Sitting of 3 July 1908

Preamble
The House met at Twelve noon of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with. viz.:—Leith Burgh Bill [Lords]. Wath and Bolton Gas Board Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Blaydon and Ryton Water (Transfer) Bill. Bromley and Crays Gas Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Macclesfield and District Tramways (Abandonment) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  Upton Town Hall Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Briton Ferry Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Assynt, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Abersychan; Browney; Dalzell; Resolven; and, Silsden; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dalzell, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
  Copy presented, of Regulations for the Territorial Force and the County Associations, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1907.
  Copy presented, of Return giving particulars of cases in which persons have been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners during the quarter ended 31st March, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Parliamentary Voters.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the estimated numbers in England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, respectively, of each of the following classes of persons: men over twenty-one years of age who are Parliamentary voters, men over twenty-one years of age who are not Parliamentary voters, and women over twenty-one years of age.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I fear that the materials for giving the precise information asked for do not exist. The Table which follows is the nearest approach to it that I am able to make, but any calculation based on a subtraction of the figures in column 1 from those in column 2 would be vitiated by the fact that there are no means of estimating how many plural voters are included in column 1.

    1083
    It is supposed that they may number about 784,000 in all, but this figure is

    Number of names appearing on the registers of parliamentary voters for 1908.

    Estimated male adult population on 1st January, 1908

    Estimated female adult population on 1st January, 1908.

    England and Wales

    6,058,894

    9,230,289

    10,327,469

    Scotland

    762,861

    1,233,893

    1,377,241

    Ireland

    692,726

    1,207,524

    1,267,794

    Total

    7,514,481

    11,671,706

    12,972,504

    Post Office Clerks—Hours of Attendance.
    MR. JAMES PAEKER: To ask the Postmaster-General what are the hours of attendance required from assistant clerks serving in the Engineer-in-Chief's Office and the Savings Bank Department of the Post Office, respectively.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The hours of attendance which assistant clerks are at present required to give are, in the Engineer-in-Chief's Office, seven daily from Monday to Friday, and three and a half hours on Saturday; in the Savings Bank Department, seven hours daily from Monday to Friday and four hours on Saturday. But the scale of pay of assistant clerks wherever employed covers an attendance of forty-two hours a week.

    Promotion of Post Office Linesmen.
    MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General, in view of the fact that a considerable number of linemen hold technical and scientific qualifications, some of whom are teaching the subjects of magnetism and electricity in technical institutions under the Board of Education and who are also performing supervisory duties in the engineering department, will he state why unestablished youths are placed in favoured positions and styled acting inspectors, and are promised promotion over the heads of capable and efficient officers who have served the Department for a number of years.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have already assured the linesmen, in
    not sufficiently reliable to be used for the purpose of statistics
    answer to a memorial from representatives of their body, that not a single place proper to the linesmen class will be lost to that class through the earlier selection of some of the younger men for duties requiring different qualifications. The Question has its origin in a mere misapprehension, which has already been explained.

    Vaccination of Postal Employees.
    MR. LUPTON: To ask the Postmaster-General what are the regulations with regard to the vaccination of the staff and employees in the Post Office, including the telegraph and telephone departments.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Candidates for Post Office employment are required to be re-vaccinated unless they exhibit good marks of primary and secondary vaccination or definite evidence of having had small pox. The only exceptions to this regulation are applicants for appointment as commission sub-postmasters and persons casually employed for short periods.

    Scottish Fishery Board—Fees and Expenses.
    MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the sums received from the Treasury for fees and expenses by each of the members of the Scottish Fishery Board during each of the years 1906 and 1907.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The information desired by my hon. friend is

    1085
    as follows:—(1) No fees were paid to any members of the Board during either

    1906.

    1907.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Mr. Angus Sutherland, C. B., Chairman

    1

    1

    0

    3

    6

    9

    Sheriff D. Crawford, K. C., Deputy Chairman

    2

    10

    4

    2

    9

    6

    Professor D'Arey W. Thompson, C. B.

    2

    10

    0

    17

    15

    6

    Dr. W. R. Duguid, Buckie

    38

    6

    0

    43

    1

    9

    Mr. L. Milloy, Rothesay

    22

    6

    7

    21

    18

    6

    Mr. H.Watson, Anstruther

    7

    2

    3

    10

    2

    1

    Mr. D. Mearns, Aberdeen

    26

    2

    0

    26

    11

    0

    Treatment of Glanders.
    COLONEL WALKER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, in view of the continued prevalence of glanders in London, whether the Board of Agriculture will now consider the necessity of adopting the Rideal-Walker method of controlling the supplies of disinfectants called for under their order, such method having been adopted by the War Office, Admiralty, and Board of Trade.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The outbreaks of glanders in London are steadily decreasing, the number of outbreaks this year to the 20th ultimo being 248, as compared with 302 for the corresponding period of last year. Its prevalence would not in any way appear to be due to the failure of the present method of disinfection, and the Board are advised that no advantage would be gained by the adoption of the method to which the hon. Member refers.

    Migration of Isle of Lewis Cottars.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the qualifications required of cottars in the Island of Lewis who have sent in their names as willing to migrate to the mainland.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The landward committee of the parish council of
    1906 or 1907. (2) The travelling expenses paid were:—
    Stornoway have been asked to furnish the Congested Districts Board with information regarding the means and experience of each applicant, so that the I Board may know whether any, and, if so, how many, such qualified applicants the landward committee wish to put forward for consideration.

    Imports of Foreign Malt.
    MR. BARNARD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quantity of foreign malt imported into this country in the years 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, and 1907, respectively.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The quantities of malt imported into the United Kingdom from foreign countries during the years named were as follows:—

    Cwts.

    1903

    847

    1904

    5,203

    1905

    4,930

    1906

    15,122

    1907

    18,635

    No malt was imported in any of these years from British Possessions.

    Irish School Rules for Teachers.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether in a national school, Roll No. 1950, Circuit 9, Section A, the infants

    1087
    are being effectively and efficiently taught at present; if so, why the Commissioners of National Education make it a condition before enlarging the school that future assistants shall be females; whether the average for the past five years has been steadily increasing; whether the appointment of a female might have the result of lowering the attendance; whether at present two teachers and a monitor are engaged in one small room; and whether in view of all these facts, the Commissioners will favourably consider the application of the manager.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners inform me that the school in question is reported to be conducted efficiently. Under Rule 127 (b) boys under seven years of age are ineligible for enrolment in a boys school where there is no mistress, unless there is no suitable school in the locality, or the probable result will be the loss of an assistant teacher to the school. In the existing school the rule has not been enforced because there is not sufficient accommodation in the girls' school for additional pupils. The Commissioners could not sanction a grant for the enlargement of the schoolhouse except on the conditions notified to the manager, namely, that provision must be made for the transfer of the infant boys to the girls' school unless the manager is prepared to appoint an assistant mistress to the boys' school on the occurrence of the first vacancy. The average attendance for the four years up to 1906 showed a steady increase, but last year there was a slight decrease. There is no reason to anticipate that the appointment of an assistant mistress would cause a lowering of the attendance. Two teachers and a monitor are at present employed in a room measuring thirty-four feet by nineteen feet. The Commissioners cannot entertain the manager's application except on the terms notified to him.

    Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants on the Grehan Estates
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the applications of Miss Hannah Clahane, Michael O'Regan, and
    1088
    Patrick Hannan for reinstatement in their holdings on the Grehan estate, Kildorrery, county Cork; if the farms formerly held by these tenants are now in the occupation of Mr. John J. Sherry, who resides at Mooresfoot, county Tipperary, over twenty miles distant, and that the farms are merely used as accommodation land, without an acre of tillage; and whether, under these circumstances, the Commissioners will consider the necessity of applying the compulsory powers they possess to effect the reinstatement of the evicted tenants in question.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have considered the applications in question, and have decided to take no action in the case of Patrick Hannan. In the other two cases the former holdings are held by judicial tenants, and the Commissioners consider that the compulsory provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act are not applicable in such cases. The Commissioners, however, will consider the applications in those cases in connection with the distribution of any untenanted land which they may acquire in the locality.

    Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops (Ireland) Order, 1908.
    MR. BAERIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received numerous resolutions from public boards and public meetings recently held in Ireland, protesting against the general Order of the Local Government Board respecting dairies, cowsheds, and milk shops; and whether he will defer the enforcement of the order until the objections to portions of it have been reconsidered and dealt with.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) A comparatively small number of resolutions taking exception to the Order has been received. The Local Government Board afforded to all local authorities the fullest opportunity of considering the terms of the order, a draft of it having been circulated in August last with a view to elicit their opinions. Any points made by local authorities were carefully considered, and certain modifications were made in the draft Order before its adoption in February. The Order came into operation on 1st May, and it would be undesirable to take any steps which would

    1089
    impede the local authorities in giving effect to it.
    MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Milford Rural District Council protesting against The Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops (Ireland) Order, 1908, made by the Local Government Board, and representing that if enforced in their district it will occasion great hardship to the small farmers, who are not in a position to make the required structural alterations or generally to carry out the demands made by the Order; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board received the resolution in question, and in reply thereto the Board pointed out to the council that it was their duty to arrange for the registration of cowkeepers, dairymen, and purveyors of milk within their district, but, seeing that only a small dairying business is carried on there, the Board indicated that the work of inspection might be performed by the sanitary sub-officers instead of by specially appointed dairy inspectors. The Board have reason to believe that only a few farmers in this district who habitually sell milk or supply milk to a creamery will be affected by the Order.

    Payment of Irish Education Grants.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if it is the intention of the National Board of Education to pay the proposed grant by capitation; and, if so, will he urge the Commissioners to pay all capitation grants quarterly instead of annually.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is intended that capitation should enter into the distribution of the grant. The Commissioners consider that it would not be practicable to pay the capitation grants quarterly.

    POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would like someone in charge of the Bill to give the House a little information about it.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and, forty Members being found present,
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid that as he was not a member of the Standing Committee he had not had an opportunity of ascertaining whether the Bill had been altered in Committee. This appeared to him to be another measure which had been substituted entirely for the original Bill.
    MR. A. ALLENsaid that no such change had been made by the Committee upstairs.
    Bill read the third time and passed.

    INCEST BILL.
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [26th June], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIA MENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL.
    Not amended by (the Standing Committee), considered.
    SIR F. BANBURY SIR F. BANBURY moved in Clause 1, after "thereof," to add: "Provided that the local authority, within the meaning of the same section in the City of London, shall be the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the City of London in Common Council assembled." He said that in London and other boroughs the polling districts had generally been arranged by the justices of the peace, but the county council was the authority promoted by this Bill. The position in the City differed materially from that in all the metropolitan boroughs. The justices in the City were practically the same authority as the municipality, and the Bill therefore proposed to deprive the City of one of its ancient rights. The City being a place of business, with a large number of banks in it, it was very

    1091
    necessary to have an intimate knowledge of it in order that its business arrangements might not be disturbed on polling days. No useful object could be served by altering the arrangements in the City which up to the present had worked extremely well. The London County Council could not know anything about these matters, and it would be a great mistake to alter an arrangement which had gone on for the last 300 or 400 years in order to substitute a body which had not the interest or the knowledge to carry out such work.
    MR. MORTONseconded. Personally he could not see why this business should not be left to the City. It had been well managed by them in the past, and he did not know any reason why the House should do anything in the direction of destroying self-government in the City. He hoped the House would agree to allow the City of London to manage its own affairs in its own way.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 13, after the word 'thereof' to insert the words 'provided that the local authority, within the meaning of the same section in the City of London, shall be the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London in Common Council assembled.'"— (Sir Frederick Banbury.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    MR. A. ALLENsaid that this question was raised in the Standing Committee, a good deal of opposition was offered to the proposal, and the Amendment was eventually withdrawn. Since that time the London County Council, in deference to the views of a deputation from the City of London, had decided not to offer any opposition to the Amendment. In these circumstances he could not oppose it.
    MR. DICKINSONsaid the circumstances of this question were rather peculiar. When the Bill was read a second time there was no question raised about any differentiation of the position of the City of London. On the Committee this proposal was made but rejected. Now the Bill came before the House of Commons and the proposal was again made. For years no progress had been made with this measure
    1092
    in this House until this year, but it had passed through the House of Lords on three different occasions, and speaking subject to correction he believed the proposal to exclude the City was not inserted. Now at the last moment this proposal to exclude the City was again brought forward.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Committee which rejected the Amendment was not a Select Committee, but a small Standing Committee consisting of only a few members.
    MR. DICKINSONsaid the same proposal was brought forward before the Standing Committee and withdrawn. The proposal was that the City of London should be left out of a general scheme for the division of London boroughs into polling districts. He did not think the House had yet been made fully aware of the actual proposals which the Bill contained. Under the Registration Acts the duty of dividing the polling districts was given to the magistrates, in Petty Sessions in those cases where the Petty Sessional Divisions were absolutely coterminous with the Parliamentary borough whilst in all other cases it was relegated to Quarter Sessions. By the Local Government Act, 1888, the functions of Quarter Sessions were transferred to the county council. Hence it came about that when the London County Council set to work they found that some of the London boroughs were coterminous with the Petty Sessional Divisions and there the magistrates at Petty Sessions had to carry out the duty of dividing their area into polling districts. Where the boroughs were not coterminous that duty was with the London County Council. Consequently, the London County Council exercised jurisdiction over certain parts of London and the magistrates over other parts. The matter was further complicated by the fact that the Local Government Act of 1888 placed the duty of dividing the whole of London, including the City, into polling districts for the election of the members of the London County Council in the hands of the County Council alone. Now, the electoral divisions for the election of the members of the London County Council were defined by the Act of 1888 as being the same as the divisions for the

    1093
    Parliamentary elections. When the London County Council were settling the polling districts for all London for the purposes of their own election, including the City, they found that for the purposes of Parliamentary elections they had not got the power to settle the polling districts in certain of the Metropolitan boroughs. That being found very unsatisfactory the present proposals before the House were made years ago and had ever since been awaiting solution. He did not wish to argue the question of the expediency of the Bill, because it was clear that it must be to the public advantage that these particular duties should be performed by one authority and not by two. That being granted the question arose why should a special exception be made for the City. The hon. Baronet had argued that the City contained a good many important business houses. His reply to that argument was that there were a great many important businesses in other parts of London. If the City of London was excluded it was perfectly clear that the other boroughs which had hitherto been divided into polling districts by the justices of petty sessions ought also to be excluded. According to this Amendment the right solution was that each division should not be in the hands of the London County Council at all, but in the hands of the Metropolitan borough councils. That was a proposition for which there was a good deal to be said although he did not think it was so expedient as the proposals in the Bill, but if the City was to be excluded the same principle ought to be applied to all the other London boroughs which were in the same position. The change proposed by the Amendment went a great deal further than the House appreciated, Not only would it exclude the City of London from the general scheme, but it would change the system in the City itself, since it would transfer a power from the magistrates of the City to the Common Council. He hoped the House would not make the very considerable change proposed in the Amendment. He felt certain that had it been known that a proposal which was rejected by the Committee was going to be accepted by the promoters of the Bill, who had themselves
    1094
    urged forcible arguments against it when in Committee, those who were opposed to it would have come to the House prepared to resist the Amendment. He asked the House to agree with its own Committee and not be subject to an agreement come to between the London County Council and the City Corporation outside the House, and since the Bill was before that Committee.
    MR. GUINNESShoped the House would accept the Amendment. He opposed the proposal in Committee, but since then the City Corporation had met the London County Council and the matter had been thoroughly gone into. It was felt that it was not advisable that two authorities of such importance should quarrel over a small point like this. There was apparently a strong feeling in the City about the matter. The hon. Member had said that if they made an exception in the case of the City, it would have to be done also in the case of the boroughs. He did not agree with that. The City Corporation at present exercised functions which were generally carried out by county councils. The City Council had authority over pauper lunatics, explosives, coroners, and weights and measures. When they were giving this new duty to the County Council, it was advisable in the interest of the smooth working of local government to give these powers to the City also. There was a very strong argument against the suggestion of the hon. Member to transfer to the City Corporation the powers which were at present in the hands of petty sessions. For one thing, all the magistrates in the City were members of the City Corporation, and in addition to that it was extremely doubtful what the law in the City was at present. There was very great doubt who was the proper authority to divide the City for the purpose of Parliamentary elections, and therefore, it was undesirable that the law should be left in its present rather obscure state. In this matter there was no question of any trouble between the County Council and the City Corporation. As long as the County Council were informed of any change in the polling arrangements made by the City no trouble could possibly arise.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)said that as the law now stood the London County Council was the authority for dividing a borough into polling districts only when the borough was situated in more than one petty sessional division. Where a borough was wholly situated in one petty sessional division the justices were the authority. This obviously was an anomalous survival of an ancient system. This Bill, promoted by the County Council, proposed that the County Council should be the authority throughout London for dividing the boroughs into polling districts for Parliamentary purposes as for London County Council elections. The hon. Baronet opposite now proposed that a special exception should be made in the case of the City, and that this power should be placed in the hands of the City Corporation. The hon. Baronet said that that should be done in order not to deprive the City of an ancient right. This was not one of the ancient rights of the City Corporation. There were some people who thought that the City Corporation possessed powers which might with advantage be curtailed, but this Bill did not raise that question at all. It was not a question of the Corporation v. the County Council, because the aldermen of the City of London did not act in this matter as the Corporation, but because they were justices of the City, just as the justices in other London boroughs acted on behalf of those boroughs. There was no power in the hands of the Corporation qua Corporation to deal with the matter. The power which the hon. Baronet proposed to confer was a completely new power never yet in the hands of the City Corporation. It seemed to him that if they passed the Amendment, they would perpetuate an anomaly for no good reason. If they gave to the City Corporation these exceptional powers, either the polling districts would be the same for Parliamentary and County Council elections or they would not. If they were the same, why should the City Corporation object to the London County Council fixing the polling districts for both? If they were not the same, it was obvious that confusion would arise
    1096
    and people would not know where to vote. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds took that view in Committee, and on behalf of the Government he himself had had no hesitation in supporting him. The Amendment now before the House was the only one moved in Committee. It was moved by the hon. Member for Aston Manor, and after discussion, the Committee were unanimously against it, and the Amendment was withdrawn. Now the hon. Member came to the House to-day and asked them to reverse the decision of the Committee. The hon. Member gave two reasons. One was that it was a bad thing for two local authorities in London to quarrel. In other words, the County Council had surrendered to the City. The second reason was that the City had power to deal with pauper lunatics, explosives, coroners, and weights and measures. He was at a loss to know why that should empower the City Corporation to divide its area for Parliamentary polling purposes differently from the way in which it was divided by the County Council for County Council elections. In view of the facts that there were no ancient rights of the Corporation here involved, and that good administration and good legislation required that only one authority should divide this area for local and Parliamentary elections, he would vote against the Amendment if it went to a division.
    MR. RAWLINSONsaid that when a private Bill was brought forward the promoters might be supposed to know their own business. In Committee the promoters would not agree to the Amendment now before the House, but now they came forward and said they were willing to accept it.
    MR. A. ALLENsaid that in the absence of the hon. Gentleman in charge, of the Bill he merely stated that the London County Council would not oppose the Amendment. His personal views were directly opposed to the Amendment.
    MR. RAWLINSONsaid that if the hon. Member supported an Amendment to-which he was opposed, that was entirely a matter for his own conscience. He had often been surprised at hon. Members

    1097
    taking that course, but he did not intend to say anything further on that. When one accepted an Amendment which he had formerly opposed, it was no doubt because, on a balance of considerations, he had reasons for changing his mind, but surely the House ought to be told what the reasons were.
    MR. A. ALLENsaid he simply stated in the regrettable absence of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill that the County Council offered no opposition to the Amendment. He deliberately abstained from explaining his own views. He thought it would have been unfair to do so in the absence of the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. RAWLINSONsaid he did not mean to say anything to offend the hon. Gentleman. Whatever his own private views were, he now came forward and on behalf of the promoters of the Bill accepted an Amendment which they opposed in Committee. When the promoters of a private Bill came forward and accepted an Amendment, surely the House ought to accept it or reject the Bill, as the case might be. But then the Government stepped in and said practically that the Amendment was one which the House ought to reject. He thought that in dealing with a private Member's Bill, the Government should not bring pressure on its supporters to vote one way or the other, but should leave it to the judgment of the House. He was not in a position to speak on behalf of the City of London, but he had had the privilege of residing in it for over a quarter of a century. As an inhabitant, he should support the Amendment, because he believed that the internal affairs of the City were exceedingly well managed from the point of view of people who lived within its boundaries. No doubt there were some districts, such as the Temple, where the arrangements were difficult to deal with, but these had been exceedingly well carried out, and the other administration of the City had been of the highest kind. For these reasons he hoped the House would agree to the Amendment.
    MR. HART-DAVIESsaid that as a London Member he should support what had fallen from the hon.
    1098
    Member for St. Pancras. A drawback to London administration had been the want of uniformity, and anything which tended to accentuate separate authorities ought to be deprecated. The County Council had already the power to control their own elections in the City, and there was no reason why they should not also control the Parliamentary elections. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, although this and other Bills had been promoted by independent parties in the County Council, both sides had agreed to it. The particular Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet had by no means been accepted by the County Council. A minority strongly objected to it, because they wanted the procedure throughout London to be uniform. The Bill as it stood was passed unanimously by the Committee upstairs, and it was a pity that this disturbing element should have been introduced at the last moment. He hoped the Amendment would be rejected.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the Under-Secretary for the Home Office had stated that the Amendment proposed to confer a new power upon the City Corporation qua City Corporation, but he would point out that the power was now vested in the aldermen acting as justices, and that the form of his Amendment was adopted at the request of the Government draftsman. He thought it was a little hard that a form of words which had been adopted to suit the requirements of the Government draftsman should be denounced by the representative of the Government. The County Council was the existing authority in such Metropolitan boroughs as were situated in more than one petty sessional division. That was evidently because of the overlapping of two different authorities, and was a reasonable course to adopt. But there was no overlapping in the City, and there was no reason why the aldermen of the City should not have this privilege which they had had for a considerable number of years. The fact that the County Council had the power to arrange the whole of the polling districts for their own election had nothing to do with the polling districts in the City for Parliamentary elections.
    MR. GUINNESSsaid that the Undersecretary for the Home Office must admit that the City occupied a unique position, and as there was a strong feeling in the City in regard to this matter, he thought it was hardly worth while to oppose the suggestion made in the Amendment. He had made inquiries and found that no inconvenience had been caused in the past by the powers existing at present in the Corporation as to the arrangement of the polling districts, and that the fullest
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the third time."
    information in regard thereto had been given by the City Corporation to the London County Council. He thought that in view of the ancient privileges of the City and the sentimental feeling regarding them, the House might accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 26; Noes, 93. (Division List No. 162.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stanier, Beville

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

    Starkey, John R.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

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

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

    Younger, George

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Gretton, John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

    Frederick Banbury and Mr.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Guinness.

    NOES.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Hogan, Michael

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Beale, W. P.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Rogers. F. E. Newman

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

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rowlands J.

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Hudson, Walter

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Brigg, John

    Button, Alfred Eddison

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Jowett, F. W.

    Sears, J. E.

    Cameron, Robert

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sheehy, David

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Lundon, W.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Chance, Frederick William

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Maclean, Donald

    Tomkinson, James

    Cleland, J. W.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Verney, F. W.

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

    M'Callum, John M.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Corbett. C H (Sssex, E.Grinst'd)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Crean, Eugene

    Massie, J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Cullinan, J.

    Meagher, Michael

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Elibank, Master of

    Mooney, J. J.

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Morrell, Philip

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Murnaghan, George

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Myer, Horatio

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nannetti, Joseph P,

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Findlay, Alexander

    O'Doherty, Philip

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Halpin, J.

    O'Dowd, John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hardie, J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Dickinson, and Mr. Hart-

    Harrington, Timothy

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Davies.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    SIR F. BANBURYsaid that before the Third Reading was taken he would

    1101
    like to point out that the House was in a very unusual position. This was a private Bill in regard to which the promoters agreed to a certain arrangement. The form of that arrangement was modified to suit the Government draftsman, and then a member of the Government came down to the House and objected to the form in which it had been put by the Government draftsman and advised the House not to accept it. The result was that the Members who were not in the House and knew nothing of the matter, came to the door of the House when the division was called and asked which way they were to vote, and because a member of the Government, not speaking with the voice of the Government, came down and said he objected to this form, they voted against it. It showed the utter absurdity of legislating on a Friday afternoon. Here was a point upon which the City Corporation and the London County Council were agreed, yet neither of those important bodies were allowed to have its way, because a member of the Government chose to form a private opinion and influenced a sufficient number of his Party against the arrangement. It would be useless for him to oppose the Third Reading, but he trusted that in another place, where logic prevailed and agreements were respected, the Amendment would be inserted.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
    As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
    As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
    MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON moved to omit Clause 1. He thought the House ought to know something of the reasons for it before passing a Bill of this kind. At the present time a landlord
    1102
    had power if a tenant was in arrear to seize any property on the premises and sell it under distress. It was sometimes felt that injustice was done where another person had goods in the house of the person in arrear with his rent, because if the landlord came down and seized those goods the person to whom they belonged must either pay the rent or allow his goods to go. There was an exception to that rule in the case of a lodger who had paid his rent up to date, and if the Bill only extended that exception in the direction of its being applied to bona fide under-tenants he would not oppose it. The Bill, however, went further. It exempted the property of other people. In the case of a father and son, the latter was neither a lodger nor an under-tenant, but he was living in the house. If his furniture was to be exempt from distress it might have two effects. Such a law would open the door to fraud, because the father would be able to say the furniture belonged to his son either by purchase or by gift. That was the first objection. The second was that in every case there would be a great temptation to say it was harsh to the stranger whose goods were on the premises. That was a misleading argument because the persons really injured by making the law of distress too easy as in the case of this Bill was not the landlord but the tenant. In the case of owners of large areas of house property the only effect of exempting certain of the property in those houses from the law of distress would be to make the landlord harsh in his terms in order to cover the risk. In the case of the owners of small property, and there were many such in this country, who probably would not be found to act harshly, but who might be induced to levy distress earlier than they otherwise would—in that case great injustice would be done to them by taking away the power they now had, which on the whole had worked well, of distraining on all or any of the goods on the premises and leaving the owner of them, who was armed against the man who had distrained upon the goods, to take his remedy. He submitted that this alteration of the law, though well meant, was undesirable from the point of view of the tenants and that the law had better be left as it now was. He begged to move.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILLseconded the Amendment, and observed that the words of the section did not appear to him to be quite clear; they were capable of creating considerable hardship on tenants in houses in populous places.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."— (Mr. Rawlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'lodger,' in line 8, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. HERBERTthought the House was indebted to the hon. Members for raising this question, and it was right that they should have an opportunity of hearing the matter discussed, although it was thoroughly discussed in Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman had correctly laid down that the position of a landlord as a creditor was more favourable than that of a creditor in another trade, because he could take the goods of anybody else which he found on his premises, besides those of his debtor. That had given rise to great hardship, and gradually, wherever such a case had arisen it had been whittled away either by decisions or by statute, but those decisions had been given upon no general principle. The special case of hardship which led to the introduction of this Bill was that of a gentleman, named Robinson, who was the ground landlord of Willis's Rooms, which he let to a company for a very high rent of £1,200 or £1,300 a year, and that company sub-let a part of the premises as a club to a Mr. Challoner. One of the objects of the club was to encourage the sale of works of art by inviting artists to send their pictures there in order that they might have periodical exhibitions, and then perhaps unknown artists would have an opportunity of being brought out. The ground landlord allowed the rent of his immediate tenants to fall into arrear, and of course Mr. Challoner had no opportunity of knowing that. He invited an exhibition of pictures at his club, and a number of artists sent in their pictures to the club. When the exhibition was at an end and the owners were going to take their pictures away, down came Mr.
    1104
    Robinson and said: "I will take every one of these pictures for that rent which, by my own negligence, I have allowed to fall into arrear," and he did so. That was a great hardship. It was immediately followed by a similar case at the Earl's Court Exhibition. An exhibition was held there of Paris dresses, and a number of people sent models over and paid every penny of the rent due in respect of their stalls, and when they were going to take them away at the end of the exhibition down came the ground landlord and said he would sell them all for the rent which he had allowed his immediate tenant to fall in arrear with. There was also an extraordinary case mentioned by the Attorney-General during the discussion of the Bill in Committee, of a friend of his who was driving in his motor car in the country. It broke down, and a kindly individual said: "Put it in my coach-house until you have had it mended." He did that, but when he came back for it, he found that the landlord had taken the motor car in distress for the rent. Everybody was agreed that some alteration ought to be made to prevent that sort of thing, and the way in which he proposed to make an alteration was to take the principle of the Lodger's Goods Protection Act, which he thought was a very reasonable principle. That principle and the principle of this Bill was that each person's goods should be liable for every penny which he owed in respect of the premises, but should not be liable for what was owed by anybody else. He had drafted the Bill himself, but a private Member was not in so favourable a position for carrying through a Bill as the Government, and, therefore, when one had to carry a Bill through, practically by common consent, it must be something which was really felt to be a great hardship. He quite agreed to some of his friend's observations, and he had tried to be very careful not to open the door to fraud, for care had been taken that the Bill was not to be made an instrument of fraud. One found that, unfortunately, the very happy relationship of marriage, had been made a shocking instrument of fraud as against creditors, and, therefore, he did not allow a tenant whose rent was in arrears to shield himself behind his.

    1105
    wife. The clause had been drawn with a view to preventing in any case the tenant escaping from the payment of his rent by fraud. He offered in Committee and was willing now to accept any Amendment which was necessary to make the clause watertight, and he saw that there were a couple of Amendments down in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston. He was not sure they were necessary, but he was willing that they should be put in.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. RAWLINSONsaid he need only formally move tha Amendment on the Paper, in view of what the last speaker had said. The Amendment dealt with the exemption of certain goods from the effect of the Act. Bills of sale and hire purchase agreements were well-known business documents which did not require protection.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILLseconded.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 26, after the word 'any,' to insert the words 'bill of sale, hire purchase agreement, or.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HERBERTsaid he was quite willing to accept the Amendment. He did not think the words were necessary, but they did no harm.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,.)said he quite agreed with the criticism as to the method of drafting a Bill by reference, and he suggested that after this Bill became law the promoters should incorporate in one Act the Lodgers Goods Protection Act, 1871, and this Act, so that no reference need be in this Act to any other Act.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he gathered that the hon. Member in charge of the
    1106
    Bill was prepared to insert the clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hoxton in another place. Was that so?
    MR. HERBERT: Yes.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
    As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
    SIR F. BANBURYmoved to leave out from the word "where," in page 1, line 5, to the word "a," in line 6, and to insert the words "a Court of summary jurisdiction is satisfied by evidence produced before it that." The Bill as it stood now provided that where in the opinion of a Court of summary jurisdiction a married man was an habitual drunkard, certain things might ensue. He pro-posed to insert those words so that it would read that when a Court was satisfied by evidence produced before it that a married man was an habitual drunkard, certain things would ensue. Considering the large powers given to a Court if they came to the opinion that a man was an habitual drunkard, he thought the Court, before arriving at that opinion, should hear evidence, and that the man should be allowed to produce evidence to prove that he was not an habitual drunkard. Unless that was done, injustice might arise. It had always been held that a man should be considered innocent until he was proved guilty. If exceptional powers were put into the hands of the Court of summary jurisdiction, the onus of proof should rest exactly in the same manner as it rested in regard to other offences. It might be held, though having consulted one or two legal authorities, he was not quite certain whether it would be so, that the clause already expressed the meaning which he desired to see carried out. He did not, however, think that it did. He had read the Licensing Act of 1892, which dealt

    1107
    with a similar case, and he found there a form of words inserted to ensure that the Court would have evidence brought before it. Even if the clause did carry out his meaning, he did not think there could be any objection to the alteration he proposed. It would make it quite clear that the clauses did carry out the object he had in view. He did not know who was in charge of the Bill. He did not see any of the Members present whose names were on the back of it
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; they are not.
    SIR F. BANBURYasked whether it was in order to move a Bill in the absence of those Members whose names were on the back of it. He had always understood that under the rules introduced in 1902, the power of moving a Bill was taken away from any Member of the House who was not associated with it. He raised this as a point of order.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question has been put. I did not observe that there was no Member in charge of the Bill present. I do not think that anybody did move the Bill.
    SIR F. BANBURY: Perhaps I had better move the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the better plan would be to ask if anybody does move this Order which stands on the Paper. I ask whether any hon. Member does move it.
    MR. HAZLETON: I beg to move.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted—
    MR. SPEAKER: There not being forty Members present, I now leave the Chair until such time as there may be.
    The sitting was resumed at Two o'clock, Mr. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.) in the Chair.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid that when the sitting was suspended he was urging that his Amendment should be adopted, in order to ensure that a Court of summary jurisdiction should necessarily have evidence before it before branding a man as an habitual drunkard. He did not wish to cast any discredit upon Courts of summary jurisdiction either in Ireland or any other part of the country, but merely to say, without having it clearly expressed in the Bill, that evidence should be heard and brought before the Court was an erroneous method of procedure which would not commend itself to anyone. His Amendment would provide that evidence must be brought before the Court to show whether or not the particular person charged was an habitual drunkard. The only case which was anything like a parallel was that of the Licensing Act of 1902 which contained a paragraph giving some latitude to the Court, and that proposal was modified by the insertion of some such words as he now proposed to insert in this Bill. His difficulty was that he did not know who was in charge of the Bill, and he did not even know who was going to reply to his proposal. He begged to move.
    MR. STANIERseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 5, to leave out from the word 'where' to the word 'a,' in line 6, and to-insert the words 'a Court of summary jurisdiction is satisfied by evidence produced before it that.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. REDMOND BARRY,.)expressed the opinion that the Amendment might well be accepted.
    MR. MOONEYprotested against the Bill being proceeded with in view of the fact that of the hon. Members who had placed their names on the back of it not one had taken the trouble to attend the sitting. It was not treating the House with respect, and he doubted whether they ought to proceed with the Bill under the circumstances.
    MR. GODFREY BARINGthought the absence of all the hon. Members whose names appeared on the back of the Bill so extraordinary a circumstance that he moved the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. WALKERseconded the Motion.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he failed to see why the debate should be adjourned. The House were fortunate in having the presence of the Solicitor-General for Ireland, and all the hon. Members named on the back of the Bill were Unionists, with whose opinion upon any controversial point the hon. and learned Gentleman was not likely to agree. The questions involved were of a legal character. If the Motion for adjournment were carried it would be impossible to discuss the Bill during this session, and a discussion of its provisions was desirable, although he did not think any hon. Member was opposed to the measure.
    MR. JAMES CAMPBELLhoped the Motion for adjournment would not be pressed. Three of the four hon. Members whose names appeared on the back of the Bill were unable to be present. The noble Lord the Member for Londonderry was attending the annual training of a regiment in which he held a commission, the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh was engaged at the moment upon the Grand Committee on the Irish University Bill, the hon. Member for North Down was seriously ill, and the hon. Member for North Fermanagh was professionally engaged in Ireland.
    MR. LUTTRELLthought it would be a great mistake if they did not take advantage of this opportunity to deal with the Bill. He hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his Motion.
    MR. SLOANthought it would be disastrous to adjourn the debate at this stage. He was sure that the hon. Member's Motion was not directed against the Bill, and he appealed to him to allow it to proceed. The fact that it was
    1110
    moved by a Member of the Nationalist Party showed that the measure was not controversial.
    MR. MOONEYsaid that nearly all the Amendments were of a purely legal character, and it was not fair to hon. Members to discuss them without a single hon. Member present representing the party who introduced the Bill. He observed that the Member for the University of Dublin had just entered the House, and that altered the position somewhat and made him rather inclined to proceed with the Bill.
    MR. GODFREY BARINGasked leave to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    SIR F. BANBURYmoved an Amendment designed to protect "anything purchased by her with such earnings or property," thereby omitting the words in the clause "or directed by her to be purchased." He contended that the inclusion of these words in the clause would lead to endless confusion. All that was needed was that a person should say, "I have purchased the article, and I pay for it out of my own money."
    MR. STANIERseconded.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word 'her,' to the word 'with' in line 13.'" —(Sir F. Banbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. MOONEYasked whether the Solicitor-General for Ireland accepted this Amendment. He thought the words were unnecessary, and would only lead to complications. They raised the whole question of the law of agency and would lead to a long legal argument as to authority.
    MR. REDMOND BARRYthought that the omission of the words would improve the clause
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR F. BANBURYmoved an Amendment providing that the persons who may make an application to the Court are the wife of the habitual drunkard or his or her parent, child, brother, or sister, or the relieving officer of the district in which the alleged habitual drunkard resides. He thought if they exempted from those who could make an application to the Court justices of the peace of the county or borough in which the alleged habitual drunkard resided, the various other persons authorised by the clause, namely, the wife of the habitual drunkard or his or her parent, child, brother, or sister, would be sufficient to put the Bill in operation. Both sides of the family would be represented, and the relieving officer of the district would also have power to apply to the Court. It was right that the relieving officer should be included in order that in cases where the wife had no relations at all, or none who were willing to take action, he should be able to step in and assist her, while at the same time protecting the interests of the ratepayers, because the habitual drunkard would probably be a person who was so spending his money that he might become a burden on the rates. The relieving officer would have an interest in seeing that the Act was carried out, and he supposed that was the object with which he was put in. The magistrate should not be included, because he was there to administer the law, and not to act as a policeman finding out cases which could be brought before the Court; he should be in such a position as to be regarded as absolutely impartial. The relieving officer having been included amongst those who might apply to the Court, no injustice could possibly arise. He could conceive of a justice of the peace initiating a charge which might be brought before himself in his judicial capacity, and, however impartially he might act, his impartiality might be doubted by people who appeared before him on this and other charges.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 26, to leave out from the third word 'or' to the word 'the' in page 2, line 2."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. LUTTRELLsaid that this was a reasonable Amendment. The relieving officer was not to be empowered to act on his own authority. He was only to act in accordance with the directions of the board of guardians. That being so, the officer might safely be allowed to carry out what might be in many cases a very disagreeable piece of work.
    MR. JAMES CAMPBELLthought the Amendment a reasonable and proper one. It was a pity that they should impose on justices of the peace duties which were not magisterial. They should be kept to their own proper functions, and it was no part of their functions to pay inquisitorial visits to houses in the districts where they had jurisdiction.
    MR. MOONEYopposed the Amendment on the ground that the power given by the Bill would have to be brought into force occasionally at very short notice. The circumstances of cases would require that action should not be delayed. Prompt action would have to be taken, and the fact that the relieving officer could only act on the direction of the board of guardians in making application to the Court would mean that in many cases delays which ought to be avoided would occur.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid it would be perfectly easy to leave out the words "acting by the direction of the board of guardians" at the end of the subsection.
    MR. MOONEYsaid he was only dealing with the Amendment which the hon. Baronet had moved. There were many cases where for various reasons, although an Order of the Court ought to be obtained by the relatives of the habitual drunkard, they would hesitate

    1113
    to apply to the Court, and the getting hold of the relieving officer might not be an easy matter, especially if he could only act on the direction of the board of guardians. He believed persons holding the commission of the peace were fit and proper persons to receive the power proposed to be conferred upon them. If the Bill were passed, he believed a majority of the applications would be made by the magistrates, and not by the relieving officers or the relatives.
    MR. HAZLETON,in opposing the Amendment, asked the House to remember that the Bill had been carefully I considered by the Committee, who, it might be presumed, had good I reason for leaving in the words which the hon. Baronet proposed to omit. The Amendment, in his opinion, would seriously weaken the Bill, and lessen the good effect it was likely to have. The relieving officer was often a very busy man whose time was occupied with other duties. It had been pointed out that the officer could only act by direction of the board of guardians, and that the relatives in such cases would hesitate to apply to the Court. It was necessary, therefore, that the justices of the peace should have power to act in bringing cases before the Court.
    MR. REDMOND BARRYhoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. In any case where a magistrate
    took the initiative, it would be impossible for him to sit in judgment on the case. On the whole it was very desirable that the words should be retained.
    MR. SLOANappealed to the hon. Baronet to withdraw the Amendment. There were scores of cases in which the power conferred by the clause would not be exercised by the relatives or the relieving officer, and it was, therefore, desirable that the magistrates should have power to take the initiative.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he regarded the Amendment as important. He pointed out that even if a magistrate did not adjudicate in a case which he had himself initiated, it would come before his brother magistrates, while cases which they had initiated would come before him. He did not think that would affect the impartiality of the magistrates in any way, but people sitting in Court who saw the magistrates acting as prosecutors in some cases and as judges in others would be inclined to say that there might be bias in dealing with the charges. It was in order that that suspicion might be avoided that he moved the Amendment. He was not in any way hostile to the Bill; he was endeavouring to improve it because he wanted it to be a success.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 23. (Division List No. 163.)

    AYES

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Elibank, Master of

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lundon, W.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Findlay, Alexander

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Beale, W. P.

    Gill, A. H.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Benn, W. (T'w'r H'mlets, S. Geo.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Killop, W.

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Halpin, J.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Brigg, John

    Hardie, J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Harrington, Timothy

    Marnham, F. J.

    Cameron, Robert

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Menzies, Walter

    Cleland, J. W.

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Mooney, J. J.

    Clough, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Morrell, Philip

    Cooper, G. J.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Murnaghan, George

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

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Crean, Eugene

    Hudson, Walter

    'Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Crooks William

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

    Cullinan, J.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Devlin, Joseph

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. P'ncras, N.)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne),

    Laidlaw, Robert

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Seaverns, J. H.

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Seddon, J.

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Partington, Oswald

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Phillips, John(Longford, S.)

    Snowden, P.

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

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

    Reddy, M.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Winfrey, R.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Tomkinson, James

    Younger, George

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Verney, F. W.

    Rowlands, J.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

    Sloan and Mr. Hazleton.

    NOES.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Fell, Arthur

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Arkwright, John Stanhope,

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

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

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Stanier.

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    SIR F. BANBURYmoved to leave out the words "acting by the direction of the board of guardians." He presumed that the board of guardians met not more than once a week, and his Amendment contemplated the avoidance of delay.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 4, to leave out the words 'acting by the direction of the board of guardians.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.''
    MR. REDMOND BARRYsaid it was desirable that the relieving officer should have power to act from time to time, and very often hurriedly. On all occasions the relieving officer would be eventually answerable to his employers. He thought that the omission of these words would be better.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 5, to leave out from the word 'where' to the word 'a' in line 6, and to insert the words 'a Court of summary jurisdiction is satisfied by evidence produced before it that.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    proposed words there inserted.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 9, after the words 'of any person,' to insert the word 'or.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    Question, "That the word 'or' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    SIR F. BANBURYmoved to omit the words "or thing" from the Clause which imposed penalties on persons who being drunk while "in charge of any person, animal, or thing" endangered the life or limb of any person. He hoped the hon. and learned Member, the Solicitor-General for Ireland, would be able to explain what was the meaning of the word "thing." He defied any Member to get up and say off-hand what was the meaning of "thing." If a motor car or something moved by mechanical traction was meant, by all means the intention ought to be clearly expressed. He had never heard of the word "thing" being used in an Act of Parliament before, and Parliament ought not to adopt such uncertain language in its legislation. He had not looked up the dictionary to see, but he thought that a very large number of different interpretations would be given of what a "thing" was.
    MR. MOONEYseconded the Amendment. They were all agreed that it was hard to say what was meant by a person being in charge of a "thing." He suggested that the Solicitor-General for Ireland might consider whether he could find a suitable word to carry out the meaning intended by "thing" and insert it at another stage, or that the word should be dropped out altogether. The expression was far too general

    1117
    and ought to be limited in some way or another.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 10, to leave out the words 'or thing.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'or thing' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. REDMOND BARRYthought that the meaning of the clause was very plain, and it should have the very widest scope possible. He was unable to give a comprehensive definition of the words "or thing," but they were obviously intended to meet every conceivable case where a person got drunk when in charge of timber, animals, motor cars, bicycles, or anything else. The word "thing" itself was to be often found in Acts of Parliament, and he thought it was desirable that these words should remain in the Bill unless a more definite phrase was discovered.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILLsaid that under the clause as it stood it might be made a criminal offence for a person to be
    drunk in charge of a parcel, a fishing rod, or a walking stick.
    MR. SLOANthought they might accept the Amendment if they could discover some other words more definite to put in the place of "thing." They should have as wide a word as possible to carry out the intention of the promoters of the Bill; and he would rather have the vague phrase than none at all.
    MR. HAZLETONhoped that the Solicitor-General for Ireland would not agree to the Amendment. The important question was that a person endangered the life or limb of another person, no matter what he was in charge of. If any more suitable word could be found, let it be brought up in another place, but he hoped the present word would be retained at this stage.
    Question put, "That the words 'or thing' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 134.)

    AYES.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Anstruther-Gray. Major

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shee, James John

    Barnes, G. N

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Partington, Oswald

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Hodge, John

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Beale, W. P.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Brigg, John

    Hudson, Walter

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cameron, Robert

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Rees, J. D.

    Cheetharm, John Frederick

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Clough, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Cooper, G. J.

    Lundon, W.

    Rowlands, J.

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

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Cox, Harold

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Crean, Eugene

    Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Crooks, William

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Cullinan, J.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Seddon, J.

    Devlin, Joseph

    M'Callum, John M.

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

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

    Maddison, Frederick

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Elibank, Master of

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Marnham, F. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Menzies, Walter

    Snowden, P.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morrell, Philip

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Murnaghan, George

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Gill, A. H.

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Verney, F. W.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Halpin, J.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hazleton and Mr. Sloan.

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Winfrey, R.

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

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    NOES.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Gretton, John

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Hunt, Rowland

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Kerry, Earl of

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Frederick Banhbury and Mr.Staveley-Hill.

    Fell, Arthur

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    SIR F. BANBURYmoved to amend Clause 10 by leaving not the words "appears to be thought to be," and inserting the word "is." He had moved a similar Amendment to Clause 1, earlier in the day, and that Amendment was accepted. This Amendment he had taken from the Act of 1902, and he was certain that he would receive the support of hon. Members from Ireland, because by the Amendment he was endeavouring to put Ireland on the same footing as England. Clause 2 of the Act of 1902 was practically identical with this clause, and related to persons being found drunk in charge of a child, and who might be apprehended if the child was under that age. He begged to move.
    MR. MOONEYexpressed the hope that this Amendment would be accepted by the Committee. He therefore begged to second it.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 21, to leave out the words 'appears to be thought to be,' and insert the word 'is.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. REDMOND BARRYagreed with the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he wished to move as an addition to Clause 11 words which would prevent the application of the extraordinary provisions in that section to an innocent person. If hon. Members looked at the clause they would find that it created a new and rather novel offence. It made it an offence for any person to aid or abet any man who was already drunk to get drink, or to aid or abet that man in consuming that drink.
    1120
    Those who were acquainted with the discussions which had taken place on the Licensing Acts would know that there had been endless litigation with regard to whether there was any previous knowledge. This would be, he thought, a very severe law indeed, because it would impose the penalty of imprisonment upon any member of the public who, without knowing the condition of the man, gave drink or supplied it to a man who had already had more than enough. It was not always easy to determine when a man was drunk. Some men could conceal that fact with much greater skill than others. It would be a very great injustice indeed if any man should be deemed guilty of this offence unless he knew or ought to have known the condition of the man. It was for this reason that he desired to insert these words. It was a proper Amendment and should meet the object of the promoters of the Bill. As the clause now stood, if A had supplied B or assisted B to get drink, and B was drunk at the time, although A did not know it, a conviction must follow as a matter of course. He begged to move.
    MR. MOONEYhoped the Amendment would be accepted. He did not think the promoters of the Bill could refuse it. The clause, as it stood, was of a most penal character. The Court, he thought, should always take evidence on the point of whether the man if he did not know ought to have known. While he was anxious to assist the Bill and help it through, he thought the Amendment should be accepted, and therefore seconded it.
    Amendment proposed—
    "At the end of Clause 11, to add the words 'Provided always that no person shall be liable to be convicted under this section unless

    1121
    the Court is satisfied that he knew or ought to have known the condition of the person in connection with whom the charge is brought.'"—(Mr. James Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid he certainly hoped this Amendment would not be accepted. Over and over again Judges had alluded to the word "knowingly," and had described it as a word put into an Act to make a law a dead letter. There was a difference in the Amendment, which proposed that it should be necessary to prove knowledge to exist, or if it did not exist that it ought to have existed. But the difficulty of proving knowledge was always very great, and for that reason he hoped these words would be excluded. If, as a matter of fact, one person supplied drink to another while the other person was drunk it ought to be sufficient when the fact was established in the Courts to secure a conviction. He therefore hoped that the Solicitor-General for Ireland would resist the Amendment.
    MR. HUGH LAWas a friend of the Bill, hoped the Solicitor-General would accept the Amendment. He was not prepared to say what the administration of the licensing law might be in the future, but he asked those who, like himself, desired to see this Bill become law not to put in its way any unnecessary obstacles.
    MR. REDMOND BARRYsaid he was thoroughly in sympathy with the hon. Member for Lincoln, that there should be no escape for a man who assisted an actually drunken person to obtain drink, but there were occasions, as the right hon. Member for the Dublin University said, when a man who did this could not know that the man was drunk. He thought the words of the Amendment would be an improvement to the clause, and he did not think they would aid any man to escape conviction. He did not think it was the desire of the House of Commons that such a case should come within the scope of the Bill, and he therefore supported the proposed Amendment, because it would prevent a man morally innocent from being penalised by the Court.
    LORD R. CECILthought it desirable the Amendment
    1122
    should be accepted. His view was very much confirmed by the fact that the Member for Lincoln was against it. They all had a high respect for the views of the hon. Member, but on this question he generally found it safe to oppose what the hon. Member favoured. According to the Report on the Metropolitan Police, there were various stages of drunkenness, and it was plain that the last degree of drunkenness might be consistent with its being quite invisible to an ordinary spectator. As the clause at present stood, anybody who aided and abetted a man who was not sober to get drink committed a criminal offence, and if a man who was not quite sober went into a public-house, and a friend of his ordered him a glass of beer, and another person induced the publican to supply it, they were guilty of a criminal offence, although they might not know that the man was not quite sober.
    MR. REESsaid he most heartily supported this Amendment. There was always a danger of temperance measures being lost by intemperate action on the part of its supporters. If hon. Members from Ireland, whose Bill this was, were satisfied, why should anyone else object? It was enough to make Unionists turn Home Rulers when they found that Irishmen were not allowed to settle these matters for themselves. The late Solicitor-General spoke of a man being drunk without anyone knowing it. There were many people who were drunk from time to time all their lives without anyone else knowing it. He hoped the House would follow the advice given by the Front Benches and accept the Amendment.
    MR. HAZLETONsaid that, unlike the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, he supported the Amendment in spite of the fact that the Member for Lincoln was against it. He quite admitted that the word "knowingly" was a word to be fought shy of in this Bill, but it was a word that was not going to be in this Bill. The words "ought to have known" provided a safeguard against any possible danger the hon. Gentleman might have in his mind. If the Court knew that the man was drunk it would assume, unless there were some very extraordinary circumstances, that the friend ought to

    1123
    have known he was drunk. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had intended to move an Amendment on similar lines to this clause, but not having his right hon. friend's knowledge of the law he had again to refer to the Act of 1902, and he was faced with the fact that in that Act Clause 7 was identical with Clause 11 of this Bill. He therefore thought he ought not to move an Amendment which would place Ireland in a superior position to England with regard to the law. His right hon. friend had, however, come forward and moved the Amendment which he would have liked to have seen moved to the Act of 1902, and that being so, although it placed Ireland in a superior position, he should support it.
    VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid he desired to support the hon. Member for Lincoln in this matter. Wherever there was restriction there must be danger of evasion, and the difficulties that arose from evasion. What the House had to consider before they passed a restrictive measure was whether it was worth while to do so, having regard to the dangers which accompanied it. This, in his opinion, was the best course for temperance legislation to take. Although much might be done in different ways, the best way was to penalise the drunkard. He thought the Amendment was extremely widely worded. Not only were some people when in drink much more noticeable than others, but there were some very absent-minded people, and it would be difficult to say whether a person knew or should have known that a man was drunk. The only thing to do was to take evidence as to whether the man was drunk or not, and not to take the opinion of a person as to whether they knew he was drunk or not.
    MR. GUY BARINGsaid that many persons in the House thought it was a pity that the hon. Gentleman had accepted the Amendment. On this occasion he regretted that he must differ from his hon. friend. If the hon. Member for Lincoln went to a division he should support him.
    MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he was strongly in favour of the Bill, which was
    1124
    very badly needed. He remembered that when the present Opposition occupied the benches opposite a somewhat similar Bill found great favour with them, and he asked hon. Members to give way upon this matter. He did not think they proposed or wished that any person should incur liabilities under Clause 11 if in fact he had no knowledge of the condition of the man with reference to-whom he was charged. He was sure no hon. Gentleman would say in such a case that a man ought to be convicted, but he must be if the clause was left as it was, because if all that could be proved was that A was drunk in fact and that B, whether he knew it or not, was supplying or assisting him in getting drunk, and if B knew nothing of the drunken condition of A, it would be wrong that he should incur criminal liability in respect of that act. He wished to prevent that liability attaching in any case in which the Court was satisfied that the man did not in fact know the condition of the person in connection with whom he was charged. He suggested to hon. Members opposite that they were doing more harm than good if they would not give way on a reasonable proposition of that kind, which he himself had moved with the direct object of facilitating the progress of the measure.
    MR. SLOANhoped hon. Members opposite would withdraw their opposition. The necessity for the Amendment was very great; the Bill had been on the verge of passing once before in that House, and they did not want to see it destroyed now.
    MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid he still thought it would be better not to have these words in, but he would not press his opposition in view of what had been said.
    MR. RAWLINSONsaid his Amendment was a matter of technical detail in Clause 13. What he objected to in the clause was that they should compel a wife to give evidence against a husband, and he thought the House would agree with him that that was a good general working rule of jurisprudence. The evils of forcing a woman to give evidence against her husband were well known. If they

    1125
    succeeded in forcing such evidence they put a husband or a wife in a very awkward position, and either they had to commit perjury, which was the more frequent result, or they were very unwilling to have the truth dragged out of them, and then it was difficult to know how far they were keeping to the facts. Unless there was some special cause why this evil practice should be allowed to exist in the Bill, he felt that the promoters might fairly come to the conclusion that they should omit the words in question. The more often a clause of this kind was included, the more and more would it become a customary clause. He moved his Amendment.
    MR. MOONEYseconded the Amendment. He thought the old practice of a wife not being allowed to give evidence against her husband, or a husband against his wife, ought to be adhered to. There was no necessity whatever for husband or wife to be made a compellable witness. They had given power to a very large number of people to give evidence before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; they had the relatives of the person charged, the legal officer, and others, and there was every reason to believe that the necessary evidence would be forthcoming without breaking through the old and sound rule of English law that a wife should not give evidence against her husband or a husband against his wife. He thought the Bill would be quite as strong without these words, if it was simply provided that a husband or a wife should be a competent witness.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 4, line 8, to omit the words 'and save when a defendant a compellable.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. REDMOND BARRYsaid that the intention of Clauses 1 and 2 was mutually to protect husband and wife, and justice would be secured if it would be possible for a husband or a wife to come forward and give evidence if it was his or her own wish to do so, but he thought it was undesirable to force it upon either
    1126
    the one or the other. He would, therefore, agree to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was not hostile to the Bill, and they had had an extremely useful and businesslike discussion; they had made a large number of Amendments, all of which would lead to the useful working of the Bill when it became an Act, but he would like to draw the attention of his noble friend the Member for Marylebone to the fact that in that House they had made a large number of useful Amendments, and that while the Bill was upstairs in Committee all these Amendments were untouched. It was often said that when a Bill had been considered upstairs it was almost like sacrilege for any hon. Member downstairs to presume to amend it. If they had followed that argument they would not have made all these useful Amendments to this Bill, and what had taken place that afternoon was an object lesson to the Government and to the House as showing that the proper place for all these Committee Amendments was in Committee of the whole House.

    EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.
    As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKINNON WOOD,)said he wished to add a clause which was entirely non-controversial, and which would be of great administrative convenience. It did not touch the question of elementary education at all, but only dealt with the powers in regard to higher education of the authorities mentioned in Part II. of the Act of 1902. It had been found that there were so many cases in which the authorities found it convenient to join together in the administration of a school or college that there were many

    1127
    places in which it was done, but express legal sanction to do so would be a great advantage. At present in such cases difficulties arose with regard to the auditing of accounts, and when those difficulties arose difficulties also arose in regard to the payment of grants. The matter was not one on which there was likely to be any difference of opinion, and he hoped the House would assent to the clause which he ventured to move.
    New Clause—
    "To add the following clause: 'For the purpose of establishing or maintaining any school or college which any council have power to establish or maintain under Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, the council may agree to unite with any other council having powers under that Part of that Act, upon such terms as to payment, the appointment of a joint body of managers, and otherwise, as may be thought proper.'"—(Mr.McKinnon Wood.)
    Brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed' "That the Clause be read a second time."
    LORD BALCARRESsaid that, as the hon. Gentleman had said, the clause he had moved was wholly alien to the Bill before the House.
    MR. MCKINNON WOOD: I did not make that statement; I think it is very germane to the purposes of this Bill.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid the Bill before the House was the delegation clause of the Bill of 1906. It was called the delegation clause in the marginal note, and it dealt solely with elementary education, and the promoter of this Bill had followed that clause scrupulously, not changing a single word in the introduction, except two or three things necessary owing to the Bill being dealt with in isolation. In his Memorandum he stated specifically that the Bill applied to elementary education alone, and now the Government came forward and introduced what seemed to be rather an objectionable thing, viz., an Amendment of the main Act of 1902 dealing with secondary education, training colleges, and so on, which was wholly distinct from the Bill of 1906, which in itself was no doubt a virtual repeal of the Act of 1902. He had no particular objection to the clause. Anybody
    1128
    at all acquainted with local education authorities knew perfectly well that what was proposed in this clause had already been carried into effect in certain places. He did not know what counties had difficulties about their audits, but the whole question of joint audits was settled by the clause dealing with coordination and co-operation in the Act of 1902. If the hon. Gentleman assured him that some question of audit had arisen which had produced an impasse between two local authorities maintaining jointly a hostel, training college, or teachers' centre, he would bow to his statement, but he would point out with all respect that it was not the fault of the Act of 1902 that such a condition had arisen, but the fault of one or both of the local education authorities in not having taken the trouble in drawing up a scheme of joint working to determine the ordinary business lines on which their accounts should be kept. He would point out another inconvenience. The Bill did not affect London, and county boroughs also were excluded. Between Lancashire and Yorkshire, where two county boroughs existed close to the borders, it might well be convenient that those two county boroughs should be entitled to work their pupil teachers' centre together just as much as the counties of Suffolk and Norfolk should be allowed to do so. Under this Bill the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education was only by his new clause giving power to establish joint bodies under Part II. of the old Act. If he wanted to enlarge the co-ordination portion of the Act of 1902 he should do it in a comprehensive way, and make it apply all round, and not, by incorporating it with the present Bill, limit it to two counties, and even then to counties with a certain population. Under this clause it would be impossible for Huntingdon, for instance, to take advantage of the scheme. He thought the Parliamentary Secretary would agree with him that if there was any county which required a statutory right to establish joint bodies, it was of all others one like Huntingdon, which had an insignificant population, and might find great difficulty in regard to capital expenditure necessary for erecting a hostel. He did not propose to oppose

    1129
    the Bill, but he would point out that this clause was not germane to it and was in some ways inconsistent with it, and the fact of its being tacked on to a delegation Bill only dealing with counties did not allow the clause to be carried quite as far as under other conditions it might be made to apply.
    MR. WALKERon behalf of the promoters accepted the clause. He pointed out that the Memorandum to which the noble Lord had referred should not have been reprinted, because the Bill was largely amended in Committee, and the Memorandum was not now quite accurate in many respects.
    VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid the object of the new clause seemed to him perfectly right, but the question he would like to ask was why it should be necessary. They all knew that at the present time there were working arrangements between counties and their neighbours, or between county boroughs within their area, with regard to the working of secondary schools. There was every sort of arrangement in existence, and so far as he knew they were working more or less satisfactorily; but the Parliamentary Secretary had told them there were difficulties with regard to the audits. He had no acquaintance with those difficulties, but he assumed the Board had had cases sent up to them in which there had been such difficulties. He would have imagined, without further information, that those difficulties arose from the arrangements made between neighbouring counties or a county and a county borough being defective, and that if the schemes had been properly drawn, or were even now amended, there would be no difficulty of that sort. Why was there need of this clause in view of Clause 20 of the Education Act of 1902, where it said that an authority might make arrangements with the council of a county borough, district, or parish for the exercise by the council, on such terms and subject to such conditions as might be agreed on, of any of the powers of the authority in respect to the management of any school or college within the area of the council. Very wide powers were given under that clause as to management,
    1130
    the proportion of managers or governors to be appointed by each authority, the financial relationships between the two, and the class of schools to be dealt with. That being so, and it being a matter of general knowledge that there were these agreements all over the country, which had been very satisfactory in most cases, he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman why it became necessary to put this new clause in. Though the clause was more or less connected with the Bill it did not deal with the same questions, and it seemed somewhat undesirable that, in these rather complicated questions of administration, which were apt to give rise to a good deal of trouble between authorities and cause much expense, the Government should tack a clause on to a private Bill which had been through so many vicissitudes, and which had been so fundamentally altered upstairs that its parents could hardly recognise it as their original Bill.
    MR. HUTTONsaid he did not know himself why the cases which arose between county councils and county borough councils were not fairly capable of settlement under the old condition of things. He presumed that the hon. Gentleman had reasons for putting down this clause, He had known of arrangements, and worse still of the lack of arrangements, between county councils and comity boroughs which caused a considerable amount of inconvenience and expense, but he gathered that his hon. friend's proposal did not cover such cases. When he was dealing with the matter why should he not deal with the whole situation? The common case to be dealt with was that of the children of a village which was under the administration of the county council, and where there was not as a rule a very good school existing. His hon. friend did not seem to enable the county councils under this clause to come to an arrangement with the county boroughs. He did not know what his hon. friend meant by the words "what s thought proper." Did that mean that the County Council or borough council was to determine what was "thought proper," or whether the Government Department was to have a voice as to what was "thought proper?" No

    1131
    doubt two great local authorities could settle between themselves, but what was to become of the poor villager who might easily fall between the two stools of the great big county council and the most powerful county borough, when they settled their quarrel, and came to terms of agreement? It might be that some poor villagers would be compelled to send their children to one school or another without their consent. He knew many villages where the parents had desired to send their children to school in the neighbouring county borough, but the county council had stepped in and said "No," and had compelled the parents to send their children to some much smaller school which they had established on their own account rather than pay a few pounds extra to allow them to attend a large school in the neighbouring county borough. It was not only in the interest of the county but in the interest of the neighbouring village, if his hon. friend was going to enable the county authority to come to some arrangement, that it should only be done under the supervision of the Department, and everybody should be considered—not merely the two authorities, who could look after themselves, but also the parents and their children.
    LORD R. CECILthought the Government were ill-advised in drawing up this clause, at any rate, in its present form. There was no use, as far as he could see, in further complicating the law in regard to education. It seemed to him that, in the conditions under which the county councils worked, it was already sufficiently complicated. If anything was desired to improve that machinery, it ought to be done by an amendment of the existing machinery, rather than by superimposing upon it yet another method of combination which he ventured to say had not been sufficiently thought out. His noble friend had referred to Clause 20 of the Act of 1902, but there was another clause which seemed even more directly in point, and with which the hon. Gentleman no doubt was familiar, Clause 17. The House would remember that by the first subsection the Council was given powers to make a scheme for the appointment
    1132
    of an education committee. By sub-section (3) provision was made for the constitution of a separate education committee for any area within the county, or for a joint education committee for any area formed of a combination of county boroughs or county districts. There was in the appendix to that Act a code of Regulations to regulate the proceedings of that joint committee. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that financial difficulties had arisen with reference to the work of these joint committees, because the Act did not specifically, and in so many words, provide an arrangement by which the expense of the various councils could be apportioned. But that difficulty was by no means insuperable, and could be got over in several instances by an agreement between the two. They had the scheme under the Act, and then they had the agreement with the provision at the end of it that if the agreement was not carried out then the scheme was to come to an end. There was no difficulty about that. He believed himself that there was no real practical difficulty in establishing that joint committee now, but at any rate if there was any amendment of the law it should be by way of amending Clause 17. If they included in this clause a new method of combination they would have, as far as he could see, no machinery for carrying that method of combination into effect. He did not see any provision in the clause as to giving any powers at all to that joint committee. All that they could do was to agree to unite upon such terms as might be thought proper. That was merely an agreement, and he did not see that it gave power to the joint committee of an executive character or even for carrying on its own proceedings. It might be that there was a practical difficulty under the Act of 1902 in delegating any executive powers to the joint committee. He did not pretend to know enough of the detailed work to say, but that might be a matter for amendment, and in that case it would be right to deal with it. But this clause did not deal with it; it merely proposed a new method of combination.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid he had come to the House with an open mind in regard to this clause, but after listening to the speeches of the two noble Lords on those benches he could not see the necessity of it at all. As far as he could see it was entirely contrary to the principle of the Bill as it originally stood. He quite agreed with the noble Lord the Member for South Birmingham that the change which had been made in this Bill in Committee upstairs was the most remarkable he had ever seen take place in any measure. He could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill, and who acted as Chairman of the Committee, must have very great difficulty in recognising his own offspring when he looked at it. The Bill dealt with secondary education only, but he found included in it powers far wider than anything which they had discussed in that House. He could not help thinking, therefore, that it would be wiser if the Government reconsidered their determination, and if his hon. friend went to a division he should certainly support him.
    MR. MCKINNON WOODsaid there seemed to be some misapprehension in regard to the Amendment, There had been about fifty cases in which difficulties had arisen. It was therefore a matter of importance to the Board of Education. The clauses referred to in the Education Act of 1902—Clauses 17 and 20—did not deal with the particular cases with which this clause was intended to deal. The clause was intended to deal with cases where there was a school or college used by two areas and in regard to which it was advisable that the two areas should take part in its management and jointly contribute towards its maintenance.
    VISCOUNT MORPETHasked if the hon. Member said that it was impossible at the present time for two county councils to appoint a joint body of governors say of a secondary school.
    MR. MCKINNON WOODsaid he did not think it was impossible. He had mentioned that the thing had been done a good many times, but the noble Lord would remember the case of Millom in
    1134
    Cumberland in which some difficulty arose. The case which the clause was intended to meet was not at all met by the clauses referred to by the hon. Member. This was a case in which they had a committee of both authorities dealing with a particular institution, and it was a mere question of administration and of accounts. There were many cases in which it was desirable to have power jointly to control and maintain a school or college, and it was so convenient that it had been done, but difficulties had arisen in consequence of questions raised with regard to the audit of the Committee's accounts. This clause, therefore, was not a question of complicating the Education Act of 1902; it was a question of simplification. It would enable two authorities interested in an institution to form a committee to deal with it without having any technical difficulties raised with regard to the audit or to the grant. Clause 17 of the Act of 1902 was, of course, more appropriate to large administrative areas. This clause dealt with particular institutions—schools and colleges.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he understood the hon. Gentleman to say that this clause had been brought forward, not because it had been impossible in the past to carry out the object the clause desired to promote, but because there had been technical difficulties raised with regard to the question of audit and grant. The clause, therefore, he said ought to be passed. He was rather inclined to think that on the face of it it was not a bad clause. He was in favour of economy, and he was inclined to think the clause might tend in that direction, and at first he was disposed to support it; but, on further consideration, he had come to the conclusion that the clause was not as innocent as it looked and ought not at the present moment to be supported. The title of the measure was "Education (Local Authorities) Bill," and under that it would be perfectly in order to alter the whole of the Education Act of 1902, and alter it by means of a private Member's Bill. He did not think that was a right thing to do. The Memorandum said that the Bill reproduced the language of the delegation clause of the Education

    1135
    Bill of 1906 in the final form in which it received the assent of the House of Lords. It was rather curious of hon. Gentlemen opposite to advocate a Bill because it had received the assent of the House of Lords. He was glad they had come round and that, instead of moving Resolutions to abolish that place, they were putting on the Memorandum of their Bill that it ought to be supported because it was the form in which it had received the assent of the House of Lords. The real object of the Bill was delegation, and delegation alone; and, therefore, unless the title had been widely drawn, the clause would not have been in order. He was inclined to think there must have been some arrangement between the promoters and the Government to bring in a Bill with a wide title so that the Secretary to the Board of Education might bring forward a new clause, which would, without going through all the safeguards imposed on a Government measure, alter the law. That was a very dangerous practice. He would have opposed it even if it had been adopted by his hon. friends, and he would have no hesitation in opposing this attempt on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The clause had really nothing to do with the Bill.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought it was rather extraordinary that a private Bill should be sent upstairs in one form, and then, when it came down to the House again, they should have added a clause which had really nothing to do with the original measure. He did not see why, if the Education Department had already allowed what strictly ought not to be, they could not continue to do so until legislation could be brought in in the proper way. He would be inclined to vote against the clause now because he did not think it was a proper thing to propose to add it to a private Member's Bill in a thin House late on a Friday afternoon.
    MR. REESsubmitted that the explanatory Memorandum of objects and reasons had nothing whatever to do with the contents of the Bill. The measure was in no way governed by it, and so far as it was
    1136
    concerned anything might be imported into the Bill without its being in the least degree out of order. He did not pretend to compete with the hon. Baronet in destructive criticism, but he did contend that it was not sound criticism to say that the clause should not be moved because the subject with which it dealt was not mentioned in the Memorandum. Although he was present he did not hear the speech of the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, and he did not quite understand why the House was dealing with the fragment of a lost Bill. An Education Bill was coming forward, and he could not see why there should be any hurry in this matter. It might be included in the Bill. There might be some good reason for the procedure followed, but he did not hear the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and he continued in ignorance. Although there were some twelve Members backing the Bill, not many of them were present. It appeared that the Bill would create new minor education authorities, lead to fresh expenses, and increase the maze of legislation in which local authorities now wandered and were often lost. Unless it was urgently called for, there was a strong prima facie case against passing any new fragmentary Act which created a new authority. In his own county there were a great many public men who spent their time in working the provisions of these Acts, and he believed every fresh Act which was not absolutely necessary was anything but a benefit to official bodies. He did not know why this could not come into the Education Bill and he would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would, for the benefit of one of his supporters, kindly explain this matter.
    MR. LANE-FOXsaid the Bill had been spoken of as though it were going to effect an enormous reform, but he would point out that as it emerged from the Committee it was a shell and a sham and gave no powers which did not already exist. He wished to add his humble protest to the extraordinary procedure of asking the House to accept a new clause which dealt with a phase of the Bill which was never contemplated by the hon.

    1137
    Gentleman who brought it in, or presumably by those who supported him by putting their names on the Bill. Already those hon. Members had gone on the most extraordinary lines emasculating their own Bill or at any rate looking on whilst others carried on the process, and now, having completely altered and changed the form of the measure, in its very modified and weakened state, they asked the House to tack on to it a clause dealing with an entirely new phase of the question. Anybody who looked at the old form in which the Bill existed would see that the question of secondary education was expressly exempted. There were many Members who believed that a certain amount of delegation might be a good thing. Personally, he believed that in large areas such as the West Riding of Yorkshire a system of elementary delegation, where immense detail was involved, would be most advisable, but he never for an instant believed the Government would support such delegation of secondary education to small bodies in small areas. He protested against the system of doing things in Committee of which the House as a whole was more or less ignorant, and then trying to improve upon the procedure of Committee on the Report stage. That was an absolutely unprecedented proceeding, and he hoped the House would not give a Second Reading to the clause.
    MR. ADKINSsaid that when introduced the Bill had a compulsory element. It now practically only allowed county councils to try certain experiments, and in that form it had the support of the County Councils Association, and at the wish of the association it had been extended to cover education other than elementary. The hon. Member who spoke last would, he was certain, be only too willing to trust the vast majority of the county councils of the country in trying an experiment in delegation in secondary as well as elementary education, which anybody who was familiar with educational work in the country knew might well be tried in some places. In regard to this particular clause, which had been described with every variety of inaccuracy, all that it did was to make it perfectly clear that
    1138
    county councils might combine to assist secondary schools on their borders, and when they did so, to provide that there should be no delay in having their accounts audited and in their getting the Government grants to which they were entitled. It was purely a permissive clause, entirely non-contentious in its nature, merely to facilitate an existing practice and to remove difficulties which no one desired, and which had arisen merely because the existing Act was not perfectly clear in detail. If a clause like that could not be accepted by the promoters without their being accused of illegitimately extending their Bill it would be surely very difficult for Parliament, however it might wish to promote smooth administration, to do so with these details which could be so conveniently dealt with in this way. They all knew how very important it was that local authorities should combine with regard to secondary schools on their boundary. It had happened in all parts of the country. They combined at present, but the fact that there were technical difficulties delayed their getting proper Government grants promptly. Whatever differences there might be in that House on other aspects of education, surely the House could agree to facilitate the receipt by local bodies of these Government grants, and to get them promptly, in order to prevent the waste of time, trouble, and temper upon educational administration. Therefore, he hoped that Members would allow this exceedingly small but practical and useful new clause to be adopted, because it was not altering procedure but merely avoiding friction which no-one had a real interest in continuing.
    MR. RAWLINSONsaid he would like to know who had the drafting of the clause. It was said to be but an alteration. Why was it that no agreement was sanctioned between a county council and the council of an ordinary borough of over 10,000 population? At present it was done more or less, it was true, possibly not absolutely legally, but it was done illegally, and this new clause limited the power. It simply authorised agreements between county councils and county councils, but not with boroughs which were not counties in themselves, such as Cambridge. That being the

    1139
    construction of the clause, why was it done? Was it done through inadvertence or bad drafting, or was it not intended, and, if it was not intended, why were they to bring in this wonderful Amendment which was only to apply to county councils, precluding any arrangement being made with the council of a borough of over 10,000.
    MR. MCKINNON WOODsaid he could assure the hon. and learned Member that it did not exclude them. It included any council which had powers under Part II. of the Act.
    MR. RAWLINSONsaid that if the hon. Gentleman looked at Part II. he would find that boroughs of the nature he had indicated had no powers under Part II. of the Act.
    MR. MCKINNON WOODsaid they had.
    MR. RAWLINSONthat was a most extraordinary statement to make. The clause excluded arrangements with the vast majority of boroughs, and he asked whether that was intentional or whether it was a mistake. This power was given to unite "upon such terms as may be thought proper." Thought proper by whom? The question had been asked before, but no answer had been given. In drafting a clause of this kind it ought to be made clear as to who was meant. If it was meant to be the contracting councils, they had only to put in the words. Apart from the drafting of the clause, he protested as well against the Government putting in Amendments on a Friday afternoon in this way. He had protested against it once already, and was assured that the Government might do this sort of thing, and make it in no way a Government clause. They knew the result of that on the last occasion when many Members who took part in the division did not know what they were voting for. He supposed the same would happen again. When the Government supported a clause of this kind it got about among their followers and it was made a party question. He agreed that it applied to all sections of the House, and he dared say that their front bench would do exactly the same, but the back benches should
    1140
    protest against it. He hoped the House would not only object to the clause but would object to the system.
    MR. MCKINNON WOODsaid he was very sorry to intervene again, but the hon. Member had appealed to him so very strongly that perhaps he would allow him to point out that Part II. of the Education Act included non-county boroughs and urban districts as well as county councils, and the clause now proposed included all the authorities that had power under Part II.
    MR. GODFREY BARINGsaid they had been debating the clause for an hour, and he thought the Government might have followed the course of submitting it to the Standing Committee, of which he was a member. If that had been done probably five or ten minutes would have sufficed for the debate, and the matter would have been ended. He did not think it was treating Committees quite respectfully or fairly, after they had fully considered a Bill of this kind, suddenly to hurl at their heads a new clause introduced by the Government.
    VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he wished as a member of the County Councils Association to state why he proposed to vote for the clause. Though he felt as his hon. friends did with regard to the Amendment being introduced so suddenly at this stage of the proceedings, he recognised that the clause might be, to a certain extent, required for the purposes of audit. He protested however against the way in which it had been brought before the House. The hon. Member who had just sat down spoke as an admirer of the system of Standing Committees, and he spoke as just the reverse, but they had both arrived at the same conclusion, that it was very inconvenient that on the Report stage of a Bill like this a clause should be suddenly sprung upon the House which had not hitherto been considered. It certainly seemed to him when his hon. friend was speaking that the representative of the Board of Education did not seem to know whether it applied to certain urban councils or not.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes,40. (Division List No.165).

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Hodge, John

    Reddy, M.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hogan, Michael

    Rees, J. D.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Hooper, A. G.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hudson, Walter

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone. N.)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Rowlands, J.

    Benn, W. (Tw'rHamlets, S. Geo.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Boland, John

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Branch, James

    Joyce, Michael

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

    Bright, J. A.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Seaverns, J. H.

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

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Seddon, J.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Laidlaw, Robert

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

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Sheehy, David

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Clough, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lundon, W.

    Snowden, P.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Crean, Eugene

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Cremer, Sir William Randal

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Crooks, William

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Cuilinan, J.

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

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

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

    Maddison, Frederick

    Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Dillon, John

    Marnham, F. J.

    Ure, Alexander

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Meagher, Michael

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Menzies, Walter

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Murnaghan, George

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Myer, Horatio

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Gill, A. H.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wiles, Thomas

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Williamson, A.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Halpin, J.

    O'Doherty, Philip

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Harrington, Timothy

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

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. Myles

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

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Stanier, Beville

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hunt, Rowland

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    M'Arthur, Charles

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Younger, George

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Moore, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—Mr.

    Fell, Arthur

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Godfrey Baring and Mr.Stanley Wilson.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Clause read a second time.
    MR. GODFREY BARINGsaid that some objection had been taken by the hon. Member for Morley to the words "as may be thought proper." The words were very obscure and they would like to know who was to think these arrangements proper, whether the two local authorities or the Board of Education, and in order to render that quite clear he moved to amend the clause by leaving out at the end "and otherwise as may be thought proper," and inserting "that may be sanctioned by the Board of Education."
    LORD BALCARRESsaid he wanted to move at an earlier point a verbal Amendment which he thought should be accepted. It was to insert after "payment," the words "and audit." He understood it was the audit and not the payment on account which caused the difficulty, and he thought it advisable that the specific statement should be inserted.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause—
    "In line 4, after the word 'payment' to insert the words 'and audit.'"—(Lord Balcarres.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. MCKINNON WOODsaid he was very sorry he could not accept the Amendment, because the effect would be to give the local authorities power to decide what sort of audit they would have. This was a Bill enabling local authorities to combine together in certain ways, and for certain purposes. It did not give them powers in regard to audit, which must remain under the control of the Local Government Board and not of the authority.
    And, it being Five of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday next.

    POLLING DISTRICTS AND REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [26th June] proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee).
    Which Amendment was—
    "In page 2, line 9, at the end, to insert the words, '(1) The Lord-Lieutenant in Council may make rules for adapting to the provisions of this Act the enactments relating to the
    1144
    registration of electors in Ireland, and the precepts and forms contained in or used under those enactments.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 11, to leave out from the word 'effect' to end of subsection."—(Mr. Cherry.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    CORONERS' INQUESTS BILL.
    As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

    DAYLIGHT SAVING (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    HANDLOOM WEAVING (IRELAND) BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Sir WILLIAM BEAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following members from the Standing Committee A (in respect of the Access to Mountains Bill): Mr. Boland and Mr. Waldron; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. French and Mr. Augustine Roche.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    PRIVATE BILLS (Group K).
    Sir GEORGE WHITEreported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties concerned, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    ARDS AND BANGOR RAILWAYS BILL.
    Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
    Adjourned at five minutes after Five o'clock till Monday next.