penal servitude, and the authors of the Report he had alluded to suggested an alternative system by way of preventive detention. There was a precedent in the case of the Inebriates Act, which provided that—
"The Court may in addition to or in substitution for any other sentence order that the prisoner be detained for a term of years."
The right hon. Gentleman said that in two of the Colonics they found the precedent of penal servitude first, with preventive detention afterwards. In America, however, there was no such precedent. By the courtesy of the American Ambassador he had been allowed to look up the practice in the States of America, and he had concluded that if the Amendment giving a minimum and maximum sentence and letting out the prisoner on parole t some period after the minimum sentence had been completed were adopted they would be establishing very much the same system as they had in America. From information he had gathered, he understood it was erroneous to say that the Elmira system had penal servitude in the first instance and a period of detention afterwards. The American precedent did not favour the principle laid down in this Bill. He could find no report in favour of this preventive detention following a period of penal servitude, except in some of the papers of the Chairman of the Prisons Commission. In
138
no independent Report of any Commission or Committee had that been recommended. He hoped the Home Secretary would be guided by his own Committee and not by any bureaucratic recommendation. He hoped the Judge and the Chairman of Quarter Sessions would be given discretionary power to adopt penal servitude or preventive detention, or so much of the one or the other as they might think suitable in each particular case.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he could not understand the action of the hon. Member who had brought forward this Amendment in view of the fact that they were opposed to Part II. of the Bill. That had now been modified by the alteration which the Home Secretary intended to move limiting the period of detention to ten years. Even with that modification he could not understand why hon. Members who, a few nights ago, were utterly opposed to this detention period should now turn round and require that operation to be enlarged. If the Amendment were carried, any person previously convicted on indictment three times would be liable to be sent to detention under this clause. He was going to support the Home Secretary, whose speech seemed to him to be the only logical one he had heard on the point. The right hon. Gentleman had chosen what was practically an experiment. They did not intend to apply the Borstal system to old offenders, and that was the answer to the argument used by the hon. Member below the gangway, who wished to do away with all punishment for crime and substitute the Borstal system, which was only meant to apply to youthful offenders who had committed one or two offences. Before any prisoner could be subjected to this treatment he must have been convicted not only for three previous crimes, but also for the fourth crime, and he must be sentenced to a term of penal servitude. If, five or six years hence, they found that this experiment had been successful, that would be the time to come forward and move this Amendment. They were being asked to alter the whole criminal law and punishments and substitute something which was at present both novel and new, which might be successful,

139
but which o person had any reason to suppose would be successful or would fail. The hon. Member for Salford said that penal servitude was a degradation, but he did not think it was. As a matter of fact, it was the crime which was the degradation, and not the punishment. The result of all this would be that instead of inflicting a severe penalty upon a man who deserved it, they would be trying by a side issue to get for the habitual criminal, not the proper punishment and a period of detention afterwards, but a new form of punishment which, as far as one could tell, was not likely to have a deterrent result if given without any other form of punishment. He would have very much pleasure in supporting the Home Secretary, and he should support him in the division lobby against his own friends.
MR. DILLONsaid he was strongly in favour of the Amendment, although by the right hon. Gentleman's concession he had been converted from a very firm opponent into a very strong supporter of the Bill. It seemed to him that the Judge ought to have discretion, having heard all the evidence as to the character of the person he was dealing, with, to send him to some term of imprisonment before sending him to preventive detention and a determinate period. He did not wish to be unreasonable, and he recognised the Bill as one which deserved the warm support of everyone interested in the improvement of the prisons of the country. It had been pointed out that this clause was intended to deal with criminals of a very atrocious character, and assaults on young children were alluded to. His view was that people who committed such offences, or at any rate who committed such an offence twice, ought to be locked up for the rest of their lives. There had been no answer given to the statement of the hon. Member for Durham that the clause as it stood applied to a totally different class of offenders, namely, those who were habitual criminals of a very dangerous character. The whole burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire dealt with questions of larceny and small thefts, but anyone
140
who had studied the administration of the criminal law must be aware that offences against poverty were dealt with in far too harsh a spirit, and the criminal law was much too mild in regard to atrocious offences. For offences against property sentences were perfectly scandalous, and people were frequently sent to long periods of penal servitude for small thefts and robberies. He knew of one case where a poor old woman had spent twenty years in prison for repeated offences for small larcenies, and on one occasion for a small offence she was sent to seven years penal servitude. After-wards, the Judge was so horrified by his own severity that he reduced the sentence to six years. Looking to all the circumstances, he thought a Judge should have power to send a person direct for preventive treatment if he was convinced that it was desirable that the prisoner should be for a long period locked up and at the same time should not be subjected to penal servitude. The Home Secretary had drawn a dreadful picture of the injury which would be done to his new prison—and he quite sympathised with his view—as to what would be the result of sending a shocking criminal, red-hot from crime, into a body of men who were to some extent well advanced on the path of reform. He thought that ought to be a matter left to the discretion of the Judge, and any Judge who was such a fool as to commit to these new institutions a man whose whole life had been a series of revolting offences ought not to be allowed to sit on the bench. A prisoner whose life had been one rather of misfortune than of serious and wicked crime, never got the chance at all. An hon. Member had described the case of a prisoner who, on leaving Dartmoor, shook hands with the warder and said "I hope we shall soon meet again." A vast body of habitual criminals never got a chance at all, because no decent people would associate with them, they could not get any employment, they were pursued and watched by the police, and they soon sank hopelessly back into their old haunts simply and solely because they could not do otherwise. That was the class of person who might reasonably be sent straight to the detention prison. He did not wish to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary he

141
wished to suggest a compromise, namely, that for three years penal servitude he should substitute six months imprisonment. He thought the provision as to three years penal servitude would prevent many Judges from attempting to use
this new system perhaps in cases in which it might do the greatest amount of good.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 164; Noes, 95. (Division List No. 433.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Armitage, R.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hedges, A. Paget

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Henry, Charles S.

Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland

Barker, Sir John

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Higham, John Sharp

Seaverns, J. H.

Barnard, E. B.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Seely, Colonel

Beale, W. P.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Ha'w'k, B.

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Holland, Sir William Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Beck, A. Cecil

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Idris, T. H. W.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Soares, Ernest J.

Branch, James

Kekewich, Sir George

Stanger, H. Y.

Brooke, Stopford

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Kerry, Earl of

Strachey, Sir Edward

Brycc, J. Annan

Lambert, George

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lamont, Norman

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Lehmann, R. C.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Buxton Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Cameron, Robert

Maclean, Donald

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

M'Callum, John M.

Toulmin, George

Chance, Frederick William

M'Crae, Sir George

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Clough, William

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

Valentia, Viscount

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

M'Micking, Major G.

Vivian, Henry

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

Marnham, F. J.

Walton, Joseph

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Massie, J.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Cox, Harold

Masterman, C. F. G.

Waring, Walter

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Menzies, Walter

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Crosfield, A. H.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Cross, Alexander

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Whitbread, Howard

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Mond, A.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Montague, Hon. E. S.

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Whitehead, Rowland

Dobson, Thomas W.

Morrell, Philip

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Myer, Horatio

Wiles, Thomas

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Napier, T. B.

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

Essex, R. W.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Williamson, A.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Nicholls, George

Wills, Arthur Walters

Everett, R. Lacey

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Fenwick, Charles

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough)

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Paul, Herbert

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

Glendinning, R. G.

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

Younger, George.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Pretyman, Ernest George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Hall, Frederick

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cark, N. E.)

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

Bowerman, C. W.

Atherley-Jones, L.

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

Bowles, G. Stewart

Balcarres, Lord

Boland, John

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Byles, William Pollard

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Hodge, John

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cleland, J. W.

Jenkins, J.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Jowett, F. W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Courthope, G. Loyd

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Radford, G. H.

Crean, Eugene

Kilbride, Denis

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Crooks, William

Kimber, Sir Henry

Reddy, M.

Delany, William

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Redmond, William (Clare)

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

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.

Renton, Leslie

Dillon, John

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

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lundon, W.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Lupton, Arnold

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Rowlands, J.

Feil, Arthur

Macdonald, J. R. (Lecester)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Ffrench, Peter

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

Stanley, Hn. A Lyulph (Chesh.)

Field, William

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Steadman, W. C.

Fietcher, J. S.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Flynn, James Christopher

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Forster, Henry William

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Glover, Thomas

M'Kean, John

Thornton, Percy M.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Meagher, Michael

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Halpin, J.

Morrison-Bell, Captain

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. Curran.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Bill read the third time, and passed.

MR. LUPTON MR. LUPTON moved to omit the word "further" from the provision that the Court "may pass a further sentence ordering that, on the determination of the sentence of penal servitude, he be detained etc." He said that this was one of a series of Amendments to enable the Court, having sentenced a man to three years penal servitude, and having come to the conclusion that he was an habitual offender, to commute the sentence to one of detention for a period not exceeding, ten years. The Amendment got over one of the objections which the Home Secretary had to the previous Amendment, namely, that by inserting the word "imprisonment" they would add a great many more than he proposed to make room for to the cases where the offenders might be detained. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted this Amendment, that objection would not arise, because it would only be men who had been sentenced to three years penal servitude who would be sent to a place of detention. The only difference between the Home Secretary and himself was as to the expediency of sending a criminal red-handed to a place of detention. The place of detention was not described in the Bill, and they could only imagine what sort of place the right hon. Gentleman intended. But if the
144
place was to accommodate 500 or 600 people, it would have various wards, and some of these might be wards to which the red-handed prisoner might be sent for one, two, or three months before he was put under the curative process. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that the system of penal servitude had failed; he said in his speech the other night that 80 per cent. of those in the prisons had been there before. Why had it failed? None of the habitual offenders were men of great ability, or they would commit their robberies in a cleverer way, and they would be living in fine houses and driving in carriages. They were men of weak minds, and the present system of punishment weakened their minds still more. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was singularly unfortunate in advising that there should be, first of all, three years of the weakening process under a system where the prisoner was treated as a slave and had no initiative of his own. They were, first of all, going to make the man worse before they began to reform him. Why insist that the man they were going to cure should suffer the horrible sentence of penal servitude before they began to cure him? The right hon. Gentleman said that these prisoners who had been sentenced to punitive penal servitude

145
were also to be sentenced to preventive detention, but that meant that they were going to make the prisoners worse and more dangerous burglars instead of doing anything to reform or improve them. He hoped the Amendment would meet the difficulty he had put. The prisoners when tried and convicted by the jury would be sentenced by the Judge to three years penal servitude, which penal servitude would be commuted in the case of an habitual criminal to preventive detention. There would then be some chance of curing him, which there would not be if he was first sentenced to the three years torture of ordinary penal servitude. He begged to move.
MR. CLAUDE HAYseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 13, to leave out the word 'further.'"—(Mr. Lnpton.)
Question proposed, "That the word further stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEthought the Amendment would make the proceeding purely nonsensical, and he could not accept it.
Amendment negatived.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the Amendment he now moved was one of which he had given notice and had already explained to the House.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 15, to leave out the words 'during His Majesty's pleasure,' and to insert the words 'for such period not exceeding ten nor less than five years, as the Court may determine.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. RENTON*MR. RENTON (Lincolnshire, Gainsborough) moved to substitute the word "penal" for the word "preventive in Clause 9." He thought that "preventive detention" was somewhat vague and would not be understood by the outside public. After all, an unfortunate person who was enduring this sentence was to be considered a felon by this clause, and
146
he was, by another clause, directed also to be considered as a convict. For these reasons he thought it would better and much clearer to substitute "penal" for "preventive."
MR. ADKINSsaid that although preventive detention only meant to prevent persons from committing crime, he was anxious that persons under preventive sentence should have treatment which would have a fairly remedial effect. He wanted a sharp, even acute distinction drawn between the treatment of old habitual offenders and the treatment of those who for preventive reasons were subjected to a treatment which was predominantly remedial.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 16, to leave out the word 'preventive,' and insert the word 'penal.'"—(Mr. Renton.)
Question proposed, That the word 'preventive' stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that it was a mere matter of opinion as to whether the word "penal" or "preventive" was the more accurate word to use in the clause. He, however, would consider whether they could not invent a word which would meet the views of his hon. friend the Member for Middleton.
SIR E. CARSONsaid that he himself could not see how they were to distinguish between "penal servitude" and "preventive detention." He thought it would be exceedingly inconvenient to have a term which looked like "penal servitude" which latter conveyed a certain sinister meaning in the minds of some people. But on the whole he himself liked "preventive" instead of "penal."
MR. RENTONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LUPTONsaid that according to the Home Secretary they were to have reform prisons where the prisoners would have better treatment than in the

147
ordinary prisons; but there were no words in the Bill which carried out that idea. The Amendment which he was about to propose would carry out the idea that the prisoners under preventive detention were going to be kindly treated: at any rate, less severely treated than other offenders. Perhaps he had not drafted his Amendment, in the best way, but the right hon. Gentleman might propose some better addition to the Bill which would carry out what he himself wanted. He desired to insert the words, 'A person sentenced to preventive detention shall, subject only to the needs of safe custody, be treated rather as a person in a lunatic asylum than as a person undergoing a sentence of penal servitude, and shall be allowed reasonable comforts and relaxations.'"
SIR E. CARSONasked if this Amendment ought not to come under Clause 11, which dealt with the treatment of prisoners who were to be detained.
MR. SPEAKERsaid he was much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He thought the hon. Gentleman ought to raise his Amendment on Clause 11.
MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved to amend the definition of an habitual offender in the clause as a person who had at least three times been convicted of a crime by inserting "since attaining the age of sixteen years." He said the hon. Member for Peterborough had two Amendments on the Paper with precisely the same object, but he thought his would be a better form of drafting.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 24, after the word 'has,' to insert the words 'since attaining the age of sixteen years.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. G. GREENWOODwas very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for accepting this Amendment and agreed that the drafting would be better.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 5, line 25, to leave out the words 'above referred to,' and to insert the words 'of the crime charged in the said indictment.'"
"In page 5, line 26, to leave out the word 'such,' and to insert the words 'any such previous.'"
"In page 5, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words 'for which he was so sentenced,' and to insert the words 'of which he is so charged.'"
"In page 6, line 10, after the word 'charge,' to insert the words 'and the notice to the offender shall specify the previous convictions and the other grounds upon which it is intended to found the charge.'"
"In page 6, line 22, after the word 'regard,' to insert the words 'to the circumstances of the case and in particular.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. LUPTON*MR. LUPTON moved an Amendment to Clause 11, providing that a person sentenced to preventive detention should, subject only to the needs of safe custody, be treated rather as a person in a lunatic asylum than as a person undergoing a sentence of penal servitude, and should be allowed reasonable comforts and relaxation. By this Amendment he made sure that the imprisonment should be of such a kind as was recommended to the House by the Home Secretary, as he could not reconcile it with his conscience to pass a law which said one thing, and they were told meant something else. They were told that the preventive detention was not penal servitude or penal detention, and he proposed this Amendment to make that clear. He wanted to prevent a man from running about the country doing all sorts of improper things, and therefore thought he should be prevented from getting outside the establishment, but he should not be tortured as well as being subjected to confinement. He should be enabled to live a life of some degree of kindness although, of course, he would have to work. Let him have his newspaper and pipe and be treated like a human being, and in time he might recover some degree of respect and regard for society which was now for the first time treating him well and in a Christian spirit. He was exceedingly anxious that all the humane expressions of the right hon. Gentleman should be fixed in the Bill in some way,

149
and therefore he brought forward this Amendment.
SIR E. CARSONinquired how a man was to be treated "rather as a person in a lunatic asylum."
MR. LUPTONsaid he would be treated, according to the words of the Amendment, with due regard to safe custody and subject only to those needs. He would be treated as a person capable of breaking bounds, but not subjected to the severities of prison life. He begged to move.
MR. RENTON*MR. RENTON (Lincolnshire, Gainsborough), in seconding the Amendment, said they wanted some of the principles which the Home Secretary had enumerated to be embodied in the Bill. They had not had the slightest information as to what preventive detention really meant except that it was not penal detention. He should like to know what would pass in the establishment at Camp Hill and in what respect the regulations would differ from those of a prison.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 24, at the end, to insert, as a new subsection, the words 'A person sentenced to preventive detention shall, subject only to the needs of safe custody, be treated rather as a person in a lunatic asylum than as a person undergoing a sentence of penal servitude, and shall be allowed reasonable comforts and relaxations.'"—(Mr. Lupton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Mr. GLADSTONEwas understood to say that he also desired to know how a man was to be treated "rather as a person in a lunatic asylum."
MR. LUPTONsaid he would be treated rather as a person in a lunatic asylum than as one undergoing a sentence of penal servitude.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would tell him what in his judgment would be the legal interpretation of the words.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he could not supply it.
MR. GLADSTONEpointed out that the hon. Member had quite ignored the Amendment which he had on the Paper, to the effect that these persons should be subjected to such disciplinary and reformative influences, and be employed on such work as might be best fitted to make them able and willing to earn an honest livelihood on discharge. That would really reply to him, and the hon. Gentleman opposite. He described the various steps which would be taken on the Second Reading of the Bill, and in Committee, and the kind of place the new detention house at Camp Hill was likely to be, and he could not be expected on Report to go over the same ground. A man would be put in a certain class and he would be set to work which would enable him to earn successive privileges, and a livelihood on his discharge. It was a curious fact that under the present system very few men who became competent workmen at particular crafts continued them when they left prison. But still he was not disheartened by that, as he thought men might be trained in manual work, so that habits of industry might be engendered. The men would be supplied with newspapers, and they would be less and less subjected to anything approaching prison discipline; but, of course, he must safeguard these provisions, as in this prison there would be some hundreds of the most desperate criminals in the country, and the greatest care would have to be taken.
Amendment negatived.
SIR W. J. COLLINS SIR W. J. COLLINS moved to omit the words "any prison or part of a prison," and insert "a place," and said he wished to make it clear in name as well as in fact that the place in which the preventive detention would be given would be not a prison or a part of a prison. He had a series of consequential Amendments on the Paper to carry out what the right hon. Gentleman said, and make it clear that the treatment would be totally different from that in prisons. In a prison or part of a prison there was the danger of the spirit in one part of

151
the place pervading the others. The State Reformatory at Aylesbury was next to the convict prison, and this danger had been found to exist. The object of the clause was to establish a totally different line of treatment in this preventive establishment, and therefore he wished to distinguish it from a prison. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, to indicate his intention that the detention should take place at a different place from a prison.
MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON seconded the Amendment so far as he understood the right hon. Gentleman meant that this place should not be a prison in reality, but a place more in the nature of a labour colony which might be self-supporting as far as possible. That was to say that such work as farm work might be done on the premises and made remunerative as far as possible, and that those detained should not be put to the more or less useless labour that was done in penal servitude.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 26, to leave out the words 'any prison or part of a prison,' and to insert the words 'a place.'"—(Sir W. J. Collins.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'any prison' stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had considered this matter in the drafting of the Bill, but the word "prison" had gone into the Bill, and he submitted that there could be no objection to these words because, after all, prison rules would apply. He had pointed out that it would be a prison in the sense that it must be a place fit to keep in safe custody those who were dangerous. There was no getting away from the fact. On the whole he saw no objection to the word "prison," while on the other hand there might be some inconvenience in adopting another phrase, like "place of detention," which had already been identified in the Children Bill lately passed.
Amendment negatived.
MR. PICKERSGILL MR. PICKERSGILL moved to leave out the words "or any part of a
152
prison." He submitted that the Amendment could hardly be resisted because the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of a place of detention for these people being erected on a special site, of a special building and complete separation. It seemed undesirable that persons who were under ordinary penal servitude or imprisonment should be in the same place as these people who were undergoing this system of detention. The two systems should be distinct from each other, and it was therefore desirable that they should be carried on in separate buildings.
MR. LUPTONformally seconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 26, to leave out the words 'or part of a prison.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEquite sympathised with the desire of his hon. friend. It was the intention to keep these habitual prisoners apart from ordinary criminals suffering terms of imprisonment or undergoing terms of penal servitude, but the House would see that provision had to be made for possible difficulties in the future. It was impossible to say how soon this place would fill up. There might at times be some difficulty with regard to accommodation when it might be in the interests of the prisoners themselves that the prisons should be used for temporary purposes rather than that the prisoners should be crowded at Camp Hill. He hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment. Of course he would give an assurance that the prisons would only be used for temporary purposes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 36, at end, to insert the words '(3) Persons undergoing preventive detention, shall be subjected to such disciplinary and reformative influences, and shall be employed on such work as may be best fitted to make them able and willing to earn an honest livelihood on discharge.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON moved to omit subsection (3) in order to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman his view with regard to the Board of Visitors. Were they a new body, and, if so, what were their duties?
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 37, to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 11."—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'with,' in page 6, line 39, stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that as a matter of fact he was quite prepared to accept this Amendment, because the Board of Visitors was appointed under the present law, and had statutory duties, which duties they would discharge at Camp Hill, but the Government had thought it well to set it forth in the Bill that this Board of Visitors would, in fact, be set up at Camp Hill.
MR. ADKINSearnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment. They were now setting up a valuable and rather new type of place, not for imprisonment but for the reclamation of criminals, and it was very desirable that the public should know that there was to be a Board of Visitors in regard to it. He hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite would not press the Amendment, as he was quite sure that public confidence would be increased if these words were left in.
SIR W. J. COLLINSthought the right hon. Gentleman had recognised that it was necessary to have an independent eye to overlook this matter in this Board of Visitors, and in an Amendment lower on the Paper he himself had suggested that not less than three of the Board of Visitors should be elected by the county council of the county in which the place of detention was situated. The House would bear in mind that the tendency of the government of our prisons had been rather in the inverse direction to our general legislation; while the tendency of legislation in regard to prisons was to concentrate their management in the hands of the Government,
154
the tendency of other legislation had been in the direction of devolution and the placing of administration in the hands of the local authorities. He submitted the tendency of concentration had gone too far, and that it would be well if, in this new departure, the Board of Visitors contained some members other than those nominated by the Home Office. He hoped his right hon. friend would not accept the Amendment moved, but on the other hand, when they came to it, accept the Amendment which he himself had lower on the Paper.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he left himself entirely in the hands of the Home Secretary, and did not wish to press the Amendment in any way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR W. J. COLLINSformally moved to previde that not less than three of the Board of Visitors shall be elected by the county council of the county in which the place of detention is situated.
MR. ADKINSin seconding, said that as this was a national institution, therefore perhaps the local authority, according to precedent, would have very little locus standi; but considering that this was a new experiment which certainly had awakened exceptional interest, he hoped the Government might see their way to meet the demand for the appointment of some independent local members who would have cognisance of the way in which the institution was administered. He seconded the Amendment in the form in which it was moved. He would very much prefer that the county council themselves should nominate two or three of their members to serve on the committee, but if there were really administrative objections to that, then it would be better than nothing that the Home Office should appoint members of the county council to serve. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman appreciated what had fallen from the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, that there should be an independent element on the Committee of Visitors. It would strengthen public confidence, and would be exceptionally valuable in dealing with a new institution.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 39, after the word 'peace,' to insert the words 'and not less than three shall be elected by the county council of the county in which the place of detention is situated.'"—(Sir W. J. Collins.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he agreed that there was a good deal to be said for this Amendment, but what would be the result if a member of the county council declined to serve? If the Amendment were to be accepted, and if they said that certain members of the committee "shall" be members of the county council, then something must be put in the Act.
SIR W. J. COLLINSsuggested "may" be.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that whether it was "may" or "shall," he did not think either would very much relieve the situation. It was quite clear that he could not accept the Amendment as it was drawn. This particular prison, of course, was for the service of the whole country, and that the County Council of the Isle of Wight should have a statutory right to nominate two or three members to a comparatively small board of this kind was a proposition which did not commend itself to his judgment as being a right, one. He would point, out that, as a matter of fact, the existing Board of Visitors appointed in connection with another prison included three or four residents in the Isle of Wight, including county councillors. In fact, he thought almost the whole of the Visitors were actually resident in the Isle of Wight.
SIR W. J. COLLINS: Nominated by the Home Secretary.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid there was no great gulf between the Home Secretary and the present Commissioners and the county council or any other representative body of men. It seemed to be suspected in some quarters that the Prison Commissioners lurked in the background for the purpose of worrying and ill-treating prisoners, and that somebody must be always watching to prevent these wicked
156
men from wreaking their wicked purpose upon these unfortunate criminals. He pressed his hon. friend to admit that as between the personnel of the Isle of Wight County Council and the personnel of the present administration of the Home Office, in respect of humanity there was really nothing to choose.
SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid the right hon. Gentleman had entirely overstrained anything he had said or suggested. He repudiated entirely the construction which the right hon. Gentleman put upon what he had said.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the hon. Member would remember having interrupted him by saying that the local members of the Board were nominated by the Home Secretary.
SIR W. J. COLLINS: That is the fact.
MR. GLADSTONE: And why should the Home Secretary not do so? Why should he give up part of his direct responsibility to the House, which that House desired him to have, to statutory members of a particular county council? He would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to recognise that, as a matter of fact, at the present time they did get the services of the best men available in the Isle of Wight. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight was himself a most useful member of the Board of Visitors, and he thought his hon. friend might rest content with his assurance that it was his desire to appoint the very best qualified men who could be got. He might point out that in the Committee upstairs, after a long discussion, by nineteen to five it was left to the Department to see that the best men of the locality were appointed.
MR. LUPTONcontended that while they had confidence in the Home Secretary, yet everyone nominated by him must act in accordance with the views of the right hon. Gentleman's Department and with their way of conducting this business. Those who were nominated by the county council would be in the position of independent critics; whereas, under the system of nomination by the Department, if anyone of

157
the Board of Visitors made himself obnoxious, or they did not like his criticisms, it would be easy to say: "Do not nominate So-and-so; he is always asking questions, he does not agree with us, and he is always giving us trouble." He thought there should be a little independent criticism.
MR. RADFORDsaid he desired to support the Amendment. Those who were nominated might be the best men to be found, and it was quite likely that they might be the very same men who would be selected by the county council. The fact, however, that they were not nominated by the Home Secretary but chosen by the county council would give a degree of confidence which they would not otherwise possess. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
LORD R. CECILtrusted the Home Secretary would not accept the Amendment. There was no reason why this particular prison should be treated differently from any other kind of prison, or why the county council should have a special knowledge of this place of detention that they were not supposed to have in the case of an ordinary prison. It appeared to him that the Amendment was one for which there was nothing to be said, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press it.
Amendment negatived.
MR. PICKERSGILL MR. PICKERSGILL moved an Amendment providing that at least one of the Board of Visitors should be a woman. He was sure, he said, that the interests of women prisoners were somewhat neglected from the fact that there were no women in the higher ranks of prison administration. He had endeavoured to secure that there should be a woman representative on the Prison Commission, but failing that, he now thought that at least one woman should be appointed on the Board of Visitors. The Home Secretary no doubt would say that the persons sentenced to detention would be for the most part men. That might be so, but at all events there might be some women, and there would be advantage in having a woman on the Board of Visitors. He begged to move.
MR. LUPTONseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 39, after the word 'peace,' to insert the words 'and one at least shall be a woman.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEhoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment which it would be seen was not necessary if reference was made to Section 5 of Clause 12—
"The directors of convict prisons shall report periodically to the Secretary of State on the conduct and industry of persons undergoing preventive detention, and their prospects and probable behaviour on release, and for this shall be assisted by a committee at each prison in which such persons are detained, consisting of such members of the Board of Visitors and such other persons of either sex as the Secretary of State may from time to time appoint."
MR. PICKERSGILL: That is at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
MR. GLADSTONE: Quite so, but his hon. friend might take it from him that as a matter of fact ladies were allowed to visit juvenile prisoners at Wormwood Scrubbs and Borstal.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid those visitors were quite distinct from the Board of Visitors.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he could not accept the Amendment, because this particular prison would be tenanted by dangerous, violent, and habitual criminals of the older type, and he thought it would be wrong that women should necessarily be on the Board, when it was clearly shown that their admission to this class of prison might be extremely undesirable.
MR. PICKERSGILLasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 40, after the word 'prescribe,' to insert the words 'by such prison rules, as aforesaid.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. G. GREENWOOD MR. G. GREENWOOD moved to amend Clause 12, subsection (1). by substituting two years for three years as the period within which the Home Secretary shall take into consideration the condition, history, and circumstances of a person in custody under a sentence of preventive detention with a view to determining whether he shall be placed out on licence. He said the doubts which some of them had felt in regard to the sentence of preventive detention were founded not so much on any matter of principle as upon some distrust of the administration of prison officials. His Amendment merely proposed that once in every two years instead of every three years the Home Secretary should take into consideration the condition, history, and circumstances of the person undergoing preventive detention, with a view to determining whether he should be allowed out on licence, and, if so, on what conditions.
SIR W. J. COLLINSseconded.
Amendment proposeu—
"In page 7, line 2, to leave out the word 'three,' and to insert the word 'two.'"—(G. Greenwood.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he would submit to his hon. friend that this subsection was put in largely because of the indeterminate side of the Bill as it was, and the Committee required that special precautions should be taken, having regard to the fact that a man might be detained for an indeterminate time. Therefore, they had put in these safeguards. Now that they had really shortened the time materially and taken other precautions he submitted to his hon. friend that this further restriction was not necessary. It might put a great deal of rather unnecessary trouble upon the Secretary of State and the Home Office. And let him remind the House that as the Bill stood they had first of all the examination by the Secretary of State every three years in subsection (1), then the Annual Report to the Secretary of State which was presented to Parliament; there was another
160
periodical Report under the fifth subsection of the clause, and in addition to that they had the special committee which must meet at least twice every year, and could make representation as often as it liked. He thought under these circumstances they had taken all necessary precautions, and perhaps his hon. friend would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 12, to leave out from the word 'prison,' to end of line 21.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
SIR W. J. COLLINSthought the Report of the Board of Visitors should be periodical, and he proposed to provide for it in sub-clause 5 of Clause 12.
MR. ADKINSseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 27, after the word 'Prisons,' to insert the words 'and the Board of Visitors."—(Sir W. J. Collins.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONE: The Board of Visitors do under present rules report every year.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 8, line 38, at the end, to add the words '(5) The time during which a person is absent from prison under such a licence shall be treated as part of the term of preventive detention. Provided that, where such person has failed to return on the licence being forfeited or revoked, the time which elapses after his failure so to return shall be excluded in computing the unexpired residue of the term of preventive detention.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. LARDNERsaid he wished to move the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Down to omit Clause 16. Appeals against preventive detention sentences under the

161
Bill were dealt with in the same way as proceedings under Section 1 of the Crown Cases Act of 1848. The effect of that was that the only method of appeal which the prisoner had was on a case stated in the discretion of the Court on a question of law. The House would not listen for a moment to a proposal to pass the Bill into law with no other right of appeal for English prisoners than that which it was proposed to give to Irish prisoners. Let them take the position of the English criminal and contrast it with the limited right of appeal allowed to the Irish criminal. In England under the Criminal Appeal Act there was an appeal on questions of fact and mixed questions of fact and law, on the certificate of the Judge, and if refused, on application to the Court of Criminal Appeal. There was always an absolute right of appeal in questions of law, but under Section 10 of this Bill there was an absolute right of appeal without certificate or application to the Court. Moreover, the English prisoner, where there was an important point for decision and he was poor, could get the assistance of a solicitor and counsel assigned to him by the Court. What position was the illiterate Irish prisoner in? He must apply to the Court to state a case. He was without means and was unable to employ counsel and solicitor to draft a case for him, while it was a most cumbersome and unsatisfactory method. He strongly urged on the Home Secretary, while he agreed with the spirit of the Bill and the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman, that he was not treating the Irish prisoner fairly in this legislation by reference in the matter of appeal. The question whether a prisoner was persistently leading a dishonest or criminal life was one of fact on which certain Judges in Ireland under certain circumstances might take a very extreme view, but the unfortunate Irish criminal had no appeal because it was not a question of law. He strongly urged the Home Secretary to tell them what be proposed and whether he would improve the position of the Irish prisoner.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 23, to leave out Clause 16."—(Mr. Lardner.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONE: Of course I quite understand the reasoning of the hon. Member, but he takes me rather by surprise. If I had had any knowledge that that question was going to be raised I have no doubt one of my learned colleagues who represent the Irish Office would have been here to answer. I was under the impression that the Bill really was acceptable to the Irish representatives and I have reason to know it has been under their consideration. Communications of course have passed between me and the Leader of the Party, and therefore I presumed hon. Gentlemen from Ireland acquiesced in the clause. If it appears that Irish Members generally dislike the clause and wish it to be omitted that may be considered in another place, but to-night it is rather too late to consider that.
MR. LARDNER: It could be amended very easily if the right hon. Gentleman so desires. I spoke to the Irish Solicitor-General in connection with the matter.
MR. GLADSTONE: I did not quite gather the specific way in which the hon. Member proposes to amend it.
MR. LARDNER: It could be amended by giving an absolute right of appeal on questions of fact as well as of law.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,): The fact that there is no appeal on questions of fact under this Bill is due to a circumstance which is not connected with the Bill. The Irish people did not themselves desire to be included in the Criminal Appeal Bill and no Court of Appeal was established to deal with questions of fact. They have an appeal on questions of law only. It is a very comprehensive appeal, and I imagine Irish Members, if consulted, would much prefer the remedy they have under the Act to that which it is suggested they might get by way of appeal, their remedy being that they have the protection of a jury on questions of fact in the first instance. Juries in Ireland are not unduly severe. One

163
might say twelve good men and true are not likely to give a finding which would be reversed on appeal. It is rather difficult to amend the Bill because an Amendment such as is suggested would involve the creation of a new tribunal, which would be rather an extensive Amendment and would necessitate a second Bill. The Irish Members were understood not to favour the inclusion of Ireland in the Criminal Appeal Bill.
LORD R. CECILsaid the House had some little reason to complain that no representative of the Irish Office was present. He did not know why the Home Secretary should be taken by surprise by the Amendment, seeing that notice of it appeared upon the Order Paper. But apart from that he did not quite follow the Attorney-General's argument. He said Irish Members ought to be satisfied because they had the verdict of a jury.
SIR W. ROBSON: I did not say they ought to be satisfied.
LORD R. CECILsaid the point raised by the Amendment, as he understood, was that there was not equality of treatment between Ireland and England. In England they had both the verdict of the jury, and the Court of Criminal Appeal before they could be sent to detention. In Ireland they would not have any appeal on a question of fact, though they would have the verdict of a jury. That was a matter which required some answer from the Government. They made two answers—in the first place that the Amendment took them by surprise, and in the second place that the Home Secretary had been in communication with the Leader of the Irish Party, who did not raise the point. He objected to references to negotiations and conversations which had taken place outside the House being referred to with a view to prevent discussion. He disliked them as a novelty in constitutional practice, and thought it better to consider the Bill apart from consultations which had taken place outside the Chamber. It would not be reasonable to strike out this clause, because the Bill would apply to Ireland, and yet there would be no machinery provided for that.
MR. J. MACVEAGHsaid that subsection (6) of Clause 15 contained a special provision relating to Scotland. He would suggest to the Home Secretary that, between now and when the Bill reached another place, he should confer with the Law Officers for Ireland, as to the advisability of having inserted in another place a clause dealing specially with the Irish case. His hon. friend had no desire to place the Government at any disadvantage, or weaken the Act in any way, and he would be quite satisfied if the Home Secretary would give an undertaking that the matter would be considered.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he should be glad to consider whether Ireland could not be put in the same position as Scotland.
MR. LARDNERasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, line 21, to leave out the word 'January,' and insert the word 'August.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made and, Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
MR. BELLOCsaid (hat after the very full discussion they had had, he did not desire to detain the House, but, as he intended to vote against the Third Reading, he thought it was necessary for him to give his reasons for so doing. The discussion had been entirely devoid of party feeling, and had not proceeded on party lines. The discussion had been entirely devoid of any acrimony whatsoever. As they all knew, there had been throughout the discussion a genuine desire to make one type of punishment in their midst less cruel, and more humane than the rest of their penal system was. He remained convinced, in spite of the concessions and the arguments to which he had listened, that in theory, and he hoped to show also in practice, it was impossible for a man who held his views to vote

165
for the Third Reading, of the Bill, and in point of fact it was necessary for him to vote against it. In the first place, the crux of the whole debate on the general principle of Part II. still remained. It was only by a verbal quibble that they could say that the indeterminate sentence had disappeared. It was true that the indeterminate sentence no longer proceeded from the Bench. The power which the Home Secretary had to release at his discretion would be used, but it was still an indeterminate sentence. They were proposing in the Bill to set up a wholly new principle; they were proposing to copy societies far less civilised, with less traditional knowledge and complexity of situation, with less experience of mankind than their own. They were imposing a new principle altogether, and this was a position of extreme gravity. He knew this was an academic point which the House had fully discussed and he would, therefore, touch upon it most briefly. The Bill was based upon a novel theory, which, if it were developed, and held largely by our societies, would, in his opinion, transform those societies very much for the worst. In a speech, which it was no exaggeration to call the best he had heard on this matter, from the hon. Member for East Dorsetshire, he challenged him whether it was not the conclusion of what he called science that there was no line of demarcation between crime and disease, and, more, that we were coming more and more to regard crime as a form of disease, a thing to be cured rather than punished. The hon. Member for Tyneside also used that mysterious, dogmatic word, science, and said that this infallible thing, science, had decided in that way. The first tiling to seize in this, and in a great number of other modern discussions, was that there was no such thing as this dogmatic, infallible power of science laying down rules of that kind with regard to the human mind. There was a school of physical research which had come to these conclusions, but that school was not universal, and, on the whole, he should say that its power was a great deal less than it was some ten or fifteen years ago. That school was part of the spirit which ran through, he thought, too much modern University
166
work, confounding speculation and analogy with rigid proof and positive fact; and he denied that the complexities of that vast mystery were to be explained by a man of the type of Lombroso, who was at the head of that school. He asked any man who believed himself safe to look back upon the past of his own life, and say whether he did not recognise responsibility for his own actions, and whether his own wrongdoing seemed to be a disease or a voluntary act. He recognised that there were very many types of habitual crimes unsuited to public debate, which were somewhat in the nature of a disease, but that did not say that the man who always poached, or the man who was being continually committed for larceny or shop-lifting, suffered from a disease. He did not believe that, because such a man knew what he was doing every time he did it. He had laboured that point on account of its great importance. The Bill only intended to deal with a small class of people, but, small as was the class, slight as was the exception, they were brnging a wholly new principle into the practice of our law, and if this principle, on however small a scale it was to be applied, was repugnant as it was to him and to many others, it was impossible to vote for the Bill which contained it. What was the nature of the punishment it was proposed to inflict? It was all very well to call it preventive detention, and to describe the intention of the Home Secretary as being something which would turn those places into institutions a little more cheerful than the Crystal Palace, and make them places where men would live happier and brighter lives. The Home Secretary might have all those intentions, but what they were proposing was to deprive a man of his liberty and to put him under the arbitrary orders of other men—gaolers. And there was added to that yet another bad feature—the feature of anxiety. The poor fellow did not know that on a particular date he would be free. As the hon. Member for Mayo pointed out on the Second Reading, the one thing that made imprisonment tolerable and human at all, the one thing that saved our prison system from being too odious for mankind to impose it, was that it certainly came to an end at a definite period. They

167
made it infinitely worse if they added the element of anxiety. They would not reform by any method of that kind. Apart from these particular considerations, he looked with some suspicion upon these perpetual attempts to make better that very evil thing, our penal system. After all the efforts of the nineteenth century, a man was no better off in our English prisons to-day than he was 100 years ago. The chances were that the exact order of prison life, its rigid discipline, and complete segregation of the human mind, was a more awful thing than the conditions which obtained before the reforms began. He wanted to ask the House another question, and it was, who would suffer this detention under the Bill? That was a very important practical point. Who would suffer this detention? It was the type of person who was the most unfortunate among the very poor—the type of man who was a nuisance in the village or the slum, who was perpetually giving irritation to the governing and well-to-do classes. His contention was that the whittling down of the criminal law in the last 100 years had left the bulk mainly applicable to the most unfortunate of the very poor. Now and then it caught a solicitor; it had caught one lord; but in the main, when a man made a concept of the criminal there arose in his mind a member of the poorest class, and below a certain minimum of income every man felt himself somewhat in danger of our system of criminal law. It was on that account that the more this proposition got known the more it was disliked. He could assure the House that those great popular audiences which he and others had recently been addressing in the north of England would, if these proposals in Part II. were submitted to them, disapprove of them by an overwhelming majority. He instanced the case of a man named Barbour who was earning 20s. a week. He worked twelve hours a day every day. His wife contracted a painful disease from which she died. This unfortunate man was left with a few little children and he was prosecuted for neglecting them by one of those societies which were paid to produce the prosecutions which added to the misery of the poor. It was discovered
168
that the children had been well-fed, but their hair was in a dirty condition. The man was sentenced to three months hard labour by men who did not know what hard labour was. That was the type of man who would fall within the new system.
MR. GLADSTONEdissented, and said the hon. Member would find in the Schedule the crimes which would come within the scope of the scheme.
MR. BELLOCsaid that rich men, as a rule, would not come within the system. The man would not come under it who printed a piece of paper which he called a share in a property in Rhodesia, professing to give to someone vast future prospects, and then unloaded it for £8, though soon afterwards it became worth only 13s. 4d. Finally, who was to discover and decide whether the prisoner was being reformed? They were practically condemning a certain class of Englishmen to imprisonment according to the fancy or whim of prison warders, a class who had been hitherto somewhat menial, and who were notoriously hard in the treatment of those over whom they had arbitrary powers. That was an extremely dangerous precedent. The popular voice was against it, and on that ground, apart from his repugnance to the precedent, he was also against it.
MR. LYELLsaid this had been a most interesting discussion, and there had been an absence of all bitterness. There had been acute differences of opinion, but there had been no party division. The hon. Member for Salford still stoutly maintained the doctrine of free will in all instances.
MR. BELLOC: Not all instances.
MR. LYELLsaid he himself maintained that the doctrine of vengeance had got to be abandoned. He and his friends maintained that the community had a right to protect itself, and they proposed to do it in this scientific method. The hon. Member reminded him of the story of the child who, when taken to see a picture of Christian martyrdom, and invited to sympathise with the

169
Christians who were eaten by the tigers, devoted her sympathies to the poor tiger who had not got a Christian. His hon. friend's sympathies seemed to be devoted to the tiger, who was now to be prevented from continuing to prey upon the community. He differed from him completely in his view that this was going to apply to the most unfortunate. Oil the contrary, he thought the Bill was going to apply to a class who were fairly well off, who continued to plot and to plan, and to carry out a large proportion of the serious crimes which came before the Courts. He very much regretted that his right hon. friend had not accepted their Amendment which would have enabled them to deal with the habitual as well as the professional offender in a satisfactory way. But if his right hon. friend took the view that he agreed with them in principle but was unwilling to overload his Bill, there was nothing more to be said. He congratulated his right hon. friend on having carried his Bill, which he regarded as far more important than was generally thought. It was a great step forward in a cause which he and many others desired to see accomplished, viz., the breaking up of our bad old penal system, and substituting for it a new, sound, and far more scientific treatment of crime.
MR. BYLESsaid he only wished to detain the House for a few minutes in supporting the Bill which they were asked to read for the third time. He regretted very much to find himself at variance with his colleague and friend who had declared his intention of voting against the Bill, more especially as that hon. Member and himself represented what was practically the same community. The Bill was an attempt to humanise and rationalise the methods by which society dealt with its worst criminal population. It had been condemned by many hon. Members in the House, and by some prison reformers outside whose writings he always read with respect; but he believed that the Bill had been misunderstood during the debates in the House, and also by the public. He was bound to admit that the language of the measure itself did not so fully commend the Bill as
170
the speeches which had been made by the Home Secretary in explanation of its provisions. It was the effort to humanise our treatment of criminals which had attracted him to the Bill. His hon. friend the Member for South Salford had spoken of the measure as being an entirely novel measure of dealing with criminals, and thought that that was an objection to it. To his mind that was its recommendation. They had been hitherto treating prisoners in a stupid manner, but at last the reformer had come in to treat prisoners as human beings and not as outcasts of society. His hon. friend seemed to think that the prisoners who were to be sent to special detention under the provisions of this measure would be under the care of precisely the same class of ordinary prison warders who at present had not a very good name. But he would remind his hon. friend that the Home Secretary had distinctly explained that it was the intention to apply the new method of treatment in the new prison about to be erected by means of a different class of wanders, specially selected after instruction, whose duty it would be to instil moral and right principles in the minds of those who were in their charge, to promote their skill, to stimulate their industry, and to give them a fairly happy and useful life until they were fit to go back again to society. This was an attempt to extend the Borstal system to adult prisoners. Some people imagined that criminals were outcasts, without any good in them. He believed there was good in everybody, and far more good in some criminals than they were given credit for.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a division.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE and the MASTER of ELIBANK were appointed tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. BELLOC was appointed teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as the second teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

EAST INDIA LOANS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,), in moving the Second Reading, said there was no need of a long speech to commend this Bill to the favourable consideration of the House. There was no intention, he need hardly say, to borrow £25,000,000 right away. What the Bill did was to give power to borrow in this country from time to time such sums as might be necessary for railway and irrigation works and for general purposes. The total sum which would be raised under the first head was £20,000,000, and under the second £5,000,000. As the House was aware, Parliamentary sanction was needed to enable the Secretary of State for India to borrow money in this country; and it was the practice every few years for Bills of this sort to be passed. The limitation of the power of the Indian Government to borrow in this country was inherited from the old East India Company. The last general Loan Act was in 1898, and the last Railway Loans Act was in 1905. The Memorandum attached to the Bill showed hon. Members how the money borrowed under this last statute had been spent, and he did not think he need dwell upon that. The loans available under that Act for railway purposes had been raised and spent, and money was wanted now and more money for similar purposes, and the Memorandum indicated the object for which the money was needed, and the principle upon which it would be expended in future. He would like to point out to those interested in railway development that the Bill marked an advance upon railway policy as compared with that of the last Railway Loans Act of 1905. There, had been complaints from time to time that there had been insufficient capital expenditure upon railways in India. When the present Secretary of State came into office a, very important deputation waited upon him and pressed this matter upon his consideration, and in consequence of their representations a Committee was appointed by Lord Morley and presided over by Sir J. Mackay. The interesting Report of that Committee,
172
which was printed and circulated about six months ago, recommended very strongly a much more energetic railway programme, the reorganisation of the Railway Board in India, and more liberal expenditure of capital on railways. The recommendations, so far as concerned the Railway Board in India, had already been carried out with the approval of most of those interested in railway matters both in India and at home, and by the passing of the present Bill it was the intention of the Government to carry out, as far as may be, the financial recommendations of that Report as well. He would ask hon. Members to look at the first part of the Memorandum and they would see the two specific requirements for which ready money was wanted in the ensuing year, although the sums that would possibly be required under this head were smaller than under the Act of 1905. In all probability they should only have to find money for the discharge of about 1,000,000 Debenture Bonds maturing, mainly of the Madras Railway Company, for the time that this Bill would last. Secondly, it was possible there might be repayment of capital by the Secretary of State to the India Midland, and South Indian railways on the termination of their contracts at the end of 1910. He said possible expenditure of that money, because the Secretary of State in Council had not been able to arrive at any conclusion as to whether he should exercise his right or not. It could not be exercised before the end of 1910, and there was plenty of time for the Council to come to a decision. In any event, whether they had to exercise the power or not they should have a much larger balance over for general railway capital expenditure than was available under the 1905 Act for construction, extension and equipment. The question immediately arose, had new construction and extension or the better equipment of existing lines the first claim? At the end of 1907 there were in all India upwards of 30,000 miles of railway open, a great achievement, and in the course of the present year, down to 31st October, 384 miles had been added to the total. Of course, much more remained to be done. There were many districts—vast districts—in India, which still had no railway communication with the rest

173
of India, and with the centres of population, and of commerce, and there were many branch lines to be constructed along the great routes. There was before them, in fact, in the future, an almost unlimited extension of railways to meet the needs of the vast population. There was, however, a general consensus of opinion amongst those most capable of judging, and this was supported by the recommendation of the Committee to which he had referred, that the most clamant need of the moment to which capital ought to be applied was the better equipment of existing lines, rather than the building of new lines. It was no good having railways if they were not properly equipped for the traffic they had to carry. In recent years there had been great commercial prosperity, as shown in the increased earnings of the railways, and although there had been a falling off in railway receipts in the last few months owing to the famine and internal causes, in all probability this was only a temporary set-back, and it was their duty to provide for the return of more prosperous times. Of the bulk, therefore, of the capital expenditure of the immediate future, it was proposed that three-fourths or four-fifths should be devoted to the better equipment of existing lines, such as providing heavier tracks, stronger girders for bridges, doubling of lines near the large centres of population, extension of station yards, and, above all, the increase of rolling stock. The latter had been found insufficient to cope with the vast increase of traffic that had come upon the Indian railways in recent years. Hon. Members were not to imagine that they had not been alive to that need in past years. So far as the resources of the Secretary of State had gone, they had been moving in that direction for several years past. So far as these resources went, he had figures of the capital expenditure of the last three years, and it amounted to nearly £30,000,000. Of that 29 per cent. had been spent upon the construction of new lines, and 71 per cent. on the average upon equipment and new rolling stock. That was in three years, but he would point out that last year the percentage for equipment and rolling stock was 76 per cent. They looked forward
174
to going on in that direction and devoting to that purpose even a larger amount than at the present moment. He would refer hon. Members to a very interesting table at the beginning of the Indian Railway Administration Report of last year. They would observe that the curves of gross earnings and capital expenditure went on steadily increasing almost pari passu from 1853 to 1903. On and after 1903 the capital outlay had not been able to keep pace with its friend and rival gross earnings. They wanted the capital expenditure on Indian railways to keep pace again with the growth of their gross earnings. He would have been tempted, had time permitted, to dwell upon other aspects of the subject, and to note some of the political and social effects of railways in India, and to speculate as to the future; to touch, too, on the profitable nature of the railways as commercial undertakings, and the surplus they had rendered to the Government in past years. He might, however, say a few words on a subject of great interest in dealing with this matter, viz., the condition of the debt in India. We had reason to be proud of the example which India set us in regard to her small unproductive debt, and of the creditable way in which she always paid her way. The total debt of India on 31st March last amounted to £246,000,000. Of that, £176,600,000 was railway debt; £29,500,000 was irrigation debt; and only £40,000,000 was non-productive debt corresponding to the National Debt of this country. That non-productive debt only absorbed about 3 per cent. of their net revenue, whereas the unproductive debt of the United Kingdom absorbed 15 or 16 per cent. That was a very creditable result for India. The expenditure upon railways yielded profit to the State and a good percentage on the investments, and the expenditure on irrigation likewise yielded a very satisfactory return.
MR. SMEATONwas understood to inquire by how much did the proceeds of railways and canals exceed the amount payable for debts.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that they got from railways in recent years a net revenue of about £2,000,000 per annum and from

175
irrigation they got a revenue of about £1,000,000 per annum. He should like to say a word about the expenditure upon irrigation. There were those who perhaps thought that they did not spend enough on irrigation works. So far as this Bill was concerned, the capital expenditure on major irrigation works out of loan money that they contemplated was about £1,000,000 per annum. The net revenue from major works last year was no less than £1,250,000. It was £200,000 less than the previous year, but larger than the average of the last half-dozen years, which would be about £950,000. The area irrigated had steadily increased, and the sum of £1,000,000 which he had mentioned was by no means all that they spent. The Budget Estimate of this year was half as much again for minor and protective works, or £1,490,000, and there was also as the House was aware an expenditure from provincial revenues for the same purpose. The great authority on this matter was Sir Colin Scott-Moncrieff, and he issued a Report on this matter in 1903. They were proceeding on the lines of Sir Colin Scott-Moncrieffs Report. As hon. Members who were acquainted with that Report would know, in forecasting the future, he contemplated the expenditure of £29,500,000 to extend over twenty years for these major works, or about £1,500,000 per annum. He put a caution, however, in his Report, which showed that he appreciated that they might be a considerable time before they could work up to that figure, because the plans and surveys of the great works he proposed to construct would need a great deal of time to draw up, and to obtain the labour for constructing them. They, however, were steadily pursuing the lines of his policy. The accounts they got were most satisfactory of the work that had been done. They were going along as continuously as they could on that policy, and attacking in detail one after another the more important works that he recommended. He came to the general purposes part of the Bill, for which they asked leave to borrow up to the sum of £5,000,000. That was included in Clause 4. The last Act under which they had general powers was the Act of 1898. Until 1905, East India Loan Bills were of two kinds.
176
They were either Bills to borrow specific sums of money for specific railway works, or they were loan Bills for the service of the Government of India, which they here described as "General Purposes." In 1905 such pressure was being put on the Secretary of State for larger capital expenditure on railways that he wisely brought forward a separate Bill for general capital expenditure on railways and irrigation only. They had at the present time available general borrowing powers under the Act of 1898, but they were less than they appeared in the Memorandum. In the last paragraph of the Memorandum they were put at £3,800,000, but they were obliged to issue new bills in the month of November to the extent of £2,500,000 under this Act, so that the balance of borrowing powers they had now was £1,300,000. That was an illustration of the purposes to which in the main borrowing powers under the 1898 Act had been applied, and to which in the main the £5,000,000 which was asked for in this Bill would also be applied. The power that they enjoyed under the 1898 Act was a power enjoyed by this country and by every other self-governing community. In the course of the year when the balances were not very large they might have charges come upon them which they had to meet, and they had to borrow money for that purpose. As everyone knew, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was frequently obliged to go into the market and issue Treasury Bills, and in the same way, the Indian Government was frequently obliged to go into the market in order to issue India Bills, and in the month of November they had to issue £2,500,000 worth and in June £2,000,000 worth of India Bills. It might be asked why they wanted this power. It was to meet emergencies which any Government might have to meet. Some of those emergencies were great, some small. The only great emergency that he was aware of that had had to be met out of borrowed money since the 1898 Act was in consequence of the famines of 1898 and 1900. They were very severe famines, and the Secretary of State was obliged to borrow over here about six millions of money. He quite properly treated that as a temporary loan and was able in a comparatively

177
short time to repay more than half of it, but £2,800,000 of that money still remained as an addition to permanent debt. The only other sum within recent years which they could treat as a permanent addition to debt was an amount of £1,400,000 for railways, and they were entitled to do that, because when this Act was passed the general capital expenditure necessary for railways was included in the powers given by it.
MR. SMEATON: What became of the famine insurance fund of £1,500,000 reserved to that particular purpose.
MR. BUCHANAN: That was absorbed at the time. His hon. friend asked for a complete account of all the transactions under the Act of 1898. It was impossible, to give that, but the general results could be summed up. He had given the only two specific transactions which had added permanently to the debt.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEForest of Dean)said £2,000,000 had been borrowed since this Bill was laid before the House. They wanted to know what that was for.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that was an issue of India Bills under the Act of 1898.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid the words were "general" and "other" purposes, and the earlier words were "irrigation and railway" purposes. £2,000 000 had been recently borrowed under the Act of 1898, and they wanted to know what that was for, otherwise they could not understand the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. BUCHANANregretted that his explanation was not clear. They had made two issues of India Bills this year for £2,000,000 and for £2,500,000. Both issues were under the 1898 Act, though the latter was made after this Bill was printed.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: What for?
MR. BUCHANAN: To meet charges over here.
SIR F. BANBURY: What charges?
MR. BUCHANAN: Home charges which are constantly paid over here on behalf of the Government of India.
SIR F. BANBURY: Why are those charges not met out of revenue? They ought to be met out of revenue, and now I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say he has met them out of capital, and that he has borrowed £2,000,000 in order to meet them.
MR. BUCHANANsaid they were only being met out of borrowed money temporarily. It was the constant and necessary practice of every Government. The general result of all the transactions under the 1898 Act was that at the present moment they had only £1,300,000 available margin of borrowing power to go upon, and they asked for £5,000,000 more, but they certainly expected to repay very shortly not only the £2,500,000 recently borrowed but also the £2,000,000 which he had previously mentioned. The powers which the Indian Government were here asking for under Clause 4 were only the ordinary powers which every Government must have. He did not think anyone could say that the powers which they had had in the past had in any way been abused. The whole sum of the matter was that under Clause 3 they were asking for power to borrow another £20,000,000 for the purposes of the 1905 Act, and under Clause 4 another £5,000,000 for the purposes of the 1898 Act. The powers under these Acts had been carefully exercised, and he believed the additional money they now asked for would also be carefully used. He begged to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
DR. RUTHERFORDsaid that, in moving that the Bill should be read that day three months, he was following a good precedent. When the 1898 Bill was introduced by the late Government, an Amendment was moved by Sir William Wedderburn to the effect that the House declined to

179
sanction a sterling loan of £10,000,000 until a Select Committee, on an examination of the East India accounts, should have reported that such loan was in the interest of the Indian taxpayer and would not unduly increase the burden he now sustained. That Amendment was rejected, but in the minority there voted the present President of the Local Government Board, the Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1898 Lord George Hamilton, who was Secretary of State for India, used a substantial argument by saying that a considerable portion of the money was to pay off loans at high rates of interest and in that way reduce the interest on the debt and the indebtedness of the Indian taxpayer. He did not understand the Under-Secretary to make that point, which, after all, was a very solid and important argument. Who had been asking for this great extension of railways towards which the chief portion of the money was to go? The Under-Secretary seemed co suggest that pressure had been brought to bear upon the Secretary of State by financiers, traders, and chambers of commerce. Had any representations been made by representative Indian public bodies asking for this large expenditure for the extension and improvement of railways? So far as he could make out, the present railway system was excellent and adequate and there were far more pressing needs for money. The Under-Secretary had told them that £1,000,000 a year would be set aside out of the loan for irrigation. All Indians felt that irrigation was one of the great sources of salvation of the country. It was perhaps the best preventive measure against famine, and it would be infinitely better and wiser for the Secretary of State for India to recommend the Government to spend much larger sums on irrigation than upon railway extension. He would not dwell upon education, but they realised that in four out of five villages there was no school, and they knew that less than £2,000,000 a year was spent on education whilst £20,000,000 was spent on the Army. Surely it would be wiser if some portion of the money was dedicated to education
180
rather than to railways. He might say the same with regard to irrigation. They wanted to prevent plague, malaria, cholera, and other great and devouring diseases, and money was essential to carrying out great sanitary schemes. They, therefore, asked the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary to use their influence with the Indian Government to apply the money to more wise and beneficent causes than were suggested in the Bill. They were standing on historic ground when they moved the rejection of the Bill and said that the supplies of money should not be granted until great grievances were redressed, and that there should be no taxation without representation. He would not dwell at length on that second great principle, because they all understood that the Secretary of State in another place was going to make a declaration of the Government's policy with regard to the great scheme which would incorporate reforms for giving the people of India a larger share in the government of their own country; but would it not be better to postpone the present Bill till those reforms were carried through and the Indians had an opportunity of expressing their opinions, sentiments, and wishes in regard to it? He was sure that would be in the interests of the good government of India, and would have a very beneficent influence upon public opinion there. The first grievance to which he wished to draw attention was the grievance of the House in relation to the Government of India. They were, so far as he could make out, treated in a very contemptuous fashion; they were either ignored or muzzled, and in many ways they had not the opportunity of expressing an unbiassed opinion upon great events in India. He would take the Partition of Bengal as an instance. They were told that the assent of the House of Commons was not required to that Act, although no Act was ever carried through more damaging to British prestige and British authority. It was a humiliating position for the House of Commons to occupy, and they protested and rebelled against it. They came there as Liberals, as Democrats, and as Labour representatives, and they said it was an intolerable form of Government, and that until India

181
had representative government they must have a deciding voice in reference to the great questions of Indian Government. The reform proposals, for instance, were to be introduced in the other House, and they were to be debarred from debating them altogether this year, although they all knew how important it was they should express their opinions upon what was happening in India to-day, and that the House would render magnificent service if it took part in the debate on the reforms which were to be placed before the House of Lords. They had not come there to be dummies. They had come there to represent the people of the country, who would never be satisfied if the House of Commons was muzzled and not allowed a fair opportunity of debating important questions in reference to the Empire. Two years ago, the Secretary of State declined to put his salary on the Estimates. He thought that was a fatal error. The salary of every other Secretary of State was on the Estimates. He knew that Lord Morley used the argument—an extremely feeble one—that India should not be a party question. Whenever anything excellent was done for India, it was done through the medium of a party. The reform scheme which Lord Morley was going to produce next week would be the result of a Liberal Government as opposed to the reactionary methods carried out by the late Tory Government. It was only in accord with Liberal and constitutional principles that the Secretary of State's salary should be put on the Estimates. The next grievance to which he wished to draw attention was in reference to the Indian taxpayer and the British taxpayer as well, so far as Indian expenditure was concerned. In 1870 the expenditure on the Indian army was £12,000,000; in 1880, £17,000,000; in 1890, £15,000,000; in 1900, £15,000,000; and in 1906, £20,000,000. If India was perfectly safe ten years ago with an expenditure of £15,000,000, surely £20,000,000 was an exorbitant and extravagant sum now that there was room for reduction. The Liberal policy was not only peace and reform, but also retrenchment; and there was a great opportunity for retrenchment. His complaint against the present Government was that they had adopted the
182
Tory policy of previous years with fatal consequences both in India and this country so far as social reforms were concerned. The risks of the invasion of India were less than ever. The nightmare of a Russian attack had been removed, and they were not likely to have invasion by any other Power. The Anglo-Japanese alliance gave us a great opportunity for reduction in military expenditure, because, if the Indian Empire were attacked, Japan would render us service. There was, however, one objection raised, and with some people it seemed to have weight. They said there was a danger of mutiny. He did not think they understood the situation. The national movement was almost entirely constitutional, and the vast majority of these politicians desired attachment to England, and only asked for Home Rule in some form or other. Here was a grand opportunity for the Government to reduce military expenditure. He hoped they would be equal to the occasion and would bring down the cost of the Army very considerably in India. He would have liked to have made a special appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because on the linked-battalion system any reduction in the number of the Indian Army permitted a corresponding reduction in the Home Army. He knew he wanted large sums of money next year for old-age pensions and other purposes, and here was a means of getting from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 a year. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be on the track of his right hon. friend Lord Morley and see that the Liberal Party were not disappointed in this source of saving. It was a great sorrow and disappointment to Liberals to find £300,000 additional cost of the Indian Army through the acceptance of Lord Romer's Commission's Report. Lord Morley should have stood out against that, and have rejected it at all costs and hazards. They must remember that the Welby Commission recommended that the British Government should undertake more responsibility in the upkeep of the Army in India, and, after all, the Indian Army was used for great Imperial purposes in Somaliland, in China, and other parts of the world On 15th October the Under-Secretary

183
said he believed the Government of India had assented to the increase. But on 3rd December he understood that a despatch was received from the Government of India strongly protesting. They were there as the Liberal Party to support that protest, and they trusted the Government would favourably reconsider that decision, and that they would no longer hear of this extra charge being thrown on the Indian taxpayers. Another question he wished to ask was how much of the expenditure was for railway extension for strategic purposes. He did not know that this was the time to dwell upon these railways, but there was a very sad and a bad side to them. If they penetrated other people's territory with strategic railways or otherwise they must create bad blood and frequently lead to war, and he thought some of the recent wars on the North-West frontier must have arisen partly out of these unfortunate extensions of strategic railways. He trusted no money would be spent in that direction. One further point as far as Indian policy was concerned. The Government of this country was extremely strong and determined as to loans. They had been denounced by the late Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister in the very strongest terms. Practically it was a Tory method of managing finance, rotten to the core. They did not like to see it established in England, and they questioned whether it was wise to continue a policy of loans for India, especially for non-productive purposes. He opposed the Bill on the ground that it was against the highest interests of Great Britain and India, was in defiance of the best traditions of Liberal finance, and in violation of the principle that representation should accompany taxation.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEForest of Dean)said it was no ordinary sense of responsibility that surrounded a debate at that moment upon Indian affairs. He was one of those who had taken no part in Indian debates in the present Parliament, although keenly sensitive of our duty towards the people. It was felt by those especially who by generations of connection with that
184
country had more or less been brought up among the people of India, and he felt it impossible not to speak when that was being done which had lately been done in connection with Indian finance and which, dangerous and unjust at any moment, was specially unjust and dangerous at the present moment. Some of his friends had cheered statements of which on mature consideration he was sure they would not approve. It might be questioned whether it was wise that Indian affairs should be discussed now, but his hon. friend behind him must know that the statement which he so highly disapproved, that there should be some annual occasion upon the Votes when the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion, not on Indian finance only, but upon all Indian affairs, freely, in the usual way applicable to other parts of the Empire—to the Colonies themselves—with the unanimous recommendation—
MR. REES: To what statement of mine does the right hon. Baronet refer?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid that when it was just now suggested that there should be a Vote on the Estimates for India, and stated that that had been absolutely refused by the Government, his hon. friend cheered and agreed in the refusal. He must know that that was a matter in which he had the whole weight of Indian opinion and home statesmen against him, for it was the one point on which the Commission, which differed on every other point, was unanimous. The Commission was specially appointed on that very question. He heard his hon. friend next but one to him cheer just now. He appeared to dissent from the opinion that there could be any reduction in Indian expenditure. The Japanese Alliance had removed no danger, because there was none of external invasion, and he agreed that the Japanese Alliance could not have been utilised for that purpose if there had been. Why was the Indian Army kept up on an extravagant scale as compared with that which we could afford here in this richer part of the world, and altogether out of proportion to that which we dared to ask the Crown Colonies to contribute?

185
Why should there be a two to one different scale between Ceylon and India? There were dozens of military demands which had been made in this country and rejected year by year upon the ground of cost. But in India there was no opportunity of debating, there was no Parliament and there was no popular representation; he did not advocate it, he was not an Indian Parliamentarian; but the fact of the non-existence of representation forced upon the House the responsibility for stating what they thought to be the truth, and putting it before the House for discussion. He was not an economist. He had never professed to be one. He was not pledged to retrenchment even in this country. But they had a higher responsibility in regard to India than they had to their own constituents who could turn them out if they differed. That fact compelled them to see that India was not taxed for military expenditure on a scale which they would not adopt for themselves, and which they could not enforce upon the Crown Colony by the side of India. On this occasion the whole policy of India was open to them. There had never been any subject connected with the policy of India ruled out of order on a Bill similar to this. On two occasions there had been attempts to do so, but they had failed. Mr. Gladstone had discussed on a Bill like this the whole frontier expeditions of the Indian Government, and every general question had been discussed upon them. His own feeling was that it was so easy to do harm and so difficult to be sure that one was doing good that he did not intend to discuss Indian policy or to anticipate the discussion on Indian reform which would be taken on another Bill; but as regarded finance, he thought it was their bounden duty to put before the House considerations which this Bill forced upon them, especially those affecting strategic railways and military finance. He was quite sure the India Office could not approve of recent railway extensions on the extreme frontiers. He was certain that neither the Secretary of State nor the Under-Secretary, nor the permanent officials at home, could approve that course of action if it was not forced upon them from India. The prevailing opinion
186
among the highest officials was against most recent extension of these strategic railways. He did not hesitate to say that it, like the re-distribution scheme which involved India in so much expenditure on new barracks, and which would have been larger still if it had not been stopped in some most foolish points, was entirely due to Lord Kitchener, new to India and much more rash when he first got there than he was now. There had been absolute secrecy maintained in India and here with regard to these newest railways and in regard to these new stations involved in the redistribution scheme. It had been impossible to extract any information from the Government in regard to it, and it was difficult to dissociate in one's mind that which one knew confidentially, very often from foreign sources, from that which one knew from any source which was open to the public here. Officially one knew nothing, but Questions had been asked, and the Answers had shown that a policy had been pursued, which had been generally condemned by experienced opinion in India, and which was, at all events, inappropriate to present conditions, of placing a very large proportion of the Army in most unpopular stations, hated by white troops and natives alike, on the extreme frontier in places like the new cantonment proposed in Beluchistan, south-west of Quetta. These worst cases had been given up, but even in regard to them they had never been able to produce a positive pledge from the Government that these foolish schemes would not be set on foot again. The railways which had been parrly made were connected with them and had no meaning except in connection with them, and they had been built, of course, out of the general railway system of India and were not separated from the ordinary commercial railways which they were developing by that Bill. They were purely strategic and were only for use in some impossible circumstances. As to the railway along the Kabul River gorge, he ventured to prophesy to the authorities concerned when the first Khyber War took place that the second would follow, and it did follow in two months time. It was caused entirely by a military survey in force of a district in which we could have

187
no military interest in making a railway at all. The railway led nowhere, because the Torsappa cantonment was now given up. This was the only opportunity he knew of on which these matters could be considered by the House, and in India they could not be considered at all. They were bound to take this opportunity or it would never be taken by anyone—it was nobody's business—and these matters passed without the slightest protest. The Under-Secretary was a member of the Indian Expenditure Commission and his action in that House had been dignified and consistent, and the defence he had offered of the Bill was perfectly applicable to the larger portion of it, but it covered parts of which he did not speak, and which were open to charges which he understood as well as any of them. It was the general expenditure part of which he spoke, because the strategic railways were only a small portion. In his speech the Under-Secretary mentioned the financial difficulty caused by famine, and his hon. friend the Member for the Montgomery Boroughs said there had been no famine in India and never was. That was rather straining at the gnat. This was given as the ground for the failure of Indian finance partly, but more especially of provincial finance. His hon. friend had pointed I out in supplementary Questions by the dozen that plague—he did not mean the plague of supplementary Questions—in India was unimportant as compared with other diseases. There had been a most unfortunate increase of plague, but on the top of that the death rate had been increasing so fast that without plague the state of things was terrible.
MR. REESsaid that what he objected to was the assertion, or the implication, that the plague was invented by the British Government.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreplied that it appeared to him to be a great pity that an hon. Member of the House, on the rare occasions when India occupied its mind—and who, to some extent, shared along with himself the good things which came from India—should not feel a special responsibility in regard to facts which were beyond dispute. Under those circumstances it was their
188
duty to strain a point in favour of the people of India. But the hon. Member went beyond the Government of India, for they admitted that plague and famine were the most frightful calamities and were at the bottom of all the troubles they had had. The question of military expenditure and Indian finance was specially before them that day, and they had to consider the effect of Lord Kitchener's redistribution scheme. The military expenditure of India was being kept up on a scale, admirable in a military sense, but impossible in Europe, and unnecessary in a country where a foreign attack could not speedily be made. Surely they were erring on the side of extravagant expenditure, and this was a subject demanding their immediate attention. Although there had been at least one unnecessary frontier war provoked, they were having a continuance of strategic railways on the extreme frontier in which no one but Lord Kitchener could say he profoundly believed, and this policy was being pushed forward by Lord Kitchener's will alone against the opinion of all sane men connected with the Government of India. They had on the top of all this the Report of the Romer Commission, which some people were simple enough to believe at one time was appointed for the purpose of alleviating the charge on the people of India. Let the House remember the history of this military charge. As his hon. friend had already said it was entirely without precedent, and there was nothing like it in any other country in the world. They did not make anything like that charge, or anything approaching it, in any Crown Colony. India, had to pay every farthing of her military expenditure, and although her contribution towards the Fleet seemed small, nevertheless, it was on a far larger scale than that which was paid by any Colony. India's home military expenditure was on a scale unequalled in the world, and she had to pay every farthing of it herself. She had to pay the cost or the soldiers from the moment they set foot upon her transports to the moment they returned; and not content with that, India had been charged in addition a lump sum of £750,000 a year for the recruiting and training of the men in this country before

189
they were sent out. That was the system which had been forced upon the Government of India. That system had been protested against in the Report of every Commission and Committee which had considered the subject, and all perfectly impartial persons, including Conservative and Unionist writers in the Press, had joined with the Indian Government in condemning this military charge, and there was a general feeling that it ought to be got rid of. Against the wish of the Government of India the Commission to which he had referred had charged India £300,000 a year more in addition to the previous military charge. This was entirely without precedent, and it was a burden which the Government dared not inflict upon any other part of the Empire. He confessed that it did seem to him to be a most stupendous act of folly to add to a charge which already stood so universally condemned. They were raising under this Bill £1,000,000 for irrigation and about £9,000,000 in all for general purposes. They had been told that Indian military expenditure was to be diminished. They were told so before the Resolution was passed by the House, which was allowed to pass without debate. He had endeavoured as briefly as possible to lay his case before the House, and he had purposely avoided the discussion of Indian policy as a whole, because of the deep sense which he had that such a discussion at the present moment was likely to do harm and was unlikely to do good. The military expenditure of India had reached a scale which even he, who was considered an extravagant person in military matters, could not defend, and hon. Members must stand stupified at the possibility of having to defend such an enormous military charge. There had been a certain amount of juggling with figures. When a few members of the Viceroy's Council had been bold enough—not to raise the question of these strategic railways or the frontier war, which, in his opinion, that
190
policy had caused; not to raise the question of the cantonments, except by a question which produced the information that one of the places chosen was entirely without a drop of water—but when they raised the vague and general question of the amount of increase of the Indian charge caused by Lord Kitchener's policy during the last five years, they had been told that there was an increase, but it was not so great as it was supposed. What ground was there for that increase? What ground could possibly be alleged in the House for continuing that increase by building barracks on the extreme frontier when there was no immediate danger? [Cries of "Yes."] There was no danger of foreign invasion. That idea had been ridiculed even by the Leader of the Opposition. If there was a danger at present it was that of civil sedition in India, but that was a reason against the policy which was being pursued, and it was no reason for placing the best part of the army in unpopular stations on the extreme frontier. That fact was admitted by all who knew the military state of India. There was really nothing more to say upon the administrative point. It was alleged that the permanent charge on India which Lord Kitchener's policy had involved was not so large as some had said. It was difficult to get the exact figure, but undoubtedly there had been a considerable increase in the charge. In replies on the cost of the British Army India was clean forgotten; left out of account. Of course, it could not be, because there was no line to be drawn between the British Army at home and the British Army out there. The cost of the Indian Army, enormous as it was, greatly and permanently increased as it had been in the last five years, did not show all. For transport in India we relied very largely upon the camel and other transport which was provided by the Imperial Service Troops of the Native States, and they,

191
like the military police and the strategic railways, were not charged in the account. He was one of those who shrank from the responsibility of speaking at this moment of Indian policy, but they could not ignore the fact that we were unable, in certain portions of the Empire, to give the full protection of the British power to our Indian native subjects. But, if we could not remedy that grievance, and it was an undoubted grievance pressing at this moment upon the whole Indian people, above all we should avoid the imposition of a new grievance upon them. And he confessed that the decision of the Romer Commission, in the teeth of all the evidence that had previously been produced, against the protests of the Government of India, to increase a charge already indefensible, a charge which we dare not put upon any other portion of the Empire, appeared to be the deliberate creation, behind the back of Parliament, and without the knowledge of the people of India until it was done, of a new and fresh grievance which might easily have been avoided. Every member of the Commission on which his right hon. friend the Under-Secretary for India sat proposed financial relief upon this military point, and the principles upon which they proposed this relief were applicable to the situation now. He was quite sure, whatever his right hon. friend might have to say, that he could not really have changed the opinion, which all the Commission in greater or less degree entertained, that this charge—to use the Under-Secretary's words—had no parallel and would never be made if we were starting now de novo. It was not done against any other portion of the Empire. They had so deep a responsibility for the affairs of India at the present time that even those of them who shrank from the full force of that responsibility in discussing these affairs as a whole, fearing they might unwittingly do harm, felt forced to
192
enter a protest against treatment which might create a grievance additional to any which had existed up to the present time.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Dr. Rutherford.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
EARL PERCYexpressed the hope that the House would not refuse to give a Second Reading to the Bill, which was admittedly one of urgency and might, he thought, have been pressed forward earlier in the session. The right hon. Baronet had discussed many important questions deserving careful consideration, questions which could hardly be discussed profitably without some warning that they were to be raised. It must be obvious that they could hardly be discussed properly in the hour and three quarters available in that debate. When the right hon. Baronet reminded them that they had not had the advantage of his participation in the debates on Indian affairs, he could not quite understand why he had selected that occasion for a disquisition on all those subjects which, although excessively interesting, had in some cases a very remote bearing on the subject matter of the present Bill. The Secretary of State was not asking for powers of a new kind, and if he were to make any criticism of the Bill it would be that he thought the demands somewhat erred on the side of moderation. He could not help thinking that the money to be used for railways would prove inadequate in view of the recommendations for new construction and the fact that a certain amount was to be set apart for irrigation. He hoped it was an indication that the Government of India looked forward to being able to raise a larger proportion of these loans from India in future—thus

193
depriving the agitation of a familiar and absurd subject of misrepresentation and giving the great mass of the Indian people a more direct stake in the stability of their institutions. The only practical result of refusing a Second Reading would be to deprive the Indian people of the means they needed to develop the material resources of their country.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that this was a Bill to enable the Government of India to borrow £25,000,000. That money was to be raised for two specific purposes and one not specified. The two specific purposes were railways and irrigation. It was not his intention at that hour of the evening to go into the general argument as to the condition of India. As to Army expenditure in India, India had to pay not only the whole military cost of her own defence, but also for wars carried on beyond the frontiers of India, wars in which the Indian people had no concern, but in which Indian troops were employed. As illustrations of that statement he would mention the wars in China and in South Africa. He believed that £20,000,000 had been spent on wars beyond the Indian frontier in which Indian soldiers had been engaged, and for which the people of India had to pay. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Viewed from the standpoint of the Indian peasant, the modern railway was a very doubtful blessing. It enabled the grain which was grown in plentiful seasons to be carried off, so that in the seasons of scarcity there were no reserves to fall back upon as in the pre-railway days. The railways and the commerce following in the wake of them, had increased the cost of living; and also had increased the revenue derivable from the land. Every improvement, indeed, in the Indian railway system tended to increase the amount of revenue which the peasants were called upon to pay. Therefore the existence of a huge railway system in India was not an unmixed
194
blessing to the natives. There was one aspect in connection with the working of the railways in India to which he desired to direct the attention of the House. He meant the treatment meted out on the railways to native gentlemen as compared with Europeans. On all the principal railways there were carriages especially set apart for European travellers; and at all the big railway stations there were special waiting-rooms and other accommodation and conveniences also for them. Anyone, no matter how poor or illiterate he might be, who happened to be a European, if travelling on the railway was entitled to the use of the special carriages, the special waiting-rooms, and other facilities at the stations. Whereas, the greatest Indian noble when travelling had to be content with the accommodation provided for the natives. A very striking case which was well known in India, and which ought to be better known in this country, illustrated the method in which the educated Indian was treated when travelling on his own railways. An Indian gentleman, who received a title at the hands of Her late Majesty, Queen Victoria, who was a convert to Christianity, and was well known for his activity in mission work, whose sons were educated in England, one of them marrying an English lady, went to meet one of his sons returning from his college career in England. In the same compartment with him were two British officers. At a junction the son was entering the compartment where his father was seated, and the two British officers, although the compartment was not reserved for Europeans, objected to what they called "another black dog" coming into the same compartment with them. That was no isolated case. It was a matter of almost daily occurrence. There was a good deal of discontent in India in regard to various matters, but there were few points on which the educated native felt more keenly than this attempt to

195
treat him as a "nigger," as he was frequently called in his own country by those who ruled over him. Passing to the irrigation works, these were mainly regarded as revenue raising methods. The works were a credit to all connected with them, engineers and officials alike. Eighteen months ago there was alleged to be a seditious movement rampant in the North-West of India, but the real explanation was that a Bill had been passed adding 50 per cent. to the water rate charged under an irrigation scheme. The ryots refused to pay the rate and agitated against it, until in the end the Bill had to be withdrawn. When it was remembered that the net revenue from irrigation, as explained by the Under-Secretary for India, varied between £750,000 and £1,250,000 a year, it would be seen that the charges must in themselves have been excessive. From in formation supplied to him he believed it was the case in the North and North-West of India that the interest on the capital sum of these irrigation works ran from 25 to 30 per cent., and therefore the benefit which natives would otherwise derive from irrigation was absorbed to maintain the increasing military expenditure of the country. One other point in regard to irrigation. The complaint, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of it, was frequent and general, that, whilst enormous sums of money were spent in what he would call major irrigation works, the smaller works, of which there were tens of thousands scattered all over India, were allowed to fall into a state of neglect for lack of means to keep them in proper repair. He suggested that instead of spending these large sums on large schemes, and starving the small village works, money should be supplied to keep the latter in order; because it was upon them that the peasants depended for water to keep their crops growing. If this Bill got a second reading he should put down Amendments
196
to endeavour to secure that both the railways and irrigation works should not be used as a means, in the case of railways of insulting the people of India riding on their own railways in their own country, and in the case of irrigation works, of extorting further revenue from an already poor and overtaxed people. He hoped that the result of the debate would be that even now the reforms which were to be laid before another place by the Secretary of State for India would first be submitted to this House, if only in the form of Parliamentary Papers. It was surely an innovation that great Parliamentary reforms with regard to India were to be submitted to and discussed in another Chamber, while this House was refused an opportunity of considering them this session. After all was said and done, the House of Commons was the guardian not only of the financial interests of this country, but of those of India. The fact that the people of India had no effective say, or rather absolutely no say whatever, on the expenditure of the revenue drawn from them made it still more incumbent that this House, before further powers were granted for raising money, should have guarantees that the money to be raised would be used for the benefit of the people of India. The hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Forest of Dean, as one who took a great part in connection with Indian affairs in this House. The hon. Member was one of the men who should have a kindly feeling towards the land to which he owed so much. It was not merely his past career; but at this moment the hon. Member was drawing revenue from the people of India, and the service he rendered in return was to malign and misrepresent them on every opportunity which the forms of the House afforded. He trusted that this debate would have the effect of imposing upon the Government a sense of the fact that whatever might have been the

197
case in the past, the situation in India was growing so serious that this House of Commons could not afford to let any of these questions pass without discussion, or to allow Indian finance to remain without control. He believed the Indian people to be a loyal people; he knew them to be intensely devoted both to this country and to the Throne, but the treatment meted out to them in the past had begun to strain their loyalty. It was because he desired to see India remain loyal to the British connection and the legitimate grievances of the Indian people redressed in this House that he hoped the Motion of the hon. Gentleman would receive such large support as would indicate to that people that the day of apathy and indifference on the part of this House was passed.
MR. REEScommented on the fact that the hon. Member having dwelt on his delinquencies, had not given him much time in which to reply. It was, he said, an amazing piece of effrontery for the hon. Member for Merthyr to get up and talk to him about loyalty and the feelings of the Indian people when the hon. Member himself was so much responsible for encouraging the disloyal element in India and spreading abroad—
SIR H. COTTON: I protest against that remark.
MR. REESsaid he coupled the hon. Member for Nottingham with the hon. Member for Merthyr in his denunciation; he saw no distinction in the effects of their propaganda, none whatever. The hon. Member had quoted as an authority of a statement to the effect that the officials of India admitted that the people were too poor to benefit by any reform, a certain Sir S. Lawrence. His ignorance of the name was not due to his ignorance of Indian affairs, as he had never heard of a gentleman of that name concerned in them.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he mentioned a Mr. Thornton, Financial Commissioner.
MR. REESsaid the hon. Member mentioned a Sir S. Lawrence, and his acquaintance with Indian affairs did not allow him to substitute the word Thorburn for the word Lawrence. It had been said that India was made to pay for the use of the British troops when employed outside India. He believed that matter had been adjusted, and the cost in such cases was not now charged to the Indian revenues. The hon. Member talked like a Rip Van Winkle of the railways increasing the prices, but he did not seem to know that railways equalised prices, and that if one district had a good crop, by means of them it was enabled to supply parts of the country where the crops had failed. When an hon. Gentleman got up and talked in such an antediluvian spirit it dumfoundered him, and he found it difficult to argue with him. He was glad indeed the hon. Member had nothing to do with the administration of the affairs of India. The hon. Member said that railways increased the cost of living, and that land beside the railways did not range higher in price. The fact was that the owners of land near the railways got very high rents, over and above living on the produce. He did not know where the hon. Member had lived; it certainly was not in India, and the proposition was so ignorant that it was absolute folly to discuss it. The hon. Member had not that substratum of knowledge of his subject upon which he could possibly build any kind of superstructure of intelligent appreciation or criticism. Then about the treatment of the Indians. During the course of a longish career in India he had repeatedly stood up for them in cases in which they had been wronged, and punished British officers who had ill-treated them. But let them be just to the British officer. There might be young men who behaved foolishly and wrongly, but what folly it was for hon.

199
Members to talk about the "exclusiveness" of the British officer in India in keeping a native out of his carriage, when they all knew that the British officer did not go home and wash his hands and thank God he was not as other men were, which was what the native of any caste did when he happened to touch an Englishman. Before hon. Members of the House of Commons talked about Indian affairs they might take the trouble to learn the beggarly A B C of their subject. Any weight that the Motion had was due to the fact that the right hon. Baronet seconded it. The right hon. Baronet dwelt upon the responsibility which rested upon them when they dealt with Indian subjects, and he felt that responsibility as keenly as anyone, and such was his feeling that he deeply regretted that any of these questions were raised utterly unnecessarily upon this Bill. He did not believe that the people of India would be better off if the Government of India were deprived of money for the purpose of providing for their interests. The hon. Member for Brentford had repeatedly said "We," but for whom did he speak? Not for the people of India, and Heaven for id that he should speak for the Liberal Party. There was a little knot of Members who had been very much in evidence that night, but whose influence was in no sense proportionate to their loquacity. The right hon. Baronet spoke almost contemptuously of Lord Kitchener, and he supposed his root and branch condemnation of him would apply to Lord Roberts as well. For himself, he thought that soldiers did know something of their subject, and when we sent one out to India he thought it would be wise to allow that there was something in his recommendations, and in his authority. The right hon. Baronet talked about the question of irrigation versus railways, and as to that he might point out that irrigation which was so often suggested there as a panacea for all Indian ills was by no means a panacea,
200
because he did not think anybody would dispute the obvious fact that as fast as they increased the irrigation and grew more corn, so much faster did the population grow to eat that corn, and they were not going by that means to get out of the difficulty caused by the population being more numerous than could be supplied by the corn which they could grow. They had this subject up again and again under the late Viceroy, about whom he wished to speak in this House as one who had done great service to the State. A careful inquiry was made, and hon. Members must take it that the Viceroy's advisers were capable men, and after the most careful survey of India the conclusion was come to that the area which could be irrigated at a cost such as could be borne by a responsible Government was exceedingly small. It was not fair for hon. Members to talk as if the State had the streams of Pactolus or the mines of Monte Christo at their back; they must do these works out of the pockets of the taxpayers and in their interest. The Government was bound not to undertake foolish schemes and to carry out only such as a wise administrator would adopt. He felt he should be best serving the cause of India by not delaying the passage of this Bill, and he appealed to hon. Members who had had their say and had made speeches which would go out to India and do infinite mischief, to make what reparation they could by not forcing the House to a division, which would have the worst possible effect in India.
SIR H. COTTONsaid he wished to enter his emphatic protest against the speech which had just been delivered by the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs. He could not say that the hon. Member did not represent to a very large extent the official opinion of India, for he thought he did, but he deeply regretted that he should rise in this House and insult his hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil.
MR. REES, on a point of order, said that the hon. Member himself took no exception to his words, and inquired whether it was competent for another hon. Member to do so.
MR. SPEAKERsaid there was no ground for his interference.
SIR H. COTTONsaid he did not object to anything the hon. Member might say about him. He had very often been the subject of impertinent criticisms on the part of the hon. Member, but when he denounced his hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil as the cause of the unrest in India—
MR. REES: One of the causes.
SIR H. COTTONsaid he considered that it was a gross insult and entirely unjustifiable. If time allowed him he would proceed to record his reasons why he should be prompted to give his vote in favour of the Amendment which was before the House.
Mr. BUCHANANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 53. (Division List No. 434.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Glendinning, R. G.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Micklem, Nathaniel

Armitage, R.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Nicholls, George

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Barnard, E. B.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Beale, W. P.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Bennett, E. N.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hart-Davies, T.

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

Brigg, John

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Radford, G. H.

Brooks, Stopford

Haworth, Arthur A.

Rainy, A. Rolland

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

Hedges, A. Paget

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bryce, J. Annan

Higham, John Sharp

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Holt, Richard Durning

Rowlands, J.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Hooper, A. G.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Cleland, J. W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)

Clough, William

Idris, T. H. W.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Seely, Colonel

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jardine, Sir J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cox, Harold

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Simon, John Allsebrook

Crosfield, A. H.

Crossley, William J.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dsvies, Timothy (Fulham)

Kekewich, Sir George

Soares, Ernest J.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Keswick, William

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dobson, Thomas W.

Kilbride, Denis

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Sutherland, J. E.

Essex, R. W.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lamont, Norman

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lehmann, R. C.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Fenwick, Charles

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Toulmin, George

Ferens, T. R.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Verney, F. W.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lewis, John Herbert

Walton, Joseph

Findlay, Alexander

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Maclean, Donald

Watt, Henry A.

Fletcher, J. S.

M'Callum, John M.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Crae, Sir George

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Marnham, F. J.

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Wiles, Thomas

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

NOES.

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Reddy, M.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N)

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

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

Bowerman, C. W.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Brace, William

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Byles, William Pollard

Hills, J. W.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Cave, George

Hodge, John

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hudson, Walter

Seddon, J.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jenkins, J.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Jowett, F. W.

Summerbell, T.

Crean, Eugene

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Delany, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Valentia, Viscount

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Duffy, William J.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Morrison-Bell, Captain

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Dr. Rutherford and Mr. Mackarness.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Fell, Arthur

Nolan, Joseph

Bill read a second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—(Mr. Buchanan.)

BUXTON CHARITY BILL.
Read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

LONG ASHTON CHARITY BILL.
Read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

ABBOTS BROMLEY CHARITY BILL.
Read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND) AND WALES) BILL.
Order for Committee read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twelve minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Liverpool Corporation (Streets and Buildings) Bill.—Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Ards Railways Bill.—The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Bill.—Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Herschell), and reported from the Committee. [No. 239.]

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS ABROAD.
  Reports from Colonial Governors, the Government of India, and His Majesty's
  2
  Representatives abroad on laws and regulations in force in British Colonies and Possessions, in British India, and in Foreign Countries, respecting the registration of commercial firms.

EDUCATION BILL, 1908.
Correspondence relating to the Bill.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1906 (INDUSTRIAL DISEASES).
Order, dated 2nd December, 1908, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 8 (6) of the Act, extending to certain industrial diseases the provisions of Section 8 (subject to modifications) and amending the previous Order of 22nd May, 1907.

IRISH LAND ACT, 1903.
Instructions to inspectors, dated 12th November, 1908, supplemental to the instructions dated 9th March, 1906, issued by the Estates Commissioners

3
under the regulations made by the Lord-Lieutenant, dated 5th March, 1906.
Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

LUNACY.
Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the visitors of lunatics, pursuant to the Lunacy Act, 1890, between 1st April and 30th September, 1908.
FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1906.
Regulations, dated 9th November, 1908, intitled: The Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs (Methods of Analysis) Regulations, 1908; the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs (General) Regulations, 1908.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
Order No. 7616, dated 28th November, 1908, entitled the Foreign Animals (Amendment) Order of 1908 (No. 3); Order No. 7617, dated 28th November, 1908, prohibiting the landing of animals from the States of Maryland and Delaware, in the United States of America.
SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (BOROUGH OF BARNSTAPLE).
Order made by the council of the borough of Barnstaple, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the borough.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
Public Health (First Series: Unsound Food) (Ireland) Regulations, 1908; Public Health (Foreign Meat) (Ireland) Regulation, 1908.
PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACT, 1907.
Designs Rules, 1908 (Second Set), dated 14th November, 1908.
CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906.
Rules made by the Board of Trade, CLXXXVI.—CXCIV.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890 (CITY OF LEEDS).
Statement of further modification permitted by the Local Government Board in the City of Leeds (Quarry Hill Area) Improvement Scheme, 1900.
MOTOR CAR ACTS, 1896 AND 1903.
Regulation as to the restriction of the driving of motor cars on certain highways or parts of highways within the borough of Kendal, made by the Local Government Board under Section 6 of the Act of 1896 and Section 8 of the Act of 1903.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
Orders under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board, of the following county councils—
Chester.—For extending the urban district of Ashton-upon-Mersey so as to include parts of the urban district and township of Sale.
Essex.—For altering the boundary between the parishes of Brentwood and South Weald, and for altering the areas of the urban district of Brent-Wood and the rural district of Billericay.
Glamorgan.—For constituting the parish of Gelligaer an urban district, to be known as the urban district of Gelligaer, for transferring the parish of Rhigos from the rural district of Gelligaer and Rhigos to the rural district of Neath, and for abolishing the rural district of Gelligaer and Rhigos.
Kent.—For dividing the parish of Otford into two new parishes to be known as Otford and Dunton Green.
Kesteven, Parts of.—For defining the boundary between the parishes of New Sleaford and Old Sleaford.
Peterborough, Soke of.—For dividing the parish of Peterborough Without into two new parishes to be known as Long-thorpe and Peterborough Without.
Worcester.—For uniting the parishes of Oldbury and Warley to form the parish of Oldbury.
Yorkshire, West Riding of.—For constituting part of the parish of Thurnscoe an urban district to be known as the urban district of Thurnscoe, and for uniting the remainder of the parish to the parish of Clayton-with-Frickley.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment.
WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES PROHIBITION BILL.
Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow (The Lord-Steward (Earl Beauchamp.)) [No. 238.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, the Bill which I have the honour of introducing into your Lordships' House to-day has been spoken of and treated during its passage through another place as a non-contentious measure, and I think it is no exaggeration to say that its provisions are such as must appeal to your Lordships. I will, therefore, endeavour to state, as briefly as possible, the principal objects and provisions of the Bill.
There is no change made in the constitution of the existing authorities for education in Scotland, but there are various administrative reforms instituted with a view to causing the scheme of education to run more smoothly. For instance, extended powers, and in some cases new powers, are given to school boards, such as the means of dealing more expeditiously and more efficiently with defaulting parents, and also the provision whereby school boards may name two or more dates during the year for the beginning and ending of their classes, the object being to put an end to the continual depletion of the upper classes of schools which takes place owing to
6
the fact that every child leaves immediately on attaining the age of fourteen. Then there are provisions for crippled and defective children. There is the provision whereby school boards are enabled to convey children from outlying parts of the area in vans to the school, and even permitting them to lodge the children during the week, always providing that the cost of lodging shall not exceed the cost which they would have incurred by conveying the children from their homes. There is also instituted a system of attendance certificates, by which it is hoped that one of the most acute problems which school boards have to face will be met—namely, the systematic ways in which tinkers and vagrants refuse to send their children to school.
These provisions, so far as they go, are perhaps of not such great importance as those dealing with the medical inspection and feeding of children. In future under the Bill county committees will draw up a scheme for the medical inspection of children, and where boards choose to approve the scheme half the cost will be borne. At the same time voluntary schools must, where they have not their own medical inspection, permit the inspector appointed by the board to come in and inspect. With regard to the feeding of children, there is a difference between the English Act and the system as laid down under the present Bill. Under the English Act the school boards provide food in the first instance, and where it is not paid for on the spot they have the power to recover the cost from the parents by the ordinary civil process. Under the present Bill, however, not only is the feeding of children dealt with, but where it is necessary also the clothing and cleaning of children. As in the English Act, the first cost of this is borne by the board, which then has the power to summon any parent and ask for an explanation why the child is in a neglected condition. If the parent is not able to give a satisfactory explanation, then the board has the power to prosecute under the head of cruelty to children, and, if the prosecution is upheld, the Court can make an order for maintenance in the future. If, however, the explanation given by the parent is

7
satisfactory, and it is clearly proved that the condition of the children is due either to poverty or to ill-health, then the board has the power to continue to feed the children for such period as it may think fit. The board has also power to incur expense, apart from the actual provision of food, for providing meals, the object of this being to legalise a practice which is already fairly common in rural districts, and which is extremely laudable—the practice of providing during the winter months hot meals for the children.
I now pass to the question of continuation classes. In future it will be the duty of every school board to make suitable provision for continuation classes for all who may desire it; that is to say, there is compulsion on the board to provide these classes, although, of course, there is no compulsion upon the children to attend them, for the country is not yet ripe for such a provision. At the same time, the Bill does take a cautious step in this direction, for it provides that local authorities may, if they think fit, make bye-laws for compulsory attendance of children at continuation schools between the ages of fourteen and seventeen. Closely allied with this is the question of exemption. Under the existing law an exemption is allowed between the ages of twelve and fourteen, but the board is enabled to impose certain conditions of exemption. For instance, a child who is exempted during the summer months may have a condition imposed that it shall attend school during the winter months or at evening classes. The Bill extends the age up to which these conditions can be made from fourteen to sixteen. There is no doubt as to the probable advantage of exemption of this kind in cases of children who, though physically well advanced, have not reached the same standard of mental development, and also there is no doubt that this provision of extending the age to sixteen will induce boards to consider more favourably the question of exemption. The ultimate result as to education will be equally good, and at the same time there is every prospect of inculcating in children at an early age a love of the country.
8
It is important that the distinction should be very clearly realised between the optional clause by which authorities are entitled to make attendance compulsory at continuation classes by a bye-law, and those provisions which are made in each individual case merely as conditions of exemption. The compulsory attendance at continuation schools has been in vogue in many German states for upwards of a quarter of a century, and it has been found to be of the greatest benefit there, not only by the authorities, but also, I believe, by the working classes. It is looked upon as a means of ensuring that the original outlay expended upon a child's education shall not be thrown away owing to the fact that the child at the age of fourteen suddenly gives up receiving any instruction at all. There is also another point. Whereas a child up to the age of fourteen has been under very strict discipline, in many cases it is extremely deleterious to the character of the child to be suddenly released from all supervision and thrown upon its own resources, as is often the case. In fact, many people regard this as a most potent factor in the growth of hooliganism in our larger cities. There seems, therefore, to be no reason why, in those places in Scotland where public opinion is sufficiently ripe, the localities should not be permitted to try the experiment which has been tried in other countries, and has met with great success. The power is, of course, very carefully guarded against any possible abuse. In fact, the question is rather, whether sufficient encouragement has been given to local bodies to adopt this provision of the Bill. I may also mention that it will in future be the duty of every school board, either by itself or conjointly with others, to maintain an agency for obtaining and distributing information with regard to employment, which it is hoped may do something to check the somewhat disastrous condition which at present obtains of children constantly falling into casual employment which gives no reasonable hope of a practical career in the future.
I pass to the question of pensions for teachers. This is, of necessity, somewhat complex, for we have to deal with

9
several generations of teachers, not only with those who have completed their career or are about to complete it, but with those who are about to take up this career. Dealing in the first place with the former case, school boards are allowed to grant retiring allowances, and wherever they choose to do this, encouragement, and even pecuniary assistance, will be given to them. For the second class—that is to say, teachers who are about to take up the profession or who have just entered the profession—it is proposed to establish a superannuation fund, which will be derived from three sources. A portion will be contributed by the teachers themselves out of their salary, a portion will be contributed by the managers of the schools, and a portion will be contributed from the district fund. It is hoped that from these three sources sufficient money will be obtained to place the whole superannuation scheme upon a thoroughly sound financial basis.
As regards actual distribution, this, of course, must depend upon actuarial calculation. A scheme will eventually be laid before Parliament dealing with this matter; but there is one point laid down in the Bill, namely, that a teacher who shall leave the school for any reason, except for wilful misconduct, before he has attained the age at which he is entitled to a pension, shall receive back any contribution he has made to the superannuation fund, and this is also extended to the heirs and executors of a teacher who shall die prematurely. This clause was approved unanimously in another place. At the same time, it would be idle to disguise the fact that the increased benefits under the clause necessarily represent an increased cost; but, of course, a portion of this cost is borne by the teachers themselves by their contributions to the fund. And there is another point of view which I think is worthy of consideration. At present the State expends a very large amount of money by means of maintenance and subsidies for inducing young persons to take up the career of a teacher. It therefore appears that anything which would make the teaching profession more attractive would eventually tend to induce more people to take it up of their own accord, and therefore would
10
reduce this outlay on the part of the State. It was with the object of providing additional attractions to the teaching profession that the clause with regard to the tenure of a teacher was inserted. This clause, while it still retains for the board the absolute power of dismissal of a teacher which the board at present has, at the same time allows any teacher who considers himself aggrieved to appeal to the Department, who, if they think fit, may ask the board to reconsider their decision, and in the event of the latter declining to do so, may, should it in their opinion be necessary or advisable or just, cause the board to pay the teacher a sum not exceeding one year's salary.
I should now like to say a word about the financial provisions in the Bill. Although these provisions may, perhaps, appear somewhat elaborate and intricate at first sight, the principle underlying them is an extremely simple one. In the first place, all moneys other than Treasury Grants under the Code will be pooled in one fund. This is an obvious advantage. This fund, which will be called the Education (Scotland) Fund, being formed, there will be a series of first charges upon the fund. These will be objects which may properly be called of a national description, such as assistance to the Universities where they make out a case, or to central technical institutions, or the contribution to the pension fund which I have already mentioned. When these first charges have been satisfied, the remainder of the general fund will be distributed among various districts of Scotland, which are, roughly speaking, the thirty-three counties and the six largest urban school board areas. It is in the distribution of the money among these districts that a novel principle has been introduced. Up to now, the money has always been distributed according to the population, and, in some cases, according to valuation; but it is proposed under the Bill that the money shall be distributed having regard to two things—first, the relative cost of education per head, and secondly, the relative valuation per head in the district. This principle is merely following the recommendations of the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on

11
Local Taxation, which was signed by no less an authority than the noble Lord opposite, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. In a word, given the same expenditure, the lower valuation per head the more will be given per head of the population.
The clause laying down this principle has purposely been made somewhat elastic in order to permit, if necessary, various schemes being framed. The actual scheme which is adopted will be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and, of course, due regard will be had to any representations which may be made by bodies interested. But in drawing up the scheme it is essential that there should be no undue dislocation of the status quo. The scheme in order to be satisfactory must satisfy two conditions—first, no authority must receive less than it does at present; and, secondly, the scheme must command something like general consent. Subject to these conditions the scheme will follow the principle I have mentioned. The money now being distributed among the districts, we have also a series of first charges, as we did in the case of the general fund—that is to say, for objects which concern the district as a whole and not any portion of the district. The most important of these, I need hardly say, is secondary education; others are bursaries, and the provisions for crippled and defective children. With one exception, that of secondary education, the scale of these charges will be determined, subject to the approval of the Department, by the county committees, who will be composed of representatives of the various school boards of the district and a certain number of representatives from the county council. The secondary schools are dealt with expressly in the Bill. The remainder of the district fund, after these first charges have been paid, will then be distributed among the various school board areas in the district. Thus we have the representatives of the board, who will act as a check upon reckless expenditure on first charges with regard to the district fund, and we have the county committee who will perform the same function with regard to the general fund. In a word, higher education is made a first charge, and is not left to the initiation of bodies who are
12
not immediately interested in it. At the same time, those bodies who are interested in the residue of the money after the first charges have been satisfied will have a power of criticism which should prove fully effective.
There are only one or two other points I should like to mention. One is that provision is made in the Bill for a very much fuller, and, it is hoped, more adequate, audit of accounts, and in this connection there is a new power given. Where a school board shall have spent money illegally it is within the power of the Department to represent the fact to the school board. This expenditure will be allowed for the first year, but should the school board still persist in carrying on the illegal expenditure, then the Department will have the power of applying to the Court for a surcharge. There are certain provisions also dealing with endowed institutions, the object of which really is to enable struggling endowed institutions to be brought easily within the fold of the public system, and also to simplify and unify the arrangements with regard to bursaries so as to prevent any overlapping. These are the only very important provisions in the Bill, and they have all been drawn up as the result of many years' experience. The Bill is an honest and businesslike attempt to meet the requirements which have been shown to have arisen during those years; and in view of the tact that in Scotland there are not the same questions of high politics with regard to education which exist in England, I think we may confidently hope that this Bill will serve to maintain and even to advance the position of Scotland as a pioneer in the field of national education. I, therefore, ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Lord Herschell.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I think your Lordships will expect me to say a few words in regard to this Bill. First, I may say with absolute truth—and I shall carry the whole of the House with me—that we are greatly indebted to the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading

13
of the Bill for the extremely clear and lucid explanation he has given of its main provisions. Anyone who followed his speech must have seen that he took the greatest possible pains to make clear the somewhat intricate provisions, especially as regards finance. I think we may congratulate ourselves that, at any rate upon its main lines, there is nothing really controversial in this Bill. It settles a considerable number of matters which have been a great deal discussed in Scotland, and the solution of which, as I believe this Bill will solve them, will be welcomed, I think I may say, with enthusiasm on the part of a great many who have taken considerable interest in educational problems.
There are, in my opinion, two rather grave blots on the Bill which I will merely indicate now, but on which I shall say something before I sit down. I think it is a great pity that this opportunity has not been taken for enlarging the areas of educational administration, and I am sorry that in the Bill as it comes to this House the cumulative vote is preserved. The explanation given by the noble Lord of the finance of the Bill renders it unnecessary for me to say much in regard to that subject; but I do not know whether your Lordships realise that under Clause 15 of the Bill—the clause which pools and collects the finance which is distributed in Clauses 16 and 17—there is a sum of something like £500,000 a year being disposed of. If my estimate is correct, under subsection (1) of Clause 15 there will be about £40,000 to accrue to the fund. Under subsection (2) the whole of the residue grant, about £60,000, which has hitherto been partly distributed in relief of rates but with a strong hint that it should be given for technical education, will now be devoted entirely to educational purposes. Under subsection (3) the fixed grant from probate, which first came into force in 1892, amounting to about £60,000, is put into the pool. By subsection (4) the sum applied to secondary education since 1892, about £45,000, is also included; and under subsection (5), as I understand it, the grant which was given to make Scotland equal to England in regard to the agricultural rates grant, about £38,000 or
14
£40,000, is also included. In subsection (6) there is at least £250,000 in what is known as the general aid grant. Unless I am wrong, there is at least £500,000 a year dealt with in these funds.
With regard to distribution, I say frankly that since the Government have resolved not to enlarge the areas for education, they have, in their distribution of this fund, done their best to make up for what I regard as the greatest blot on the Bill. I venture respectfully to express my entire approval of the method of distribution of the main part of this fund. Hitherto some of these funds have been distributed according to valuation, others according to population, and others more or less at the discretion of the Department. To distribute large sums according to valuation has this grave defect, that it gives more to those that have and less to those that have not. On the other hand, if you distribute according to population alone, you neglect the interests of the sparsely populated districts—namely, those which have the greatest difficulty in providing secondary education. The method taken in this Bill, which the noble Lord was good enough to say was largely borrowed from our Report on Local Taxation, seems to me to get rid of all these difficulties, because it takes into account the three factors—the population, the valuation, and the normal cost of providing the services. That the Government have now succeeded in solving a difficult problem may be proved from this, that many as have been the communications I have received since this Bill came to your Lordships' House, not one of them has challenged the method of distribution of the money proposed in this clause. Although probably your Lordships could not largely amend that clause in this House, the Government have retained the control of Parliament over the distribution of the money, because no scheme will be effective until it has lain for a reasonable period on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament, and each House will have the opportunity of objecting to it.
In Clause 16 there are, as the noble Lord has said, a few first charges on the fund. They are most of them charges in existence at the present

15
time, but, as I understand, there are two new ones. There is for one the provision of teachers' superannuation, and another for what is called national educational expenditure. I do not quite understand all that may be included under that head, but Parliamentary control is thoroughly preserved and, therefore, I shall not myself object to the terms of that particular provision. Clause 17, as I have said, distributes the money in the best possible way if you have resolved not to enlarge the areas for educational administration. The first three subsections in that clause, as I understand, make provision for aid for higher grade schools, and there is a careful provision to make sure that the aid will go where it is most required. The fourth subsection deals with endowed schools, and it is one of the gratifying features of this Bill that those schools which are not under public authority, but still under more or less private management, with certain public representation, will, according to their needs, participate in this money.
The next is a point on which I do one think the noble Lord touched. There is liberal provision to county committees to give bursaries in those districts where they are most required. That is one of the most valuable provisions of the Bill, because, although there are more bursaries in some parts of Scotland than are perhaps needed, there are other parts in which the supply is not adequate to the needs. There is also a provision with respect to medical inspection of children; and subsections (7) and (8) of Clause 17 enable county committees to provide for what are called itinerant teachers. Capital expenditure may be assisted out of this Parliamentary fund when the local authority cannot afford to incur it; and, as the noble Lord has told us, the superannuation of teachers is to be upon a better basis for the future than it has been in the past. A certain modified appeal is given to teachers in case of dismissal. It is not an absolute power, as it ought not to be, for the education authority to force the continued employment of a teacher, but it gives the Scottish Education Department a certain locus standi for mediation, and for seeing that capricious dismissals are not unduly resorted to. Those
16
things were mostly mentioned by the noble Lord, and I think they will have the general support of your Lordships' House when the Bill gets into Committee.
But there are some things which seem to me to require explanation. I shall not go at length into them at the moment, because they are more points for Committee than for Second Reading but as I understand the Committee stage is not to be long put off, it would perhaps, be convenient that attention should be directed to them on the present occasion. The noble Lord occupied some part of his speech in explaining the clause which has to do with the new provisions for continuation schools. That is one of the matters which seem to me to require a good deal of explanation. The objects which the noble Lord and those who promote the Bill have in view will, I think, meet with your Lordships' warmest commendation. Their desire is to prevent the waste which arises when a boy or girl leaves school too soon and does not profit by the education, received. The noble Lord looks forward, through the means of continuation classes, to finding a remedy for what he described as the hooliganism which prevails in the streets of some of our large towns. But I suggest that these clauses will require careful examination.
At the present time a school board in Scotland may excuse any child from attendance at school from the age of twelve if the child has passed a certain educational standard, and they may or may not attach conditions that up to the age of fourteen the child shall continue at evening classes. That is extended in this Bill to the age of sixteen. I venture to suggest that that is not the right way to deal with this particular matter. I do not think you can bind a child at the age of twelve for four years in advance to continue attending evening schools. It seems to me too long a period. But the other clause seems to me almost more serious. The school age ends at fourteen, and probably that is quite as late as it ought to end; but the third subsection proposes to give every school board—there are 972 of them in Scotland—power to order

17
young people to go on attending evening classes up to the age of seventeen, and those concerned may have to go some two miles in the evening to these schools. Your Lordships will realise that in the country districts many young people go into farm service and many girls go into domestic service before they are seventeen years of age, and it seems to me that to give a practically uncontrolled power to all the school boards in Scotland to make this rather drastic provision requires careful examination. I do not, however, pronounce absolutely against it at the present time; all I say is that it seems to me to require very careful examination and consideration at a subsequent stage.
Clause 8 of the Bill also seems to me to require some consideration. It greatly adds to the power of the school boards in regard to those who are defaulting in their attendance. At the present time a summons has to be taken out, and the Court adjudicates as to whether a child is to be ordered to attend a school compulsorily or not. In the clause as now altered it is proposed to give the school board power of its own motion to order attendance, and only to give an appeal to a Court of law if the individual is dissatisfied. And I think that some of the provisions in regard to those bursary funds which are to be handed over to county committees are very drastic and almost unjust. I know that in some cases these funds amount to several hundreds of pounds. They have been reformed within the last twenty-five years. Representatives of public authorities have been put on these trusts, and it seems to me a little hard that those authorities should be now entirely deprived of their administration, and the funds handed over to the county committees. I do not think there is sufficient guarantee, as I read the Bill, that those districts which, either by their own liberality or by the advantage of pious founders, have a large number of bursaries, will retain anything like a corresponding advantage in the future to that which they enjoy at the present time. This, however, is a matter for Committee, but I mention it as a point on which I
18
have received a good many representations and one well worthy of consideration.
Then I cannot share the admiration which the noble Lord expressed for the form of the audit clauses. As the Bill was introduced, the audit clauses were to my mind very satisfactory. They were a copy of the clauses which existed under the Local Government Act for Scotland. They gave any dissatisfied ratepayer power to call the attention of the auditor to anything he thought wrong; the auditor could then report to the authority—in this case to the Scottish Education Department—and the Department had power to surcharge. Now the clause is so changed that all the ratepayer can do is to call the attention of the auditor, and, if he chooses, of a Court to the illegal expenditure. There is a most extraordinary provision in the clause, and, as I read it, no matter how grave the malversation, no matter how deliberate the wrong expenditure, there is no power, on the first occasion of it, to call the local authority to account. I understand that a dog which is supposed to be dangerous is always allowed a first bite before it can be destroyed or before its owner can be made to indemnify the person who is bitten. That may be a reasonable provision for establishing whether the dog is dangerous or not; but it seems to me to be carrying it rather too far to say, in the case of the local authority, that no matter how gross their malversation may be, they are to get off on the plea that it is their first effort. Supposing a school board is convicted of having done something wrong and a new election takes place, I should like to know whether the new board will be allowed another first bite, or will the discredit attaching to the improper action of the first board be counted against that parish for all time to come? I shall certainly make an effort to have the audit clauses restored to the condition in which they stood when the Government introduced the Bill.
The first blot on the Bill which I most regret is that the Government have not made up their minds to enlarge the educational areas in Scotland. Your Lordships, of course, know that the area

19
for educational administration in Scotland is the parish; in England it has been changed to the county and the larger county boroughs. I quite agree that, having regard to all the circumstances, it would probably be impossible, in the present state of public opinion, to make the county the area for Scotland. But, on the other hand, I think it can hardly be denied that, when you come to areas, the parish is much too small for the purposes of secondary education. I believe that is practically universally felt in Scotland. You have to choose between two difficulties—taking away the complete parish control over public elementary education from the parochial authority and to some extent merging it in a larger area, or running the danger of being crippled for secondary education. I think the latter is the larger of the two dangers. It is hopeless, I believe, to make the change at this time, but I record as my own opinion that a great opportunity has been lost, and that it would have been very much better to have enlarged the areas. There are 972 school boards in Scotland; 647 of them have only five members, and 262 have only seven members, showing that their population must be very small. It is absolutely impossible that in small areas of this kind you can ever have a thoroughly efficient system of secondary education, and unless they are amalgamated for all purposes, unless they are rated together, unless they are accustomed to sit together for administrative purposes, you will never get that cohesion, that unity of interest, and that conjoint character for the education of the whole district which you can get if you join them. I hold to the opinion which I and my successor in office embodied, that some larger area than the parish is necessary. I believe that in the main the combination which is known as the district committee would in most counties have worked with great success. I frankly say that I think it would be impossible for this House to attempt to make the alteration at this stage. If we did so we should in all probability imperil the Bill, which I do not desire to do. But I do record my opinion, for what it is worth and to save my own consistency, that the Government have in this particular matter lost a great opportunity
20
of which, with a little more courage, they might have taken advantoge.
The other matter which I regret is the continuance of the cumulative vote in school board elections. As the Bill was introduced, or at any rate, in some of its stages, the Government had a clause which did away with that system of voting which is generally discredited in Scotland. It has been done away with in England, and I think that it is not too late to remedy that defect even now. Personally I would like to preserve the rights of minorities and to obtain the exact reflex of opinion in the constituencies by introducing the system of the single transferable vote. It would be a simple Amendment and would, I believe, meet with approval from the majority in Scotland. This matter has never been discussed in the other House of Parliament. By a series of unfortunate events the clause which did away with the cumulative vote was not reached in the other House. The Bill was discussed in Grand Committee and there was a good deal of cross-voting, which I am not in a position to analyse because the reports of what goes on in those Committees are not easily understood by those who were not present. But what happened on the Report stage was this, that the clause was not reached until some five or ten minutes before the time when that stage of the Bill had to be finished. I make no sort of charge of breach of faith against the Government. They were entirely the victims of circumstances, and were not responsible. But when it is the fact that the present system of cumulative voting is thoroughly discredited in Scotland and most people are anxious to see it done away with, it seems to me unfortunate if neither House of Parliament is given an opportunity of considering the matter on its merits. I shall not go further into it at the present time. In this morning's newspapers there is an illustration of how the system which I advocate worked, and out of 21,690 voting papers returned, there were only eighteen papers spoiled. For a first attempt that seems to me an extremely creditable result. I altogether deny that the people of Scotland are less intelligent in such matters than the people of England, and I believe they

21
will be able to grasp the difficulties, such as they are, of this system with the greatest ease. I intend to put down an Amendment on the subject, not in any controversial spirit, but in order that the question may be discussed fairly and on its merits. I have studied the Bill with great care and welcome it cordially, for I believe that it will do great good to Scottish education; and nothing I have said has been intended in any way to embarrass the Government, in carrying it to a successful conclusion.
LORD REAY: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I cordially welcome this Bill, and I know that in Scotland there would be general disappointment if the Bill were not carried. I desire to say a few words in the first place, upon what my noble friend has described as one of the blots on the Bill—namely, the absence of any provision for expanding the area. There is undoubtedly a strong feeling that the school board area is too limited, especially in respect of secondary education. But as regards primary education I do not think that the disadvantages are so great as they have been often described. The remedy which the Bill gives of combining school board areas is at all events a remedy which can to a certain extent obviate the difficulties where they are felt, but the advantage of a small school board area is that it gives parents in small parishes a direct interest in the parish school as their school. That is in accordance with the historical development of education in Scotland, and it is an advantage which I would not willingly forego.
What my noble friend said with regard to the cumulative vote was, I think, rather strong. I believe there is in many quarters in Scotland a desire that it I should be abolished, but as the matter will come before your Lordships when the Bill is in Committee, through the Amendment which my noble friend has intimated his intention of moving, I do not wish to enter into detail upon it now. Whatever is done, I trust that guarantees will be given for the representation of minorities on the school boards. It is extremely important that
22
all sections of the community should be represented. I approve of the power given in the Bill to divide a school board district into electoral divisions, and I also approve of Clauses 7 and 8 [Provisions as to parents' obligation and school attendance, and power for school board to pronounce attendance order] of the Bill. With regard to rural schools, I consider it of the utmost importance to give encouragement to technical training, by which I understand cookery, laundry work, dairying, dressmaking, and gardening for girls over twelve years of age—a practical knowledge of these subjects will be of incalculable value in the homes—and agriculture, horticulture, woodwork, cookery, and dairying for boys.
Let me mention what is done at the Ednam School in Roxburghshire. This is the time-table:—Monday, boys and girls, dairying; Tuesday, boys and girls, cookery; Wednesday, boys gardening, girls dressmaking; Thursday, boys and girls, dairying; Friday, boys woodwork, girls gardening. During the winter months dairying is discontinued, laundry-work being taken by the girls and some other subject by the boys. Samples of the work done at this school were shown at the Franco-British Exhibition. That the ordinary work of the school was not neglected, but kept up to a high standard, is sown by the fact that 15 per cent. of the scholars have passed the qualifying examination, 5 per cent. above what His Majesty's inspectors consider "excellent." Great credit, I think, is due to Mr. and Mrs. Macdonald, the teachers of the school, for the admirable organisation of the school. In a competition for butter-making in Edinburgh the first prize was obtained by four pupils of this school aged thirteen, and the school obtained a silver cup; this being a competition in which professional dairymaids competed.
The provision in the Bill for continuation classes is, in my opinion, a most valuable reform. One of the causes of unemployment is undoubtedly the fact that pupils who leave the primary school are emancipated and left without guidance. The Bill makes compulsion optional. I admit that it would have been difficult

23
to apply compulsion generally, especially in the rural districts, because at present you have not at your disposal a sufficient supply of the special kind of teachers required to make these continuation classes attractive. If they are to meet the varying needs of different districts the provisions must be elastic in respect to the curriculum of continuation classes I wish to urge on the Department to give every encouragement to the special training of teachers for these classes.
I wish to call attention to an experiment which was made at Arden-connel in November, 1907, to establish for young farmers what in Denmark is called a people's high school. I believe the experiment was very successful, and I should like to see it repeated. The influence of these schools in Denmark with regard to moral, intellectual, and physical culture has been remarkable. In Glasgow a joint committee was instituted for co-ordination of the work of continuation classes in the neighbourhood and the work of the West of Scotland Technical College, and the result has been most satisfactory. The certificates given to those pupils who have attended the continuation classes are accepted for entrance to the well-organised evening classes of the technical college, which provides efficient teachers for the continuation classes. Besides the continuation classes, the Bill contains a provision in Clause 3, subsection (5), to which no attention has yet been called, but which I consider of the highest importance, namely, the power given to the school board to maintain or combine with other bodies to maintain any agency for collecting and distributing information as to employments open to children on leaving school. I trust that very great use will be made of this provision. I believe this may be made an instrument of inestimable value in arresting the process of deterioration which is inevitable if, on leaving school children are not given the proper training required in the case of skilled labour. In London the Apprenticeship and Skilled Employment Association last year placed 512 children in various recognised trades, either as apprentices or learners.
The next link in the general chain of education in Scotland is the higher grade
24
school. The higher grade school is a very important institution, the education given there is of a general character, and it is only on leaving the higher grade school that a more special course of instruction may be entered upon scientific and technical or commercial or on more general lines. The Bill, as the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading in such a lucid manner pointed out, provides for secondary education, and I trust that liberal grants will be made to secondary and intermediate schools. Formerly the higher subjects were taught in elementary schools. This system had to be abandoned because the demands as regards primary education were more exacting and the conditions of entrance to the Universities were raised. This involves the duty of making the secondary schools efficient and accessible. The Bill provides for this through bursaries, hostels, and payment for scholars not belonging to the district in which the secondary school is situated, and I welcome these provisions. One of the results of the Bill should be an increase of the salaries of teachers in secondary schools in order to obtain the services of thoroughly competent teachers, and I trust that the Department will give some attention to this matter. Secondary schools in which classics are taught, as well as those giving an education of a more scientific and modern character, are essential to the progress of education.
The leaving certificates for groups of studies and their optional character are, I take it, intended to raise the standard of education in secondary and intermediate schools. This cannot be achieved unless the staff of those schools is carefully selected and adequately remunerated. I am sure that the Department keeps this in view, and is aware that Scotland desires to have an abundant supply of secondary and intermediate schools, which are certainly as important as, if not more important than, the Universities and central schools, which are dependent on a supply of students having had an efficient preliminary training in those schools. In order that the policy of the Department with regard to leaving certificates may reach its ultimate goal, it is very desirable that the University

25
courses should be the sequel of the studies which have led up to the leaving certificate. I do not wish in any way to cripple the autonomy of the Scottish Universities, but I advocate a thorough understanding between the Department and the Universities with regard to this very important point. I was very glad to see, in the last very interesting Report on Secondary Schools issued by the Department and edited by Mr. Struthers, that the supply of higher grade and secondary schools may now be considered almost complete.
My noble friend, Lord Herschell, has given a very clear explanation of the provision in the Bill for better conditions of superannuation for teachers, and I trust that this may lead to more men being attracted to the teaching profession. There is an abundant supply of female candidates, but at present there is, I believe, a great deal of difficulty in persuading men students to come forward to be trained as teachers, although the conditions of training both for secondary and elementary schools have been carefully adapted to professional exigencies by the provincial committees.
I now come to a very important class of schools for which the Bill makes adequate provision—the technical and agricultural colleges. These colleges must retain—the Bill does not touch this—independent management and control of their financial arrangements, but I would press for a very close connection being established between the Universities and the technical and agricultural colleges. The professors should be University professors or lecturers; they should have the standard of attainment and qualifications of University teachers, and the students ought to be considered as University students so that they may obtain University degrees. One of the most admirable institutions, of which every Scotsman is justly proud, is the West of Scotland Technical College at Glasgow. It is admirably equipped for the purpose, and has in its staff and laboratories, and in its course of studies all that is required to meet the most exacting, and the highest demands of University teaching, and of scientific research. Affiliation of this college to the
26
Glasgow University would increase the sphere of usefulness of the latter as regards applied science, for which there should be instituted a separate faculty in the University.
This also applies to the Heriot-Watt College in Edinburgh. The standard of work required for a diploma at the Heriot-Watt College is quite as high as that required for a University degree. The difference is that the instruction in this college is more practical and more use is made of the laboratory than at the University, and the standard of general education of the students at entrance is, perhaps, not so high. A diploma is also given at the college to students who have taken their B.Sc. degree in the University and who come to the Heriot-Watt College in order to attend post-graduate courses on the lines of their previous studies at the University. Besides civil engineering, degrees in mechanical, electrical, mining, chemical, and metallurgical engineering should be established in the University, and the special instruction given at the Heriot-Watt College in these subjects should be recognised by the University. Engineering students might be sent to the Heriot-Watt College for chemistry and physics, instead of having to attend a course I of instruction drawn up at the University for medical and M.A. students. The University should also recognise the post-graduate courses at the Heriot-Watt College in metallurgy, electro chemistry, applied analytical chemistry, and technical mycology as well as electrical and mechanical engineering, and the principal professors and lecturers in the Heriot-Watt College should be appointed as University lecturers. This would enormously strengthen the University staff and equipment in applied science.
Both in regard to Glasgow and Edinburgh the present situation is quite anomalous. At the West of Scotland Technical College and at the Heriot-Watt College the instruction given is of the most advanced character, and at the same time it does not form an integral part of the University curriculum, as it should. There is no legal difficulty. Sections 3 and 15 of the University Act of 1889 enable a college to be affiliated

27
without losing its autonomy. I have considered whether an Amendment should be introduced into the Bill on this subject, which is a most important one for the development of higher education, but I do not think it is necessary. I think the Act of 1889 provides all that is required. In Aberdeen a proper solution has been given to the relations which should exist between a University and a Central Institution, whether technical or agricultural. The Aberdeen University takes a lively interest in the development of the North of Scotland College of Agriculture, and provides capacious accommodation for lectures and laboratory work. The college and the University are closely allied. Professors of the University are appointed as college lecturers, and the progress of the college, considering its recent beginning, has been striking.
In Edinburgh nearly all the leading subjects in the agricultural degree course are taught in the University by University professors and lecturers, and only those degree subjects are provided by the East of Scotland college which the University has no funds to support. There, again, the alliance between the University and the college might be made closer. In Glasgow the important subjects are taught in the West of Scotland Agricultural College and the association with the University is harmonious but ought to be closer, because the University depends for its agricultural students on the teaching of the college for seven of the twelve courses. Letters seeking advice are received by the college every day, and the extension lectures and experiments are well attended. The college experiment station has proved a most effective means of securing the interest of farmers in the outlying districts who are now quite alive to the benefits of agricultural science.
The three colleges conduct local demonstrations, lectures in the country, and field experiments, and appoint organisers in the outlying comities. Agricultural education in its different grades will be organised throughout Scotland by these three colleges. I thoroughly approve of the provision in the Bill which is to be found in Clause 17, subsection (7),
28
which contemplates the co-ordination of this work, so important from an agricultural point of view. It would be well if the governors of the three colleges would appoint a joint committee, not for the purpose of interfering with the management of the individual college, but for the purpose of exchanging opinions on the means required to promote agricultural education and the experience gained in each college.
Research must be encouraged in the agricultural colleges, and original work by the teachers, as well as postgraduate work. There is also a danger in requiring too many subjects at the expense of thoroughness and sometimes at the expense of a proper co-ordination of subjects, as, for instance, in giving an option between mathematics and biology, so that an agricultural student could take the degree with no knowledge of botany. Such eccentricities ought to be corrected. In America schools of domestic economy for girls have been attached to agricultural colleges. I should like to see this subject taken up by the three agricultural colleges, and courses of domestic economy started in the rural districts. For agricultural colleges as well as technical colleges it is of the utmost importance that on the governing bodies there should be practical agriculturists and manufacturers.
The Bill wisely leaves the autonomy of the Universities quite intact, and I believe the Universities approve of the Bill and hope that it may be passed. A question which naturally arises, after the description I have given of the present needs of education in Scotland, is whether the resources of the education fund—I heartily welcome the establishment of this fund, and approve of the manner in which it will be administered—will be sufficient to fulfil the expectations raised by the Bill. There is no doubt that more money will have to be spent especially on agricultural, on seconddary education, and on continuation classes. Although I am rather sceptical with regard to the sufficiency of the means placed at our disposal by the Bill, it will have, perhaps, one good result—namely, to secure very careful administration, and to avoid overlapping. I do not wish to see any branch of our

29
education in Scotland receiving preferential treatment at the expense of another branch, and I am sure that the Department will take care that in the distribution of the funds available even-handed justice will be practised. The system of the various grades of education—primary, intermediate, secondary and higher education—is now well defined in Scotland, and on a firm footing. It has also sufficient elasticity.
The Bill makes no provision for a consultative committee. The Bill, undoubtedly, gives great power to the Department. If it is wisely exercised, I do not object to it. In order to obtain a proper correlation of educational agencies and a proper distribution of available funds a central authority is essential. It is perfectly compatible with local initiative, and it need not lead to a disastrous bureaucratic regime, prescribing hard and fast rules applicable to a great variety of conditions. I am convinced, from its past history, that the Department does not intend to dictate to the various educational authorities in Scotland, but I think that some opportunity should be given to experts in Scotland to discuss the educational needs of the country. The Department would have derived benefit from such an expression of opinion. I do not wish to remove the Department to Edinburgh, in which case I think its power would have been increased, as it would be less in touch with the responsible Ministers, and with Scotch representatives during the Parliamentary session; but the situation which this creates makes it, in my opinion all the more desirable that there should be some link between the Department and Scotch educationists on the spot. Educational problems are constantly arising, and for their solution the advice of those who have practical experience of the points at issue would be of great value, as it has been of value in England. This Bill will, I think, make it possible for Scotland to have a system of education which is thoroughly national, and which corresponds with the religious and moral ideals of the nation. The general tendency is to contract in, not out, and if one could apply the two-Power standard to education, I think Scotland would
30
certainly be prepared to adopt it. I trust that some day England may be placed in a similar position, and have the privilege and benefit of a national system such as we have in Scotland.
THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE: My Lords, this House has not recently taken kindly to measures emanating from the Scottish Office. It is, therefore, with greater pleasure that we can congratulate the Government on having evolved from that quarter a piece of really useful legislation as laid down in the Bill under discussion to-day. I think, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, has said, the Scottish Office is wise in not having attempted to tackle the question of the enlargement of the educational areas from the parish or the town to the county or the district—a change which has been pressed for from more than one quarter on the ground of economy and increased efficiency.
Clause 22 of this Bill, as I understand it, gives the opportunity for amalgamating some of the smaller school board districts, which may prove of great value; but, after all, ever since the days of John Knox the parish has been the unit of local educational government in Scotland, and I do not believe that any economy worth mentioning would result from so radical a change as has been suggested. Such a change has been carried out in England under somewhat different conditions, but I do not gather that it has resulted in economy to the rates. Moreover, in Scotland, risk would arise of diminishing local interest, which has always been a satisfactory feature of educational matters north of the Tweed. And if you lose interest, you may surely lose something of efficiency also. Experience teaches us that all reforms cost money, however much on the surface they may appear to promise economy; and in this instance officers would have to be pensioned, higher salaries given, larger offices provided, and so on, making it scarcely possible that any economy whatever would result from a drastic enlargement of the educational area, Therefore, although I am aware that I am not voicing the opinion of many noble Lords on this side of the House, I think

31
the Government are wise in having steered clear of a difficult problem.
I think the proposals in this Bill which relate more particularly to secondary education are of great value. I do not propose to go into these subjects. They have been exhaustively treated by my noble friend below me and by the noble Lord who has just sat down. But as regards the finance of the education fund, it appears to me that in one instance you are to some extent robbing Peter to pay Paul. You are taking a grant of £60,000, mentioned in subsection (3) of Clause 15, to swell the education fund. This grant, hitherto, has been paid to the county and town councils, and has almost invariably been applied by them to the relief of the rates. They may have been wrong in so applying it, but the fact remains that if you divert it to another purpose it will mean an inevitable increase in the county and burgh rates, in some cases a somewhat considerable increase As a manager of a voluntary school, I think I can say that this Bill deals fairly with those schools as far as it goes, although it does not give them that preferential treatment by way of Government grant which they claim. The maintenance of these schools up to the standard of efficiency set by the board schools is always a struggle, but I do not think that that struggle is made more severe by anything in this Bill. In fact, rather the reverse, because the provision of free books is a valuable concession; they will also get medical inspection of their children for nothing, and they are promised a fair share of any extra grants which may be going.
Serious objection has been taken to the clause which empowers the Secretary for Scotland to surcharge members of a school board for exceeding their powers in respect to expenditure. I am glad the Government have stood firm on that point, for, after all, the school boards under this Bill are being given largely extended powers, and it is extremely important that they should not exceed those powers. Now that the eventual referee in such cases is to be the Court of Session, I do not see any valid objection to the clause as it now stands. With regard to
32
that part of the Bill which refers more particularly to elementary education, the only thing which can militate against its success is niggardliness on the part of the Treasury. I do not think the Government realise the probable effect on the rates of their proposals in this Bill. Unless they are prepared to make substantial additions to the grant per child in average attendance, I am afraid that the medical inspection of children, the provision of free books to voluntary schools, the possible feeding of destitute children, and so on—all excellent proposals in their way—will be in danger of becoming a dead letter. I am aware that the Secretary for Scotland stated that there would be sufficient out of the residue of the education fund to pay an extra grant of 2s. per head per child. I am convinced that that sum will be nothing like sufficient to recoup the school boards for bringing that part of the Act into force and working it properly.
Many of your Lordships may not realise the great increase which has taken place in the school rate in recent years. To illustrate this point, even at the risk of wearying your Lordships, I will quote, very shortly, from the accounts of a school board administering education in a burgh of some 12,000 inhabitants, with which I am familiar, in the centre of Scotland. In the year 1874, the first year of the school board, the assessable rental was £48,000 and the rate only 3d. in the £, divided between owners and occupiers; in 1883 the assessable rental was £64,000, and the rate had risen to 4½d.; in 1893 the assessable rental was £75,000, and the rate 8d.; in 1903 the rental was £85,000, and the rate had risen to 1s. 3½d.; and this year, with an assessable rental of £110,000, the rate is 1s. 6⅜d. That is to say, from 1874 to 1908, although the assessable rental had more than doubled, the school rate has increased more than six times. I may mention incidentally that there are in this burgh two voluntary schools which are calculated to save the rates to the extent of fully 4d. in the £., and it is this saving to the rates that constitutes the chief claim of these schools to generous preference from grants. These schools do

33
not ask or expect rate aid, because they will not tolerate public control. I admit that at the present time they receive a slight preference in the shape of a small aid grant, but, in view of the large saving which these schools actually afford to the rates, I submit that they are entitled to a far more generous preference in the shape of State aid than they receive at present. In the English Education Act, now happily or unhappily defunct, the contracting-out schools were to have a large preference. These schools would have been in exactly the same position as the Scottish voluntary schools are to-day. Surely, therefore, what is considered just to England cannot be refused to Scotland under similar circumstances. It may be said that these two cases are not on all fours, for whereas the Scottish voluntary schools have never tasted the sweets of rate aid, the English schools were asked to do without rate aid to which they had become accustomed. That, of course, is perfectly true; but I do not think it would have absolved the Government from the necessity, in all fairness, of making an equivalent grant to the Scottish voluntary schools.
To return to the figures I have quoted. Surely they are sufficiently startling as showing the great increase which has taken place in the school rate in recent years. There is another point with regard to this increase, that the proportion put on the local boards has increased while the proportion from the Government grant has decreased. I have here the figures from the Maryhill School Board, near Glasgow. Ten years ago the grant amounted to 79·8 per cent. of the cost of education, and the local purse provided 20·2 per cent.; this year the grants have decreased to 58 per cent., and the amount provided by the local purse has risen to 42 per cent. The result of all this is that the school board in this position feels strongly that they would rather not have this Bill at all if it is to compel them to go on putting up the rates. There is a limit to the complacency of the ratepayers, even in Scotland; they are already beginning to kick, and if these boards are to be compelled, owing to legislation and to the action of the Department, to go on piling
34
up the rates, all local interest in efficient education will be lost, and school boards will be elected whose mandate is economy and economy only, and whom, in consequence, the Department will have the greatest difficulty in compelling to do their duty. Therefore I entreat the Government not to be niggardly in this matter, but to make such an addition to the Imperial grant for elementary education that the advantages of this Bill may be enjoyed without a serious raid on the pockets of the ratepayers.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the principles and details of this Bill have been so clearly stated by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, and have been so thoroughly examined by the noble Lords who have since spoken, that I do not propose to go into the merits of the measure now. The Bill consists chiefly of matters of detail which will be examined in Committee, but I venture to think that the general approval which has been given to the Bill will be continued in respect of the majority of its details in Committee. I merely rose for the purpose of adverting to the two points which are said to be omissions. One point deals with the cumulative vote, and I am a little disappointed to find that it remains part of the educational system in Scotland; but being myself not thoroughly acquainted with the merits and mode of working proportional representation I do not know whether I should, on becoming better acquainted with it, prefer it to the cumulative vote. I think it is possible that if minorities are to be represented there may be some difficulty in finding a voting system less liable to objection than the cumulative vote, although that vote is by no means popular in Scotland. The other point which is said to be an omission has reference to the extension of the areas. In my opinion the Government have, on the whole, probably exercised a wise discretion in not dealing with the subject of areas in this Bill. I desire to associate myself with what has been said by the last two speakers. I think it would have been a great mistake if the Government had attempted to abolish the parish as the area for elementary education, though I am entirely

35
in favour of a much larger area for I secondary education. It seems to me that the county is the right area for secondary education; but the moment you take a large area for elementary education you do away with all local interest. In Scotland, the greatest possible interest is taken in the school boards, but if you were to take, for instance, a road district as the area it would be impossible for the inhabitants of many parishes to be represented upon the school board at all. It is for that reason that I think the Government have been wise in not attempting to copy the English Act. The reason for the unpopularity of the English Act in the rural districts is that the elementary education rate is made a county rate. The people living in rural parishes complain that they are rated very highly and do not know what becomes of the money; all they know is that it is not spent in their neighbourhood. In Scotland, of course, the matter is otherwise; and I hope that, should the area at any time be enlarged, the area for elementary education will be, at all events, a much smaller area than that for secondary education.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, it is with extreme reluctance that I rise to prolong this debate for a few minutes. But I should like to be permitted to say a few words by way of preparation, as it were, for the Amendment which the noble Lord opposite has intimated his intention of moving in Committee. It will be understood at once that what I have to say has reference to the vexed question of the cumulative vote. The noble Earl who has just sat down has confessed that the cumulative vote is extremely unpopular in Scotland, In the Bill as first placed before the House of Commons it was proposed to abolish the cumulative vote and to substitute for it the plan known in France as the scrutin de liste, by which the elector has as many votes as there are candidates to be elected, but can only give one vote to each candidate. But it became evident that, despite the objections to the cumulative vote, there existed still greater objections in many parts of Scotland to the plan proposed in substitution there-for, the effect of which would have been to efface the representation of minorities
36
altogether. Although many objections can be raised to the cumulative vote, it certainly produced results extremely valuable in securing the representation of the different opinions entertained in the community; and upon the constitution of the school board in a large town everyone can understand how much the progress of education depends. You may prescribe regulations as you like, but it is the active, zealous co-operation of the school board on which you must depend for the furtherance of popular education. The substitution of the plan giving the majority vote entire control would have removed those conditions of security and efficiency which the cumulative vote gives; and it was impressed on the Government during the progress of the Bill in the other House that the true plan to adopt was the scheme of representation to be secured by the single transferable vote, which secures all the benefits of the cumulative system without its defects. In the first place, the cumulative vote is extremely awkward for the voter to use. He has to be drilled a good deal into its use and to be taught how to distribute his votes, whilst there is the difficulty of ascertaining the result of the election in consequence of the extremely varied way in which the votes are distributed. A recent experiment made in the use of the single transferable vote, which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has, I think, demonstrated its simplicity, effectiveness, security, and completeness as an alternative method; and I hope that the system will be brought before the notice of the Government on the Committee stage of this Bill. I may mention one fact in respect to that election which is extremely pertinent to the present discussion. I had the advantage of attending this experimental election, and by my side was a gentleman who is or has been for two or three terms a member of the School Board of Edinburgh. This gentleman stayed to the end of the vote-counting, and his verdict was that the result showed how much clearer, easier, and more expeditious the plan was as compared with that of the cumulative vote. I will not enter further into the question at this moment, but the subject should certainly be considered by the Government before the next stage of the

37
Bill is reached. It is an open secret that among the Scottish supporters of the Government in the other House the advocates of proportional representation had secured a majority, and if time had permitted for further discussion in the House of Commons the provision might have come up to us in the way I have suggested. By, as my noble friend Lord Balfour has said, the final stage of the Bill in the House of Commons was conducted under extreme difficulties, and the Government, driven into a corner, abandoned their first plan and left the cumulative vote standing. The cumulative vote undoubtedly protects minorities, but it is true that it is extremely unpopular in Scotland. It cannot be trusted. It cannot be said to have any security or permanence about it; and, if you are offered another plan which avoids the difficulties of the cumulative vote and secures in a more trustworthy manner all its advantages, I think the argument in favour of the substitution of that other plan becomes extremely cogent. It is of the utmost importance that the basis of your education machinery should contain within itself all the available elements of knowledge and experience, in order to have that efficiency and co-operation without which educational progress is impossible. I therefore hope I shall be pardoned for having troubled your Lordships on this subject at this stage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.

LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Three o'clock.