Sitting of 4 November 1908

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

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water." [Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],—Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Seven Petitions from Southampton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE BILL.
  Petition from Luton, against; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Six Petitions from Southampton, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: Prom Keighley; Leven; Salford and Higher Broughton; Southampton; South Woodford; and, Sunderland; to lie upon the Table.

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kincardine O'Neil, in favour, to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Statement showing the Strength of the Regular Army, Special Reserve, and Territorial Force on 1st October 1908 as compared with the

  1187
  strength on 1st October 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LIVERPOOL AND HONG KONG MAIL SERVICE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd November; Mr. Hobhouse]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 314.]
  CHECKING OF PIECE-WORK WAGES IN DOCK LABOUR (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee on the Checking of Piece-work Wages in Dock Labour. Report, etc., Minutes of Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  System of Promotion in Glasgow Post Office.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General if it has been brought within his knowledge that considerable discontent exists at the Glasgow post office as a consequence of the methods by which promotions are made at that office; if he has received several protests from the aggrieved officers; and if he will investigate the alleged favouritism in the recent promotion of two junior assistant inspectors of postmen over the heads of senior officers, several of whom the local postmaster admitted were thoroughly qualified.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have inquired into and have answered the representations to which the hon. Member refers.

  Scottish Laws regarding Pilots and Navigation.
  MR. JOYCE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the hardship of the case of Pilot William M'Kinlay, who was convicted of an alleged offence of reckless navigation by the Glasgow Sheriffs Court on 15th May last, he proposes to take any steps to bring about an amendment of the law so as to assimilate the law of Scotland as far as possible with that of the other parts of the United Kingdom, and so prevent the recurrence of similar cases.
  1188
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) So far as I am aware, the law in Scotland in cases such as those referred to by the hon. Member is practically the same as in other parts of the United Kingdom. I have, however, under consideration the question of instituting an inquiry into various matters affecting pilotage throughout the United Kingdom. Should such an inquiry take place, the pilots will doubtless be afforded an opportunity of submitting evidence as to any points in which they think the law requires amendment.

  Casual Assistance at the Post Office—Age Limit.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Postmaster General whether, in the engagement of casual assistance during the forthcoming pressure of work in various departments of the Post Office, he will consider the propriety of revoking the rule that no one beyond the age of forty years shall be eligible for such employment.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I amended the rule referred to two years ago, when I raised the limit of age to forty-five.

  Ex-Soldiers and Ex-Sailors and Postal Appointments.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether there is any rule or custom, and, if so, to what extent, to exclude the general public from employment in any of the postal departments; whether ex-soldiers or ex-sailors have any preference of employment; and, if so, in what departments and to what extent.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The general public have access, either directly or after service in lower grades, to all situations in the Post Office, except to one-half of the vacancies for postmen and porters and a few other posts, such as lift attendant, which, under an arrangement of many years' standing, are allotted to ex-soldiers and ex-sailors.

  Removal of Disqualifications under the Unemployed Workmen's Act—Notice to Distress Committees.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, what action has been taken to communicate to the central bodies and

  1189
  distress committees established under the Unemployed Act the decision of the Government that the Poor Law and two years' disqualification are removed; how many of the schemes submitted by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London to the Local Government Board have been approved since the recent debate on the unemployed; how many schemes so submitted by the Central Body have not yet been approved; and is there any reason why, after the declaration of the Premier that the rules would be relaxed as far as possible, these schemes should not at once be passed.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) An order to amend the regulations under the Unemployed Workmen Act is necessary to give effect to the decision to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. The order is in preparation and will be issued at the earliest date practicable. Before the recent debate took place I had made

  Applications for compensation.

  Nature of malicious injury to cattle.

  Number of cattle (including sheep) driven on the occasion of each cattle-drive for which compensation was awarded.

  Amount of compensation granted in each case.

  Remarks.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Poisoning a heifer

  —

  —

  Dismissed

  2

  Injury to cattle by cutting their tails

  —

  10

  0

  0

  3

  Driving cattle

  -

  6

  40

  0

  0

  4

  Driving cattle

  -

  10

  10

  0

  0

  5

  Driving cattle

  -

  127

  21

  6

  0

  6

  Driving cattle

  -

  120

  6

  0

  0

  7

  Driving cattle

  -

  112

  3

  3

  0

  8

  Driving cattle

  -

  9

  1

  2

  6

  9

  Driving cattle

  -

  121

  10

  0

  6

  10

  Driving cattle

  -

  210

  153

  16

  6

  11

  Driving cattle

  -

  174

  12

  7

  6

  12

  Driving cattle

  -

  —

  —

  Dismissed

  13

  Driving cattle

  -

  —

  —

  Dismissed

  14

  Driving cattle

  -

  —

  —

  Dismissed

  payments to the Central (Unemployed) Body out of the grant amounting to over £18,000 in respect of four considerable undertakings. I have since approved ten other schemes, three of them provisionally. Further schemes are being matured by the Central Body, and I am prepared to deal with them without delay.

  Injuries to Cattle in Ennis.
  MR. BARBIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of applications for compensation for malicious injuries to cattle heard at the recent Ennis Quarter Sessions; what was the number of cattle (including sheep) driven on the occasion of each drive for which compensation was awarded; and what was the amount of compensation granted in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The particulars are as follows:—

  South African Garrison.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether it is intended to concentrate the troops in South Africa at some point in Cape Colony, like Port Elizabeth or elsewhere, to form a kind of Aldershot; and, if so, what is intended to be done with the cantonments at Middleburg, in the Transvaal, at Bloemfontein, and elsewhere.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No, Sir. There is no such intention.

  Commutations of Pensions of Soldiers Desiring to Emigrate.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any representations have been made on behalf of the Governments of the self-governing Colonies for commuting the pensions of ex-soldiers under the age of fifty desiring to settle in British Colonies; the nature of these representations; and his Answers thereto.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Representations have been made on behalf of the Government of Australia suggesting that Army pensioners should be allowed to commute the whole of their pensions at the age of 50, or that partial commutation should be so arranged that the pension should revive at sixty. The Array Council were unable to entertain either proposal; but they are considering the desirability of allowing Army pensioners in receipt of more than 1s. a day to commute the excess over 1s. at an earlier age than fifty. As explained to the hon. Member for Hastings on 26th October, I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this point.

  Maintenance of Poor Law Children outside the United Kingdom.
  MR. REES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government proposes so to amend the law as to allow Boards of Guardians to contribute to the expenses of Poor Law children out of the United Kingdom, provided the cost of such maintenance is considerably lower than that which would have been incurred in respect of the same children in the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I do not think I can give any promise to introduce a Bill for this purpose.

  Vagrancy and Farm Colonies.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Vagrancy anent the setting up of farm colonies will be considered by the Government when framing any fresh legislation upon the Poor Law.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The vagrant question forms part of the general problem of the relief of the poor, and must, I think, necessarily be considered in connection with any proposed Poor Law legislation.

  Old-Age Pensions—Notice of Appeal against Disqualification.
  MR. W. JOHNSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of altering form O.A.P., No. 5A, notice to claimant of disallowance of claim for an old-age pension, by giving a longer period than seven days for sending notice of appeal against the Committee's decision, and by enclosing forms of appeal and notification with the notice.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My hon. friend's suggestion would involve an alteration in the Old-Age Pension Regulations, and not merely in the form to which he refers. I doubt the expediency of sending forms of appeal to claimants where a claim is disallowed, as this might be interpreted as an intimation that an appeal ought to be made. But I will cause my hon. friend's suggestion to be noted for consideration should any Amendment be made in the regulations.

  Old-Age Pensions—Residence Abroad.
  MR. VIVIAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether residence of three months or more out of the United Kingdom prevents an applicant from benefiting under the Pensions Act; and does a three months' or more residence in the Isle of Man exclude an applicant from benefiting under the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) An applicant for an old-age pension must, under Section 2 of the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908, satisfy the pension authorities that for at least twenty years up to the

  1193
  date of the receipt of any sum on account of a pension he has had his residence, as defined by regulations under the Act, in the United Kingdom. The regulations provide for temporary absences during the period of twenty years being disregarded if the applicant's home has throughout the absences been in the United Kingdom, and the aggregate of the absences since the beginning of the earliest of them does not exceed three years. Residence in the Isle of Man is not for the purposes of the Act residence within the United Kingdom.

  Enlargement of Holdings on Drumchork Sheep Farm, Aultbea.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that crofters, cottars, and others resident at Aultbea, Ross-shire, have applied to the proprietor of Drum-chork sheep farm for an allocation of the land for enlargement of holdings and the creation of new holdings, and, seeing that the people have written to the Crofters Commission on the subject, and have asked the Congested Districts Board whether they would be prepared to take over the stock, will he ascertain why no notice has been taken of the application by either department; and, having regard to the fact that this farm was formerly in the occupation of the people, and was scheduled by the Deer Forests Commissioners as suitable for new holdings and the extension of existing holdings, will the Congested Districts Board endeavour to induce the proprietor to accede to the application made to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) A communication in the sense suggested has been sent to the Crofters Commission, but no formal application has been made. In 1888 a similar application was found to be incompetent on the ground that the value of the subject in question was under £100 per annum. Since that date, by direct arrangement with the landlord, part of the farm has been assigned to crofters for enlargement of holdings, and I am informed the remainder has been let to a tenant at a rent of £52.

  The Sentences on Suffragists—Right of Appeal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that
  1194
  in cases involving criminal charges the accused have a power of appeal to a higher tribunal from the decision of a magistrate, while in cases in which persons are ordered to enter into recognisances to be of good behaviour or in default to be imprisoned for a certain period by a magistrate there is no power of appeal, and the decision of the magistrate is final and absolute, since the order to enter into recognisances to be of good behaviour, with an alternative penalty of imprisonment, is not necessarily made as the result of the conviction, and is not regarded as punishment in law, but as an exorcise of the preventive jurisdiction of the magistrate; and whether, having regard to the fact that the magistrate was apprised in each case arising out of the suffragist agitation that the order to enter into recognisances to be of good behaviour would not be complied with, and that the pronouncing of that order was only tantamount to passing a sentence of imprisonment, in some instances of long duration, from which there is no appeal, instructions will be given that in future in the institution of proceedings in relation to offences connected with the suffragist agitation recourse be not had by the police authorities to the issue of summonses calling upon the accused to show cause why they should not enter into their recognisances to be of good behaviour, but that steps be taken to prosecute the accused in order to secure a conviction against them in due course of law, instead of the infliction of terms of imprisonment without conviction or trial on the order of a magistrate sitting alone.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the fact that in some of the proceedings instituted by the London police authorities in reference to matters in connection with the woman suffrage agitation summonses were issued to show cause why orders should not be made that the persons so summoned should enter into recognisances to be of good behaviour, whereas in other cases the defendants have been summoned to the police Courts for certain specified offences, such as breaches of the peace and obstruction of the public thoroughfare; and whether, regard being had to the fact that an order that a person enter into

  1195
  recognisances to be of good behaviour with the alternative in the event of refusal of imprisonment admits of no appeal, whereas the decision of a magistrate on a specific charge is the subject of appeal, directions will be given to the police authorities that in future, if it should be thought necessary to take proceedings against persons for offences in relation to this agitation, such proceedings will be based on definite charges triable in the ordinary way, and giving the accused persons the ordinary rights of appeal from the decision and sentence of the magistrate.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Answer to both Questions is in the negative. The procedure to be adopted is a matter for the discretion of the police authorities, who are guided by the circumstances of each case, and I see no reason for any interference on my part.

  Revision of Belfast Post-Office Staff.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General it he has received petitions from the postal staff at Belfast regarding the proposed transfer of an overseer from the telegraph to the postal side, and certain other changes; and whether, in view of the effect of these changes upon the memorialists, the proposals have been abandoned.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Petitions have been received, and the memorialists were informed that careful consideration will be given to their representations. The revision of the indoor force has not yet been settled.

  Irish Magistrates and Licensing Cases.
  MR. MCKILLOP: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that, in connection with a recent licensing case heard at Newtonards sessions, county Down, on 24th October last, there were upwards of forty magistrates adjudicating who were acting in contravention of the provisions of Section 60 of The Licensing (Ireland) Act (1872); whether these magistrates, disregarding a letter of the present Under-Secretary for Ireland, a copy of which was sent to them prior to the hearing pointing out the penalty entailed by said section, persisted notwithstanding in voting in the licensing application in
  1196
  question; whether he will take steps to enforce the penalty of £100 against each of the said magistrates as provided by the said section; and what steps he intends taking so as to ensure in future that this section is not wilfully violated, and a decision on the part of an impartial licensing tribunal thereby rendered impossible.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I have no information on the subject, and cannot say whether any of the magistrates who adjudicated on the occasion referred to by the hon. Member were disqualified from so adjudicating under Section 60 of the Licensing Act of 1872. The Under-Secretary informs me that he did not communicate prior to the hearing of the case with any of the magistrates who appear to have adjudicated. If information is placed before me clearly establishing that any magistrate has violated the section of the Act referred to I shall carefully consider what action should be taken. It would be impossible to make any general statement on the subject, as the circumstances of each case and the evidence available must be considered before any action could be taken.

  Substitution of Nickel for Bronze Coinage.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give any estimate of the cost of a gradual substitution of a nickel coinage for bronze in the United Kingdom, and of the disturbance to trade that would result therefrom, considering that the machines at the Mint can be easily adjusted so as to make coins of any size and metal, and that the nickel and bronze coins could be used simultaneously for most purposes until one superseded the other.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) It has been estimated that the gradual substitution of a nickel for the bronze coinage now in circulation would cost at least £170,000. I have no means of estimating the precise degree of disturbance which would be caused to trade, but I am advised that it might be considerable.

  Cottage for Thomas Byrne at Abbeyleix.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the cottage

  1197
  proposed to be built by the Abbeyleix District Council under the tenth scheme for a labourer named Thomas Byrne on the lands of Mr. George Alley, Donaghmore, Queen's County, has been disallowed by County Court Judge Fitzgerald, upon I appeal at the late Maryborough Quarter Sessions; whether he is aware that the house occupied by Byrne, his wife, and family of four children, has no sanitary accommodation and no outhouse attached, and that the fowls occupy part of the dwelling-house; that Mr. Alley, for whom Byrne has been working for the past nine years, has 400 acres of land at Donaghmore, with only one union cottage thereon; and can he say what steps the Local Government Board propose taking; to provide this labourer and his family; with a sanitary house and plot of land to which he is entitled under the Labourers Acts.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have no information as to the proceedings in the County Court. The decision of the County Court Judge is final, and if the application has, as stated, been disallowed, the labourer can only apply once more to the district council with a view to their providing him with a cottage plot under a new scheme.

  Evicted Tenants—Application of Richard Talbot.
  Mr. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Richard Talbot, representative of Mrs. Meredith, who was evicted from a farm at Killart, Clonaslee, estate of the Misses Dunne, Brittas, Clonaslee, Queen's County; and, seeing that the evicted farm is in the possession of Mr. C. H. P. Dunne, uncle of the owners, and that there is other untenanted land on the estate known as Capparogan, which Mr. Talbot has offered to take in lieu of the evicted farm, can he say what is the cause of the delay in the settlement of this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Richard Talbot, and it will be considered in the allotment of such untenanted land as they may be able to acquire.

  Evicted Tenants—Mr. J. F. M'Quade of Drumhirk.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state on what grounds the Estates Commissioners have declined to enforce the provisions of The Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, for the purpose of restoring Mr. John F. M'Quade to the holding from which be was formerly evicted in the townland of Drumhirk, on the Irvine estate, county Fermanagh; what is the cause of delay on the part of the Commissioners in acquiring this holding, compulsorily or otherwise, with a view to the reinstatement of M'Quade; and whether the Commissioners insist in restoring, where possible, each eligible evicted tenant to his former holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am unable to add anything to my reply to the Question asked by the hon. Member on the 28th October. It would be contrary to the established practice to state the reasons which actuate the Estates Commissioners in the exercise of their discretion.

  Armoy (County Antrim) Water Supply.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the inhabitants of Armoy, county Antrim, have no water supply except a well situated beside a graveyard; if he is aware that the medical officer of health has condemned this water supply for years past; if several memorials have been forwarded to the Local Government Board from the ratepayers demanding a public inquiry into the whole matter; and whether, seeing that the Ballycastle rural council refuse to take action, he will grant the inquiry asked for.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board inform me that there are eleven private pumps and one new public pump in Armoy. The medical officer of health has from time to time reported adversely on the water supply, and memorials on the subject have been forwarded to the Local Government Board by ratepayers. The Board have communicated with the rural district council, who have erected the new pump, which affords a good supply of apparently good water, and have invited tenders for another. In these circumstances, a

  1199
  public inquiry would not serve any useful purpose.

  Infectious Diseases Prevention Act in Ireland
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many local sanitary authorities in Ireland have adopted The Infectious Diseases Prevention Act, 1890; and what proportion of the population such sanitary authorities represent.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) 174 local sanitary authorities in Ireland, representing 62·6 of the population, have adopted the Infectious Diseases Prevention Act, 1890.

  Fees for Medical Examination of Territorial Army Recruits.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIA: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the difficulty of getting recruits for the Territorial Army medically examined by civilian doctors owing to the small fee of 1s. sanctioned by regulation; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the fee to 2s. 6d., at which figure it stood before the passing of the Territorial Forces Act, 1907, having in view the tax entailed on the time of the medical man who, to carry out the instructions for the physical examination of candidates, must expend nearly two hours in performing this duty.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I think the noble Lord is under some misapprehension. 2s. 6d. was only paid in the Yeomanry; the Volunteers were generally examined by their regimental medical officers without payment of a fee. At present no fee is prescribed, but a grant of 1s. is made to an Association for each recruit passed. These grants form a fund from which fees for medical examination of recruits can be paid when necessary. It is, however, anticipated that in most cases the medical examination will be conducted by the Royal Army Medical Corps of the Territorial Force as part of their military duty.

  Shortage of Subalterns in the Royal Field Artillery.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether there is any, and
  1200
  what, shortage of subalterns in the various batteries of the Royal Field Artillery; and what steps, if any, will be taken to fill these vacancies.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The present shortage amounts to fifty-seven, of which number of places twenty will be filled by the 1st February. The transfer of Garrison Artillery Volunteers to Field Artillery Territorial Force units caused a demand for forty-two adjutants from the Royal Field Artillery, and a corresponding deficiency among the subalterns. Steps are being taken to good the deficiency.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Repairs of War Vessels.
  MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the present serious depression in the shipbuilding and marine engineering industries, and the consequent large number of men unemployed, he will arrange that the necessary repairs to war vessels and their machinery during the coming winter will be divided between the Government dockyards and private shipbuilding and engineering establishments.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKENNA,): No, Sir.
  MR. RENWICKasked why firms which were entrusted with shipbuilding and the provision of machinery were not entrusted with repairs.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that the Admiralty policy had been to give repairs chiefly, if not entirely, to the dockyards in order to give the building out to private yards.
  MR. JENKINS: In the event of the Admiralty acceding to the request of the hon. Member opposite, will he give new work to the dockyards?
  MR. MCKENNA: The Admiralty have not the faintest intention of acceding to the request of the hon. Gentleman.

  The Channel Fleet.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in spite of the regulation laid down by the Admiralty that only two battleships of the active Channel Fleet should be absent at one time, in September last the Channel Fleet was at Scarborough with only six battleships, whilst the Home Fleet at the same time was hundreds of miles away, in the North of Scotland, with only ten battleships, and these of three or four different types; and whether, about the same time, the German High Sea Fleet of sixteen if not eighteen battleships was at or near Heligoland.
  MR. MCKENNA: Six battleships of the Channel Fleet arrived at Scarborough on 25th September last. At that date the other eight battleships of the Channel Fleet were at the home ports—three at Chatham, three at Portsmouth, and two at Devonport; four of these were ready for sea and four were refitting. At the same date, of the Home Fleet, nine battleships were at Cromarty, two were in the neighbourhood of the Nore engaged in gunlayers' tests, and one was at Devonport available for service. I cannot undertake to give information with regard to the movements of foreign Fleets.
  MR. HUNTasked whether, in view of, our late experience, showing how very quickly war clouds might appear on the political horizon, and also judging by the fact that some of our neighbours were not quite so fond of us as we had believed they were, the right hon. Gentleman thought that the position was safe at that time and was the same state of things likely to happen again.
  MR. MCKENNA: If I might use the phrase I would say "overwhelmingly safe."
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: For what purpose were the ships at Scarborough—for training or for the entertainment of the inhabitants?
  MR. MCKENNAasked for notice.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's
  1202
  inability to give the information asked for in the last part of the Question, will he say is it due to lack of information or does he consider it would not be wise to give it?
  MR. MCKENNA: My reply is: "I cannot undertake to give the information."

  The Coastguard.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many coastguards were employed at the thirty-three stations which have been closed during the present year; how much will be the saving that will be effected; and, on the closing of the stations, were arrangements made with the Board of Trade for the efficient working of the life-saving appliances in every case where they had been previously worked by the coastguards.
  MR. MCKENNA: The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is: Full complement, 173; actual numbers serving when stations were closed 136. I am unable at present to give a statement of the saving that will be effected. With regard to the last part of the Question, the Board of Trade expressed their concurrence prior to the stations being closed; none of these thirty-three stations were supplied with the life-saving apparatus.
  MR. FELLasked whether the 136 men were to join the ranks of the unemployed. This could not represent a saving to the Admiralty of more than £2,000 or £3,000. Could not something be done for them?
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that to answer that Question he would have to inquire into the status of each one of the men.

  Reservists with the Colours.
  MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what arrangements have been made to bring back to this country the Reservists who are allowed to emigrate in case we are at war with a Naval Power.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): It will be the duty of each individual

  1203
  Reservist to use the funds with which he will have been furnished, in effecting as expeditious and safe a journey home as he can.

  Army Horses.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House what percentage of horses used in the Army are bred in Ireland, or, failing this, what proportion of Army horses have been procured in Ireland during the last five years.
  MR. HALDANE: It is not possible to state what proportion of the horses used in the Army are bred in Ireland. During the five years ended March, 1908, 17,959 horses were purchased in the United Kingdom, and of these 11,590 were purchased in Ireland.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Does any machinery exist for purchasing Army horses direct from the breeder?
  MR. HALDANE: No, I think not, but the Remount Department has very large discretion.
  EARL WINTERTON: Do not foreign Powers obtain the best horses for Army purposes?
  MR. HALDANE: I believe they compete keenly for Irish horses.

  Natal Tax Bill.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received advices of the Tax Bill recently passed by the Natal Legislature; and whether he has received any protests against it on the ground that it alters the tenure and terms of grants made by the Government to various Colonists for valuable consideration, paid by them, and in particular has reimposed special taxes upon land for non-occupation in respect of which money has been paid to the Government for the redemption of non-occupation tax and quit rents.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY): The
  1204
  Secretary of State has received copies of an Income and Land Tax Assessment Bill, though not in its final form. A protest of the nature referred to has been received from the Natal Land and Colonisation Company, but the matter does not appear to be one in which the Secretary of State can properly interfere.

  Transvaal Loan.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of the Transvaal Loan of £5,000,000 has been issued, in what form the issue has been made, and to what objects the money has been allocated.
  COLONEL SEELY: £1,000,000 of Transvaal Treasury Bills due 1st February, 1909, have, with the approval of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, been issued. £750,000 has been paid to the Transvaal Land and Agricultural Bank, and small sums have been spent on agricultural settlement and on irrigation. Expenditure is, I understand, also contemplated on railways.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the new issue will be made? Will it be within the next six months?
  COLONEL SEELY: I cannot say off-hand.

  Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, between January, 1906, the date of the last General Election, and January, 1907, when the maximum number of Chinese working in the South African mines was reached the number of whites employed had decreased; and whether, since the reduction of nearly 40,000 Chinese, the number of whites employed has increased.
  COLONEL SEELY: In January, 1906, the number of whites working on the Rand was 17,696; in January, 1907, the number was 17,198. In August last it was 17,989. In September there was a further decrease of Chinese and increase

  1205
  of whites, but I cannot yet give the exact figures for that month.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether between January, 1906, and the present time there had not been a large increase in coloured labour?
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, a very large increase indeed, and contrary to the expectations entertained by hon. Members opposite.
  MR. FELL: Have not a considerable number of new mines also been opened up?
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, I am glad to say that is the case.

  Scholarships and Income-Tax.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether students who have gained scholarships in the University of London for £80 are charged with income-tax thereon as unearned income, seeing that such income has been gained by long and expensive labour and pains.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): Scholarships at the Universities are chargeable to income-tax as "earned" income, but I may remind the hon. Member that probably in the great majority of cases the recipients of such scholarships arepersons whose total income from all sources does not exceed the statutory limit of exemption.

  Hop Substitutes and Beer Preservatives.
  MR. BARKER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue Department has any list of chemicals and preservatives, other than hops, which are sometimes used in the brewing of beer or which may be added to the beer after the process of brewing is completed; have the officials of the Department ever issued a list of chemicals or chemical substances which brewers were forbidden to use; and, if so, what are the names of the forbidden articles.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: A list of the articles in respect of which application
  1206
  had been made to the Board of Inland Revenue for permission for their use in the manufacture of beer was compiled in 1905 and given by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to a Question in the House of Commons on 23rd May, 1905. No list has been issued by the Board of Inland Revenue of substances which brewers are forbidden to use, but from time to time decisions are given by the Board as regards substances submitted either by brewers or by the Board's officers. The articles for which sanction has been refused are: Malt, yeast-foods, glucose, invert sugar, hop substitutes, etc., when containing arsenic beyond the limit recommended by the Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning; heading powders and liquids, or other article, containing saponin whether derived from quillaia bark or not; flavouring essences; saccharin; sacramine, and other compounds containing saccharin.
  EARL WINTERTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any list is kept of chemicals which wine merchants are forbidden to use in doctoring their wines?
  MR. G. D. FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any chemicals are used in the manufacture, of mineral waters?
  [No reply was given.]

  Defaulting Ratepayers.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of ratepayers summoned for their rates in England and Wales and the number who suffered imprisonment for non-payment, differentiating between the provinces and London for the year ending 1907.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL, Yorkshire, Cleveland): I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. These figures are not available, and even if it were possible to get accurate returns, their collection would, the Secretary of State fears, give the local authorities more trouble than the result would justify.

  Ladies at Great Marlborough Street Police Court.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of two ladies, Mrs. Penn Gaskell and Miss Smith, who, on 19th October last, at about 1.50 p.m., were summarily arrested by two police officers in Regent Street while distributing handbills announcing a public, meeting, and taken to the Vine Street Police Station, and thence to the Great Marlborough Street Police Court, where they were imprisoned in a small cell-like room, together with a woman charged with being a prostitute, for some two hours, although they were at all times ready and willing to give their names and addresses, and might have been proceeded against by summons; whether he is aware that these ladies complain of having been subjected to many other indignities while awaiting trial on the charge of having caused an obstruction to the highway, and that they were ultimately released upon an order to enter into recognisances with which they were not required actually to comply; and whether he will direct a full inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case, and take such steps as may be necessary to secure that women charged by the police under such circumstances shall not in future be subjected to such treatment, and that they shall not be forcibly arrested in the public streets in cases where procedure by summons is sufficient.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: My right hon. friend's attention has been called to this case, but he finds, on inquiry, that these ladies were subjected to no indignities while in custody. They were, in fact, treated with special consideration. At the police court they were detained, not in a cell, but in a waiting-room, eighteen feet square, with a woman whom the police report they have no reason to believe was of the class specified by the hon. Member. The door of the room was not looked, and the matron was in attendance. Mrs. Gaskell and Miss Smith were apprehended only when they were causing actual obstruction to traffic, when they had shown a deter-
  1208
  mination not to obey the police warning to move away, and when their removal from the street had become necessary in order to put an end to the obstruction.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that independent evidence was forthcoming at the police court that there was no crowd and no obstruction of the traffic, and that other evidence has since transpired bearing that out? Will he make further inquiry into the facts if I send him a copy of the evidence, and seeing that by the magistrate's decision it was a perfectly trivial offence, will he say if he approves of women being arrested summarily in the streets under such circumstances?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is asking for an expression of opinion.

  Vine Street Police Station—Accommodation for Female Prisoners.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will direct inquiries to be made as to the accommodation provided for female prisoners awaiting trial at Vine Street Police Station; and whether the door of the lavatory for women under arrest at that station is provided with a spy-hole, and is situated in a corridor to which police constables and other mile persons have access.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Present structural conditions at Vine Street preclude the provision of a separate set of cells for female prisoners, but whenever a woman is detained there, a matron is present in the cell passage throughout the period of detention. For obvious reasons, a small shuttered window is required in the lavatory door. The window is used only on occasions of emergency, and in the case of a female prisoner is used by the matron only. A scheme for the improvement of the administrative accommodation at this station is now in preparation.

  Case of William Woodgate.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of William Woodgate, an ex-soldier, who was

  1209
  charged at the North London Police Court, on Saturday, 24th October, with placing himself in Seven Sisters Road, Holloway, for the purpose of receiving alms, and was sentenced to two months hard labour, although he stated he had been out of work for the past ten weeks and owed five weeks rent and was trying to get a few pence to buy bread for his wife and child; and if he can see his way to have the sentence reduced.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: My right hon. friend is making inquiry, and will let the hon. Member know his decision.

  Roman Catholic Institutions.
  MR. MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of Roman Catholic monastic and conventual institutions, which existed in England Ireland, Scotland and Wales respectively, in 1830, and at the last date when the last figures were published, respectively; and whether he can give the number of foreign Roman Catholic monks and nuns who have taken up their abode in the United Kingdom during the last five or ten years.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are no official statistics on the subject.
  MR. MCARTHUR: Has the hon. Gentleman any objection to endeavouring to obtain the statistics asked for in the first part of the Question?
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Home Office has no power to do so; it would require legislation for the purpose.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Has the Home Office no source of information other than official information?
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am only required to give official information.

  Holloway Cells.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the windows in the Holloway cells are not made to open and there is
  1210
  no direct entry of fresh air, and that the floors of the cells upon which the bedding is placed are composed of stone blocks likely to be damp at certain seasons of the year, these defects in construction will be remedied in the interests of the health of prisoners.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The windows are not made to open, but there is a direct entry of fresh air by a separate inlet for each cell, and the ventilation is satisfactory. Home of the cells at Hollo way are floored with wood blocks, some with concrete, and some with tiles. The floors are not damp, nor is the bedding placed upon the floor, but upon a shelf when not in use.

  Prison Industries for Women.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what industries are taught in His Majesty's prisons to women; whether he will consider the possibility of revising the system, with a view to enabling them to find remunerative work on their discharge; and whether he has considered the advisability of appointing a woman to the Board of Prison Commissioners to help in reorganising prison industries for women on more educative and reformative lines.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: My right, hon. friend will furnish the hon. Member with a list of the industries. The shortness of sentences prevents in most cases any system of organised instruction of such a nature as would create a wage-earning capacity on discharge, even were it possible to find employment. Thirty-nine per cent. of women last year were in prison for a week or less; 65 per cent. two weeks or less; and 95 per cent. three months or less; but in individual cases, where length of sentence admits, every effort is made to impart useful instruction, and improvements are continually being made. The Commissioners have now ample opportunities of obtaining the opinion of women as to the most suitable industries. Lady visitors are invited to offer suggestions. Useful suggestions are also frequently received from matrons of prisons; and a lady inspector of prisons has lately been appointed, whose duty it is, among other

  1211
  things, to advise the Commissioners on this matter.

  Metropolitan Police.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the large amount of unemployment now obtaining, he will increase the number of Reservists permitted to be enrolled in the Metropolitan Police force beyond the existing limit of 600 as vacancies occur; and, if so, what additional number he will permit to be so recruited.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Efforts are being made to keep the Metropolitan Police force up to its full strength, and my right hon. friend thinks it is obvious that the hon. Member's suggestion of substituting Reservists for other unemployed persons as police recruits would not assist in the solution of the question of unemployment. The number of Reservists to be employed has, after careful consideration, been fixed at the limit given, and my right hon. friend regrets he cannot undertake to alter it.

  The Imprisoned Suffragists.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the application made at Bow Street Police Court on Monday to have certain women political prisoners transferred from the second to the first division; whether he is aware that the magistrate stated that the Home Secretary was the proper person to apply to; and whether he will now exercise the powers he possesses, known as the prerogative of mercy, to have the ladies referred to treated as first-class misdemeanants.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: My right hon. friend has seen a newspaper report of the application which was made to the Court on behalf of these ladies. As he stated on a previous occasion, it would, in his opinion, be unconstitutional to use the power of the Crown to override, with regard to any class of prisoners, the discretion which has been expressly given to the Court by statute. In certain cases, where no order was made, he has
  1212
  drawn the attention of the committing magistrate to the matter, and has asked him to consider it; and as the result, the magistrate has directed the prisoners' removal to a higher division than that in which they had been placed. My right hon. friend was advised by the late Attorney-General that a magistrate had power to give such a direction subsequent to the prisoners' committal to prison. With regard to the ladies referred to in the Question, my right hon. friend has been advised that the remainder of Mrs. Drummond's sentence should be remitted upon medical grounds, and she has been discharged from prison. As to the other ladies who are being treated in the second division, he sees no reason which would justify him in communicating with the learned magistrate.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether on the same day, in another Court, a similar application for transference from a lower to higher grade was granted by the magistrate, as he understood, on the recommendation of the Home Secretary; and why, if that could be done in one Court, it could be done in another.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is precisely the question I have answered.
  *MR. REES: May I ask whether equality before the law is not a bedrock principle of democratic rule?
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether equality before the law meant first-class treatment for Dr. Jameson and second class for these ladies who are also political offenders?
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: My right hon. friend has explained more than once that the Jameson case was before the passing of the Prisons Act of 1898, which completely altered the situation by vesting discretion in this matter in the Court.
  MR. LUPTONMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has not complete discretion to discharge all these suffragist prisoners at once?
  [No reply was given.]

  Motor Speed Gears.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that Clause 12 of the Police Regulations for the granting of licences to motor omnibuses provides that every omnibus must be so geared that its normal highest speed does not exceed twelve miles an hour, he will say why the police have licensed omnibuses which habitaully travel at sixteen miles per hour; and whether this Regulation has ever been enforced in a single case.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member appears to have misunderstood the words "normal highest speed" in the Regulation from which he quotes. They refer to the omnibus when running in its highest gear at a normal number of engine revolutions per minute. The majority of omnibuses are so designed that when running at a normal engine speed their rate of progression approximates closely to the legal maximum of twelve miles per hour. Motor omnibuses in London do not habitually travel at sixteen miles per hour.

  Motor Traffic Noises.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that Clause 13 of the Police Regulations for granting of licences to motor omnibuses provides that every omnibus must be constructed so that no undue noise or vibration is caused, he will say why omnibuses are permitted on the streets shaking the houses by which they pass and causing a nuisance to the public.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Every care is exercised to ensure that only properly constructed omnibuses are licensed, and when the police find any that, through wear and tear, have become noisy, these are ordered off the streets. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the Report of the Select Committee of 1906 drew attention to the fact that the noise and vibration of motor vehicles may be due to causes other than faulty construction. As the former part of my Answer has been met with some question, perhaps I may be allowed to say that in the year 1907, motor omnibuses were
  1214
  warned off the streets no less than 4,862 times, and as there are only 1,000 omnibuses, that gives an average of nearly five times each, which does not seem to show laxity on the part of the police.
  MR. MARKHAM: May I ask whether it does not show that these motor omnibuses ought to have been warned off ten times?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  *SIR HENRY CRAIK: Cannot we have a Return showing the condition of these omnibuses?
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think that would be a proper subject for a Parliamentary Return.

  Taxi-Companies' Profits.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the profits made by motor-taxi companies, and that the fares he has sanctioned are nearly double those permitted by the Paris traffic authorities for exactly the same cabs, he will reduce the rates forthwith.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: My right hon. friend has no official information of the profits made by motor cab companies, and the conditions in Paris are so different that no inference can be drawn from the Paris fares as to those that ought to prevail here. He notices, however, that, in the evidence given before the Select Committee, it was stated that the fare for a taximeter cab in Paris was about one-third more than the fare for a horsed cab. At any rate, the profits now made by motor cabs in London must be regarded as due in part to the demand exceeding the supply, and present experience would not warrant a reduction in the rates.

  Taxi-Cab Fares.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that the majority of the taxi-cabs in London are identical

  1215
  with those used in Paris, being manufactured by the same foreign firm, he will say why he has sanctioned a scale of rates permitting motor companies to charge the public 2d. for two-and-a-half minutes by time when the rates in Paris for the same cars are 1d. for three minutes by time.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: It has already been stated that no analogy can be drawn between the fares in force in Paris and London, respectively. But the rate suggested by the hon. Member, which works out at 1s. 6d. per hour, is manifestly unsuitable for London, being less than the rate for horsed cabs. The Select Committee in their Report stated that "obviously the fare by time must be much higher" in the case of motor cabs than for horsed cabs.
  MR. MARKHAM: Does the hon. Gentleman consider 4s. an hour for waiting reasonable? Are not the Paris cabs of exactly the same construction, and if they pay at the lower rate cannot the English cab pay equally?
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The conditions in Paris are different.
  MR. MARKHAM: There can be no difference in waiting.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The difference is in the wages of the men, their standard of comfort, the cost of maintenance, and so forth.
  MR. MARKHAM: But the wages in Paris are higher than those in London.

  Speed Tests.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that at the recent Olympic Games the time of every race was correctly taken to one-tenth of a second, he will say if with a system of electric signals the speed of motor vehicles could be accurately taken; whether any application has been made by the Commissioner to him for money to install such electric appliances to prevent the law being daily broken by motorists; and whether he will see
  1216
  that any moneys necessary to enforce the law are granted to the Commissioner.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The chronographs used by the Metropolitan police, which time accurately to one-fifth of a second, were adopted after full consideration of various electrical and other timing appliances. In the opinion of the Commissioner timing by chronograph is the method best adapted to the needs of the Metropolitan police and the conditions under which timing is effected by them.
  MR. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commissioner of Police, in a letter to the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division, said he allowed four miles an hour over and above the legal limit owing to the difficulty of marking the exact time?
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not aware.

  Motor Skidding Fatalities.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that Clause 4 of the Regulations for obtaining a certificate of fitness for motor omnibuses provides that the Commissioner of Police reserves the right to withdraw the same when granted if an omnibus is apt to skid unduly, he will state the number of fatal accidents and personal injuries caused by side-slip in the Metropolis during the first six months of this year, the number of lamp-posts destroyed, and in how many cases the licences of omnibuses have been withdrawn for causing accidents due to side-slip.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The particulars of accidents due to side-slips could not be given without laborious search; the statistics now available include all accidents due to motor omnibuses. Skidding is, of course, common to all rubber-tyred vehicles, but every care is taken in licensing omnibuses to see that they are not specially liable to side-slip. No licences have been withdrawn during 1908 on this account.

  Taxi-cab Fares.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that the cost of petrol is 50 per cent. higher in Paris than in London, and that the drivers of motor-cabs are paid higher wages in Paris than in London, he will say why he has fixed the fares for taxi-cabs at 8d. per mile and 2d. for each additional 440 yards when the rates in Paris are 7½d. for 1,300 yards and 1d. for each additional 430 yards.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: This Question is partly covered by my replies to the previous ones. In fixing the rates, my right hon. friend adopted a scale lower in some respects than that recommended by the Select Committee, and it appears to have met with general approval.

  Motor Regulations.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that some months ago the Commissioner of Police addressed a communication to the Press, stating that, in view of the motor industry being a new one, he had not strictly enforced the regulation and laws enacted under the authority of Parliament; will he say whether the Commissioner was authorised by him not strictly to enforce the regulations of the Local Government Board, and if he will direct the Commissioner to carry out the orders of this House; and will he state the number of omnibuses, at present licensed in the Metropolis, of foreign manufacture.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member will observe, on reference to the correspondence to which he alludes, that the regulations referred to as not strictly enforced, were certain regulations affecting public carriages, made by the Commissioner himself, which were at the time under the consideration of a Select Committee of the House. One thousand and ninety-five omnibuses are at present licensed by the Commissioner, and of these 595 are reported to be of foreign manufacture.

  Seamen's Boarding Houses in Cardiff.
  MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board
  1218
  whether his attention has been called to to revelations recently made public in the Cardiff Municipal Council in regard to the state of seamen's boarding-houses in that city; and whether he will order an inquiry to be made as to the working of the regulations in force for the supervision and control of seamen's boarding-houses in the seaport towns of the United Kingdom.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I have been asked to reply to this Question. I am aware of the allegations which have been made as regards the state of seamen's boarding-houses at Cardiff, and understand that they are not without foundation. I have been in communication with the local authorities and am informed that urgent attention is being given to the matter with a view to securing a rigorous administration of the bye-laws regulating the boarding-houses. I am taking steps to obtain information as regards the state of seamen's boarding-houses at the other seaports, in respect of which the Board of Trade have approved bye-laws and the whole matter will receive careful consideration.

  Railway Combines.
  MR. HOOPER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will obtain and lay upon the Table of the House particulars of the combinations or other mutual arrangements for working traffic, enforcing rates, withdrawing rebates, pooling receipts, abolishing inter-competition, and establishing community of interests in one way or another which have been entered into since 1905 by various railway companies in Great Britain; and whether the Board of Trade have taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and are now prepared to state whether all or any of these combinations or arrangements are such as require for their validity the approval of the Railway and Canal Commissioners, under Section 25 of the Railways Clauses Act, 1863, and amending enactments thereof.
  *MR. REESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman possessed any authority to compel railways to work at a loss, or at rates of profit far below the average

  1219
  return upon capital employed in other contemporaneous enterprises.
  MR. CHURCHILLreplied that he should like an opportunity of studying the latter Question in order that it might have the answer it deserved. In regard to the Question on the Paper, the right hon. Gentleman said: I fear that is would be impracticable to attempt to collect particulars of all the various arrangements among railway companies which my hon. friend has in mind, which are probably very numerous. The Railway and Canal Commission only have power to review such agreements as are entered into under the authority of special Acts of Parliament incorporating Part III. of the Railways Clauses Act, 1863, or containing provisions similar to those of (Section 25 of that Act. It hardly appears necessary to consult the Law Officers of the Crown on this point which I am advised is not open to doubt. As, however, stated, in reply to my hon. friend the Member for Stockport on the 15th inst., the working of such arrangements will be most carefully watched, and should experience show that they operate detrimentally to the public interest, His Majesty's Government would not hestiate to take or to propose to Parliament the measures required by the situation.
  MR. MARKHAMasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that many of these Bills were granted by the House for the purposes of competition as was distinctly stated by the promoters upstairs, and that since this pooling arrangement between the Great Northern and Great Central facilities granted to traders had been withdrawn.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to give notice of that Question.
  MR. WALTERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious inconvenience caused to passenger traffic on some of the main lines by overcrowding, as the result of combination which has led to dispensing with a number of trains?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I shall be glad to receive any evidence of injury to public
  1220
  interest arising out of such of these combinations as may possibly not require Parliamentary legislation.
  MR. MARKHAM: May I have another shot at the right hon. Gentleman? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bills granted by Parliament deliberately for purposes, specifically stated, of competition have been contravened?
  MR. CHURCHILL: These are grave matters of a most intricate branch of law, and I should not be doing justice to the House if I attempted to give my opinion without the advice of the Law Officers.
  MR. HOOPER: How can the right hon. Gentleman form an opinion without having an opportunity of seeing these agreements?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid his answer applied only to such agreements as those with which they were familiar.

  Employment in Germany.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information from German official sources, or from the Reports of British Consuls in Germany, as to the scarcity of workers there; and, if so, whether he will lay such information upon the Table of the House.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen statements in the Reports of His Majesty's Consuls in Germany as to the shortage of labour in various industries during the recent period of trade expansion, but not any similar statements relating to the present time. The Consular Reports have already been laid on the Table of the House.

  German Immigration.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of persons who annually enter Germany temporarily from surrounding countries for purposes of work.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, I have no means of making such an estimate.

  British Trade in Bulgaria.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the strong recommendations of Vice-Consul Toulmin, in his last two Annual Reports on Bulgaria, as to the advantage of establishing a British bank and a British museum of commercial samples at Sofia, have been brought to the notice of Chambers of Commerce and associations of bankers.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The attention of the Commercial Community has been directed to Mr. Vice-Consul Toulmin's recommendations by notices in the Board of Trade Journal, copies of which are sent to all the principal Chambers of Commerce. I beg to refer my hon. friend to page 458 of the issue of the Journal for 5th December last, a copy of which I am sending to him.

  Irish Railway Pension Scheme.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to a circular letter issued by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company (Ireland) on 16th October last, informing the servants on the wages staff of the company that, owing to the provisions of old-age pensions to be made from the National Exchequer, the directors give notice to terminate their pensions scheme from 1st January, 1909; whether he can say if such pensions have been part earnings for service to the company and are, in fact, deferred pay; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have not received a copy of the circular to which the hon. Member refers, but I am inviting the Railway Company's observations on the statements contained in the Question, and will inform the hon. Member of the nature of their reply.

  Trade Commissioners.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has made the arrangements for the Consultative Committee of Colonial Experts, which was promised at the time of the Colonial Conference.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I understand from the hon. Member that his Question relates to appointments by His Majesty's Government of Trade Commissioners in the self-governing Dominions, appointments which were in contemplation at the time of the Colonial Conference. Four such appointments have now been made—one for Canada, one for South Africa, one for Australia, and one for New Zealand. Three of the gentlemen appointed have already left this country to take up their posts.
  EARL WINTERTON: Will these gentlemen's reports be published with the Consular Reports?
  MR. CHURCHILL: They will report to the Board of Trade, and we shall consider them with the view of giving the fullest information to the commercial classes of this country.
  MR. FELL: Will the Commissioners be under the Board of Trade or the Colonial Office?
  MR. CHURCHILL: They are pointed by the Board of Trade.
  MR. BONAR LAW: Have the appointments been made under the advice of the Commercial Committee of the Board of Trade?
  MR. CHURCHILL: They are made by the Board of Trade on its own responsibility, after availing itself of the information it thinks it desirable to receive.

  Railway Stock and the Old-Age Pensions.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the facts that more than half the holdings of railway stock in this country are under £500 in amount, and that the average return upon this is only slightly above half the amount of income which disqualifies the possessor for an old-age pension, he will consider the advisability of revising the system of rating, so as to provide that railway companies shall be assessed only in respect of total net annual value.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I can only repeat the statement I made on 19th October last, in reply to a Question of my hon. friend, viz., that whether there should be any alteration in the law with regard to the assessment of railways is a matter which will receive consideration in connection with the Valuation Bill.

  Motor Car Lights.
  CAPTAIN ARTHUR MURRAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the employment of dazzling headlights on motor cars has been the cause of accidents to the cycling and driving public; and whether, when framing future motor legislation, he will bear this in mind and compel the use of such appliances as will reduce to a minimum the excessive glare.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the disadvantages attending the use of these dazzling lights. The subject has received the consideration both of the Local Government Board and of the Royal Commission on Motor Cars, but at present I have not seen my way to an appropriate method of dealing with the matter.
  MR. WATTasked whether the point could be dealt with by regulation, or whether it needed legislation.
  MR. BURNS: If it can be dealt with by regulation, I will see whether there may not be an early opportunity to deal with it.

  Vermin Poisons.
  MR. RIDSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the Report of Dr. Collingridge, Medical Officer of Health for the City of London, to the effect that a vermin poison, advertised as harmless to human beings but as disseminating bacteriological diseases to rodents, has caused serious illness to many persons; and whether, in view of the danger to the public of the unrestricted sale of such
  1224
  poisons, he will consider the desirability of placing restrictions upon their sale.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has been called to this matter. The administration of the Acts relating to the sale of poisons rests with the Privy Council. I will communicate with the Lord President as to the suggestion made by my hon. friend.

  Distress Committees.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board on what date the circular was sent out to the various distress committees informing them that the Poor Law relief and the two years' successive work disqualification under the Unemployed Workmen's Act have been removed.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: An Order is necessary for the purpose of altering the Regulations in this respect. The Order is in preparation, and will very shortly be issued.

  Death at Preston Mission Shelter.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the verdict returned at an inquest at Preston, on William Walsh, aged forty-six, a weaver of Blackburn, who died in the mission shelter on Tuesday, 20th October; and, in consequence of the deceased telling his fellow inmates that he had walked from Clitheroe, where he had had nothing but dry bread and water in the casual ward for several days, and in consequence of the man's death being accelerated by starvation and exposure, will he cause inquiries to be made into the case.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have written for the depositions taken at the inquest in this case. On receiving them I will look into the matter.

  Norwegian Timber for Telegraph Poles.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether experts support the view that home-grown is not more durable than Norwegian timber and cannot be creosoted to the same advantage; and whether it is sufficiently established

  1225
  beyond all doubt that home-grown timber cannot be used for telegraph poles without loss to the Department.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): As regards the first Question the Answer is in the affirmative. As regards the general question, I have already written fully to my hon. friend on the subject.
  MR. REESwas understood to ask if the Norwegians were not interested in maintaining the claim that their timber was more durable?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Perhaps they are, but that does not affect the question. I am very anxious indeed to get offers of suitable British timber for telegraph poles, and if I receive them they certainly will be sympathetically considered.

  Canadian Cable Rates.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any representations have been made by the Canadian Government for the reduction of cable rates between this country and Canada.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

  Bristol Post Office Clerical Staff.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in the matter of applications for extra clerks daring the pressure of Christmas work at Bristol, those who are unemployed will be given preference; and whether, since the announcement as to the work to be provided by the Post Office, any clerks have been taken on at the Bristol office who have temporarily left their present employment, or will such applications be entertained.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No men have yet been taken on at Bristol for Christmas pressure; but there, as elsewhere, in accordance with announcements which I have already made in this House, applications from men who are in employment will not be enter-
  1226
  tained if suitable men for the duties to be performed can be found among the genuinely unemployed.

  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Departmental Committee on the organisation and arrangement of the Victoria and Albert Museum, and the evidence and Memoranda on which that Report is based.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): I am arranging for the Report of the Committee to be presented to Parliament. As foreshadowed in the reply I gave to the hon. Baronet on 12th May, no formal evidence has been taken by them, but full information as to their proceedings will be found in the Report when issued. I may mention that much assistance was derived by the Committee, as shown in their Report, from the very full Report of the Select Committee on Museums and the Science and Art Department which sat in 1897–8.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Was not the Report largely based on Memoranda furnished from time to time by the inquiry, and could not those Memoranda be laid before the House?
  MR. RUNCIMANreplied that he had not seen the whole of the documents, but he would look into the matter.

  Swansea Education Dispute.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state when the managers of the Oxford Street School at Swansea first referred the question of the sufficiency of the teacher's salaries to the Board of Education under Section 7 of the Education Act, 1902; what action was taken thereupon by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland; whether the Board informed the local education authority as early as July, 1906, that their action was unjust to the teachers and children and gravely imperilling the efficiency of the school; whether the

  1227
  managers have since that time repeatedly pressed for a decision on the question; and how much longer will it be before such decision is given.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Answer to the first paragraph is in November, 1905. With regard to the second paragraph, I think I should refer the noble Lord to the very full Answers given by my right hon. friend to him in December, 1906. The replies to the third and fourth Questions are in the affirmative. A public inquiry was held by my directions at Swansea, and the report is now under my consideration.
  LORD R. CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from 1st August last year the managers of this school have been paying to their teachers out of their own pockets the difference between the salaries awarded by the local education committee and and that paid by the same committee to the teachers in their own school?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The reason why I ordered a public inquiry was that I might get an impartial account. I think the noble Lord will get from the Report which will be published shortly all the information he requires.
  LORD R. CECIL: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to arrive at a decision?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I hope before long.

  Small Holdings.
  *MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will consider the advisability of appointing local inspectors in different parts of the country to assist the Commissioners in ascertaining the extent of the demand for land.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The work of ascertaining the existing demands for Small Holdings is practically completed. It is therefore not necessary to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend.
  *MR. MORRELLasked if there had not been a great deal of delay in consequence of the duty being left to the County Councils instead of the Commissioners?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: There has been no unnecessary delay.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what particulars the Small Holdings Commissioners have in their possession of those applications made under the Act in which the applicants have not yet been satisfied.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Information on this point will be obtained for the purposes of our Annual Report, but the Board are not at present in a position to give the particulars asked for. Every specific complaint received by the Board is at once investigated.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what is the number of applications made for allotments under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The number of applications is small. Full particulars will be published in our Annual Report.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the large demand that has arisen under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, the Board has appointed or intends to appoint any additional Commissioners or inspectors beyond the six gentlemen originally appointed under the Act.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: It is proposed to employ another inspector at once. If it is found necessary to obtain the services of others we shall most certainly do so.

  Allotments.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of

  1229
  Agriculture, whether his attention has been drawn to a Resolution passed by the Parish Councils Conference on 11th July, with regard to the difficulties of parish councils in providing allotments, owing to the fact that allotments may only be granted to those engaged in manual labour; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of so amending the law as to permit parish councils to grant allotments up to five acres to all suitable applicants.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The difficulty to which my hon. friend refers does, no doubt, occur on some occasions, but where the applicant desires more than one acre he can be provided with land under the Small Holdings Acts whether he belongs to the labouring population or not. It is not proposed to initiate further legislation on the subject at the present time.

  Registration of Title.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if he can give any indication when the Report of the Royal Commission appointed in May, 1906, to consider the expediency of extending a system of registration of title to Scotland will be presented; and if the Report will be presented in time to be of use on the inquiry now proceeding before the Land Transfer Commission.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,): I am informed that the Report will be presented on an early day, and that it will be in time for full consideration by the Land Transfer Commission.

  The Weir Bequest.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Barnstaple division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether by the terms of the late Mr. Weir's will income only is directed to be used for the establishment and maintenance of the charity; whether he will state from what persons or bodies the Charity Commissioners have received protests and objections to the published draft scheme; do the Commissioners, notwithstanding such protests, intend to persevere in the
  1230
  attempt to transfer £50,000 capital of the fund, and the income of the residue, to a hospital in Battersea, and not in Streatham as directed by the will; whether the donations of £5,000 and £900 were given in the form of legacies, and, if so, under whose wills and upon what conditions were such legacies given; whether the authorities of the King Edward's Hospital Fund who are alleged to have advised union with the Bolingbroke Hospital, expressed any opinion that the terms of the will could not be carried out as provided therein; whether he is aware that a feeling exists against multiplying beds in existing hospitals when so many beds are vacant for want of funds, and that the present draft scheme will double the accommodation at Bolingbroke Hospital; and what provision has been made for the maintenance of such extra accommodation.
  MR. SOARES: Mr. Weir's will does not direct that income only is to be used for the establishment and maintenance of the charity. Protests and objections to the published draft scheme have been received from the persons claiming to be the committee of management of the charity from Mr. Richard Phillips, a member of the Wandsworth Borough Council, from the Streatham Ratepayers' Association and the Streatham Chamber of Commerce; from the Wandsworth Borough Council; from Mr. Henry George Hills, one of the trustees under Mr. Weir's will; and from a meeting of inhabitants of the parish of Streatham. The Commissioners propose to seal their scheme substantially in the form in which it was published, and if desired to authorise an appeal from it to the Chancery Division of the High Court. The donations of £5,000 and £900 were not legacies. The gift of £5,000 was from the Zunz trustees and that of £900 was from Lord Wandsworth, and these gifts were conditional upon a total amount of £22,000 being subscribed by the end of July, 1907. The authorities of King Edward's Hospital Fund did not express any opinion that the terms of the will could not be carried out as provided therein The Commissioners are aware that opinions have been expressed to

  1231
  the effect stated by the hon. Member. The proposed scheme will about double the accommodation at Bolingbroke Hospital. The maintenance of extra accommodation at the hospital so far as not provided for by the residuary income of the Weir Charity will be provided from the general funds of the hospital.

  Scottish Fishery Cruiser.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what is the armament of the proposed fishery cruiser for Scotland.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The new cruiser will carry no armament.
  EARL WINTERTON: Will this cruiser carry no arms of any kind?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have said it will carry no armament.

  Scottish Judges and Bank Directorships.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if the most recently appointed Judge of the Court of Session occupies the position of ordinary director of the Bank of Scotland; and, if so, whether, seeing that the Bank of Scotland is frequently a litigant in that Court, he proposes to take any action.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): Lord Skerrington was a director of the Bank of Scotland, but upon receiving His Majesty's Commission as a Judge he promptly, and before taking his seat on the Bench, resigned his directorship.
  MR. WATT: May I, with all due humility, ask whether it was made a condition of the appointment that this directorship should be resigned?
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I see no necessity for humility on the part of the hon. Member. Lord Skerrington acted entirely on his own initiative.

  Dalbeath Pit Fatality.
  MR. PONSONBY: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he can now state whether a further public
  1232
  inquiry will be instituted into the facts and circumstances connected with the death of Robert Adamson, in November last year, by the collapse of a brick arch in the Dalbeath Pit, belonging to the Fife Coal Company; and whether he will consider the advisability of issuing an order allowing the representatives of injured or deceased workmen to get access to the locus of an accident immediately after it happens.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I have gone into this case and laid my views upon it before the Home Office. I am glad to inform my hon. friend that my right hon. friend the Home Secretary has instructed the holding of a public inquiry under Section 45 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887. I attach also much importance to the second portion of the question and should hope that the point as to workmen's representatives having a right to inspect the locus of an accident may be helpfully elucidated in the forthcoming inquiry.

  Irish Linen Frauds.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he has yet come to a decision in regard to the views expressed by the deputation of the Linen Merchants' Association which waited upon him in Belfast in reference to the appointment of an inspector for the discovery of frauds.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): Yes, Sir. The appointment has been made, and the Belfast Linen Merchants' Association have expressed their satisfaction with the arrangement.

  Land Sales in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many sales of land have taken place to date in County Clare under the Act of 1903, and what is the amount of the purchase money; and how much untenanted land has been divided amongst small holders in accordance with the intention of the Land Purchase Act.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the particulars asked for so far as it is practicable to furnish them are as follows: 4,357 purchase agreements, representing £1,174,997 purchase money, have been lodged in the case of 184 estates which are being sold direct by owners to tenants in County Clare. The Commissioners are not in a position to state the total area of untenanted land in these cases, but so far as the agreements have been analysed it appears that 574 acres of untenanted land have been divided amongst persons coming within Section 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. In addition, the Commissioners have purchased, for £93,831, eighteen estates in the county, comprising 209 holdings and 4,444 acres of untenanted land, which have been allotted amongst persons coming within Section 2 of the Act.

  Mr. Farrell, M.P.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what has been the result of the consideration given to the recent speech of the hon. Member for North Longford in advocacy of cattle-driving.
  MR. BIRRELL: After careful consideration, it has been decided that the language used by the hon. Member for North Longford on the occasion referred to was not such as to justify proceedings for incitement to commit crime.

  Irish Extra Police.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that there are 693 extra police serving in eight counties which since August, 1907, have been proclaimed as being in a state of disturbance, any improvement has manifested itself in the condition of these counties, or any of them, subsequent to the issue of the proclamation in each case, such as to justify a reduction in the strength of the extra force therein; and whether he will indicate the last previous year in which an extra force of police, numbering as many as 693 men or approximately as many, was employed to
  1234
  supplement the ordinary establishment of disturbed counties in Ireland, and also the last previous year in which an extra force employed in pursuance of a similar proclamation was entirely withdrawn from the county.
  MR. BIRRELL: The condition of the disturbed counties has not been such as to admit, in any instance, of the reduction in the number of extra police. The last year in which the number of extra police was approximately as great as at present was 1892. The final withdrawal of the extra police serving under former proclamations took place in 1899.

  Mr. Sheehy, M.P. and Cattle-Driving.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether official shorthand notes were taken of the speeches delivered in Ireland during the recent recess by the hon. Member for South Meath; and, if so, will he state why the reports of such speeches in advocacy of cattle-driving and boycotting were not officially brought to his notice, in addition to the similar speech by the hon. Member for North Longford.
  MR. BIRRELL: Shorthand notes were taken of some of the speeches delivered by the hon. Member for South Meath during the recess, but the speeches do not appear to fall within the description of public advocacy of cattle-driving.

  Ennis Sessions—Claims for Malicious Injuries.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of applications for compensation for malicious injuries to cattle heard at the recent Ennis Quarter Sessions; what was the number of cattle (including sheep) driven on the occasion of each drive for which compensation was awarded; and what was the amount of compensation granted in each case.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have received from the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary a tabular statement giving the particulars asked for by the hon.

  1235
  Member, and will, with his permission, publish it with to-night's Votes.

  Irish Cattle Drives—Cruelty to Animals.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to his knowledge that on the occasion of an extensive cattle-drive at Doolin, North Clare, on 22nd September, a number of bullocks were brutally beaten to their knees, and when on the ground in this position were further maltreated by being struck on their heads; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with the occurrence.
  MR. BIRRELL: An extensive cattle-drive took place on the occasion referred to. Claims in respect of it were made at Ennis Quarter Sessions, and evidence having been given that some of the cattle had been badly beaten, compensation to the amount of £166 4s. was awarded. Forty-four persons were made amenable for cattle-driving, of whom two gave bail and the remainder underwent a fortnight's imprisonment in default of bail.
  EARL WINTERTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any proceedings were taken against those people for cruelty to animals?
  MR. BIRRELL: No. That fact was taken into consideration in assessing the amount of compensation.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: How can you compensate the animals?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the reports of the trial of a large number of cases of persons accused of cattle-driving, and whether it is a fact that the police witnesses, without exception, testified that no cruelty was exhibited towards the animals and that they were not injured but merely driven in the ordinary way?
  MR. BIRRELL: In some cases undoubtedly the cattle-driving has not been
  1236
  associated with anything which can be called cruelty to animals. In other cases, unfortunately, the facts are otherwise.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that every single person in the whole of Ireland deprecates anything of the kind?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Peace Preservation Act.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government, in coming to the determination to allow the Peace Preservation Act of 1881 to lapse, had its attention directed to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs when the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was considered in Committee of this House on 18th September, 1893, that he did not regard the Act as a measure of coercion but essentially as a measure of police regulation, and that it was from that point of view he desired to see it renewed; whether he is aware that the inclusion of the Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was annually defended by successive Governments on the ground that it was required as a measure of police precaution; and whether the police authorities were consulted before the decision to permit the Act to lapse was arrived at.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no information as to whether the Government had its attention directed to the statement referred to in the first part of the Question. As regards the concluding inquiry, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for East Down on 4th March last.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: When the right hon. Gentleman has leisure time, will he read the debate?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes, when I do have leisure.

  Irish National School Work-Mistresses.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of

  1237
  Ireland if he can state the conditions of disbursement of that portion of the £114,000 now due to work-mistresses in National Schools, and when it is intended to pay the same.
  MR. BIRRELL: The grant of £114,000 was voted to augment the incomes of principal teachers, assistant teachers, the teachers of schools paid by capitation, and junior assistant mistresses. Other persons employed in National Schools do not participate in the grant, and I do not think that, in framing the Estimate, the work-mistresses were taken into account.

  Lacken Outrage.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received reports of a man, named Cushen, having been threatened by a party of disguised and armed men in his house at Lacken, in the Kilmihill district, County Clare, on the night of the 27th instant; whether the men fired shots outside the dwelling; and whether any arrests have been made.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that Cushen was threatened in the manner described, and that a shot was fired on the occasion. The police have not succeeded in obtaining evidence which would justify them in making arrests.

  Pensioners in Irish Lunatic Asylums.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the stoppages made from the pensions of naval and military inmates of Irish district lunatic asylums, on account of the rate in aid of 4s. per head per week allowed for patients confined therein, are refunded to the Treasury or to the Irish Local Taxation Account, from which latter account the rate in aid is now provided.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): These deductions are retained by
  1238
  the Paymaster-General, and consequently accrue for the benefit of the Exchequer.

  Scottish Education Bill.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state on what days the Report stage of the Scottish Education Bill will be taken.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I propose to-morrow to make a statement as to public business for next week, which I hope will include an announcement as to the Report stage of the Scottish Education Bill.

  Palace of Westminster—Brawling in the Precincts.
  EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the difficulty of punishing disorderly persons of both sexes who create a disturbance within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to make brawling within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster an indictable offence.
  MR. ASQUITH: The whole question of more effectually safeguarding the House against the disorderly action of strangers appears to me well worthy of consideration.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will state when the amending Land Bill for Ireland, promised in the King's Speech, will be introduced; and whether that Bill will deal with the three questions of general amendment of the law, the question of congestion, and the finance of the Land Act of 1903.
  The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: To ask the Prime Minister if he can relieve the suspense in the West of Ireland by stating definitely whether the Government intend to press the Bill for the

  1239
  relief of congestion through the House of Commons this session.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BEIEN: To ask the Prime Minister whether facilities will be given for the prompt discussion of the Government's promised proposals with respect to land purchase finances.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Prime Minister whether he can now state when the proposals of the Government with regard to Irish Land Act finance will be laid before the House.
  MR. ASQUITH: My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary will at an early date, probably on Monday, 23rd November, introduce a Bill dealing with land purchase finance, the relief of congestion in the West of Ireland, and the Amendment of the Land Laws. Until he has an opportunity of doing this, the Government after full consideration, think that it would be premature and inexpedient to explain their proposals as to any single one—such, for instance, as land purchase finance—of the several important matters with which the Bill will deal, or as to other matters closely connected with the subject. But it is perhaps desirable that I should say that the statement of my right hon. friend will show that a revision in regard to future transactions of the existing financial arrangements under the Land Purchase Act, 1903, is contemplated as from 1st November last. In reply to the hon. Member for Cork, I may say that if the proposals of the Government are fortunate enough to meet with general approval, both in this House and elsewhere, it is at least possible that the Bill may become law this session.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he did or did not adopt the statement of a Member of the Government that it was impossible for any Bill dealing with congestion to pass through either House of Parliament this session.
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention has not been called to that statement, and I would only repeat what I have said, that "if the proposals of the Government are fortunate
  1240
  enough to meet with general approval," I see no reason why they should not be passed.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's last Answer that the Government have not quite abandoned the hope of bringing about a settlement of this question by the same method of friendly agreement by which the Act of 1903 was passed?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have certainly not abandoned hope.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether they were to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's Answer that they were to have no further statement.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have made the whole of the statement I am in a position to make to-day.
  MR. GINNELLasked, with reference to the expression "congestion in the West of Ireland," whether, seeing that the same problem existed elsewhere, the right hon. Gentleman thought it fair or prudent to leave the landless people of the other parts of Ireland to their own resources.
  MR. ASQUITH: When I spoke of congestion in the West I was referring to the Report of Lord Dudley's Commission and to the ground covered by it.

  Public Accounts Committee.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now stale what day he proposes to allocate for the usual annual discussion by the House of the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee.
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member speaks of "the usual annual discussion," but in point of fact during the six years, 1902 to 1907 inclusive, the Report was only twice discussed. I adhere to the opinion which I have already expressed that if possible an opportunity should, as a rule, be provided every year for a discussion, but I cannot at present make any pledge with regard to the present session.

  Licensing Bill.
  SIR EDWIN CORNWALL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Amendments to the Licensing Bill, foreshadowed on Friday last, as regards Sunday closing will permit licensed premises in London to be opened on Sunday; if so, for how long; and whether the Government will consider means of meeting the requirements of hotels, restaurants, etc.
  MR. ASQUITH: As regards the sale of intoxicating liquors the Bill provides that licensed premises can be opened all over the country on Sunday for one hour in the morning and two hours in the evening. London has always been treated exceptionally in this matter, and I propose that an extra hour should still be allowed. As I stated on Monday, the Government propose to meet the requirements of hotels and restaurants by allowing the supply of intoxicating liquor on any licensed premises on Sunday, during the hours those premises would be open for the sale of intoxicating liquor before the passing of the Bill, to any person taking a meal on the premises in a room set apart for the purpose.

  Woman Suffrage.
  MR. BEAUMONT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will afford facilities for discussing during the present session a Motion relating to Woman Suffrage, on which a notice now stands on the Order Paper of this House.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir; as I have already stated, time cannot be found for the discussion of contentious matters.

  Unemployment and Government Departments.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, owing to the amount of distress in the country and the dearth of situations, he will take steps to secure in the various Government Departments that pensioners should not have preference above those who have neither income nor employment.
  MR. ASQUITH: So far as I am aware the only pensioners to whom any pre-
  1242
  ference is given in selecting candidates for appointments in the public service are those who have served in the Army, Navy, or police; and I do not think that it would be advisable to interfere with the existing practice as regards these classes.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Has any new Order been issued by the Treasury on the subject applicable to the Customs?
  MR. ASQUITH: Personally, I know nothing about it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give notice.

  Moray Firth Fisheries.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, considering the unrest amongst English and Scottish trawl fishermen, he will use any power the Government possesses immediately to repeal Section 7 of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, and the by-laws there-under by which Moray Firth, embracing 1,000 miles of open sea, is closed against British fishermen; whether the closing of such areas is a distinct breach of international law; whether he is aware that as a consequence German and Norwegian fishery companies have recently been formed for the special purpose of fishing these waters where valuable flat fish abound which cannot be caught by line fishermen; and whether it has come to his knowledge that indignation meetings of English and Scottish fishermen are being held resenting the injustice to them of British cruisers being maintained in these waters to arrest and prevent them earning a livelihood there, while thereby protecting and preserving these waters for the exclusive use of foreign fishermen.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Government have no intention of repealing Section 7 of the Herring Fishery Act. The closing of the Moray Firth to British fishermen involves no breach of international law. No information has reached us as to the recent formation of bona fide German and Norwegian companies as described. The Bill of the Government will remove any injustice which, under the present circumstances, exists

  1243
  as between English and Scottish trawlers in respect of trawling in the Moray Firth. Meanwhile, I do not consider that any injustice is caused to English and Scottish fishermen by the maintenance of British cruisers in these waters.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: In view of the importance of this matter to the Scottish fisheries, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of putting down the Bill for an early day?
  MR. ASQUITH: I hope to be able to make a statement to-morrow.

  An Unanswered Question.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you why Question No. 90 on the Paper was not asked, but was passed by; also whether it is in order to put a Question on the Paper and leave it there. The Question involved a charge against a Member of this House, and it was not asked when the time came. This Question referred to the hon. Member for East Clare, and I have reason to know that he is greatly interested in it.
  [Appended is the Question referred to—
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of cattle-drives reported from North Clare prior to 20th September; whether an official shorthand writer attended the meeting held on that date under the auspices of the United Irish League at Lisdoonvarna; whether he furnished a transcript of the notes of speeches made by the hon. Members for East Clare and East Limerick; whether the transcript discloses any expression of encouragement or disapproval of cattle-driving; and whether he will state the number of cattle-drives that have taken place in that district since the date named.]
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am informed that it is postponed because the hon. Member in whose name it stands thought there was no chance of its being reached, and in order to give other Members a chance I did not call upon the hon. Member.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether it is in order to put a Question on the Paper for two or three weeks, and not ask it when it is reached? Would it not be the correct thing to remove it altogether or ask it.
  MR. LONSDALE: May I say that the Question to which the hon. Member refers was postponed on my request, as I wished to have an oral answer, and at the time I asked the Question there seemed very little possibility of its being reached. It has been on the Paper three or four days, and it has been postponed from day to day for the purpose of getting an oral answer.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether it is in order not to ask a Question when the opportunity arises, and whether in view of the fact that this Question involves a charge against a Member of the House it cannot be answered at once. I may point out that it makes a reference to an alleged speech made by the hon. Member for East Clare. Would I be in order in saying that I can answer the Question by saying that I am ready to make the speech now. I think it is a very good one.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member in whose name the Question stands has given an explanation of the circumstances under which he postponed it, not expecting that it would be reached. He informed me, and accordingly I did not call upon him.
  MR. LONSDALE: I am ready to ask it now.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Cannot it be put at once? It may save a lot of time and trouble.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think we had better follow the usual rule.

TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 315.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 315.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 366.]

POST OFFICE SITES BILL [LORDS].
Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 316.]
Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 367.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Seventh Report brought up, and road; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

LICENSING BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 36:
*MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he would like to ask whether they could discuss generally the matters dealt with in Clause 36.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not make any general alteration of the ordinary rule and they had better see first how the discussion went.
*MR. EVELYN CECILmoved the omission of subsection (1), which, he said, was somewhat of a factitious Amendment, because he understood that some other Amendments of great importance had been ruled out of order for one reason or another, and the only means by which these important subjects could be brought up was by moving to omit the subsection.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that some of the Amendments on the Paper were out
1246
of order, because they involved now clauses, but others were merely out of order because they were in the wrong place.
*MR. EVELYN CECILsaid that this was the first Amendment he had had the opportunity of moving at all. The Opposition had been charged with not endeavouring sincerely to amend the Bill, so as to give an excuse to the House of Lords for throwing it out. On his own behalf, he wanted to disclaim any such suggestion. He had had a number of Amendments down, and all of them, he thought, would have been admitted to be of substance, and he could only protest against the position in which he was placed in consequence of the extremely drastic closure Resolution, which was so wholly unprecedented, and which obliged him to avoid bringing forward questions in their proper place, and to devise some ingenious Amendment so as to circumvent the closure Resolution. To turn to this subsection he desired to move its omission because he did not feel satisfied that as regards a very largo number of clubs, the provisions of the clause were either just or fair. He had no doubt that the object of the Government was to exclude bad clubs from registration, and they had no intention, as he understood it, to hamper the members of bona fide clubs, but in his opinion these clauses certainly did not carry out their intentions. What did they do? They inflicted great hardships upon bona fide clubs; they needlessly irritated and annoyed them. In this matter two effects of the Bill seemed to stand out pre-eminently. In the first place, by forcibly reducing the number of licences, the Bill encouraged clubs of all kinds, good and bad, and he should say especially the bad clubs, because the more they reduced the number of licences, which perhaps ought to be reduced, the more they were likely to send the persons who frequented such public-houses to combine in what might be described as bogus drinking-clubs. He need hardly remind the Committee that a club, as opposed to a public-house, had no licence duty to pay, had no compensation levy charged upon it, had no restricted hours of opening, had no assessment which included the value of the licence, had no restriction on games of any kind, and had very slight

1247
police supervision over it. All these circumstances combined to increase rather than lessen the probability of this reduction in the number of licences creating a larger number of indifferent clubs, and he need say nothing in addition of the efforts which were sure to be made on behalf of professional club promoters. A second effect of this legislation would be that in the endeavour to check bad and bogus clubs this clause would penalise well-conducted ones. He did not believe that the party opposite desired to attack club life in general, but he was bound to say that the provisions of this clause went perilously near doing so unless some substantial Amendments were accepted. Strong objections were taken on behalf of respectable clubs to the propositions in this and other clauses. In this clause the jurisdiction for the first time was established of licensing justices instead of the stipendiary magistrates or courts of summary jurisdiction which had hitherto governed these matters. That provision was strongly resented by every respectable club he knew. In the next place the secretary of a club was made responsible for the misconduct of members. That was an aburdity. It was a futile proposal and one which was grossly unfair to the secretary. The proposal giving the police power to search without warrant was also strongly resented by all respectable clubs.
MR. MARKHAMon a point of order, asked if the hon. Member was in order in discussing the whole of these clauses on this Amendment.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I was just going to intervene. It is clearly out of order to discuss all the other clauses on this Amendment. The motion is to omit subsection (1) which requires the annual renewal of registration of a club under the Licensing Act, 1902. That opens up a wide field but it has nothing to do with subsequent clauses.
*MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he was simply instancing the general effect it would have upon respectable clubs. He thought it was a great pity that the Government, in drafting this and subsequent clauses, did not consult expert opinion upon the question. The ex-
1248
pert officials of respectable clubs had no more love for mere bogus or bad clubs than the Government had. If this clause had been drafted by the officials of well conducted clubs, who understood the matter thoroughly, it would never have taken the form which it had taken, and it would not have been open to the objections he was now urging. Therefore the only course to be adopted was to endeavour to exempt the bona fide clubs from the operation of this and other clauses. He submitted that the second Amendment standing in his name more nearly effected that object than any other which he could devise.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I really must ask the hon. Member not to refer to his Amendment. We have nothing to do with his or anybody else's Amendments on the Paper until we arrive at them.
*MR. EVELYN CECILsaid it was difficult to ignore those Amendments, and as the Amendment he was moving raised the whole question of the renewal of licences, he merely wished to discuss the exemptions. If it were so arranged that these other respectable clubs should be exempted from the conditions of annual licenses as laid down in Clause 36 and other clauses, much would be done to remove the objections which many clubs had felt on this score. He submitted that that was the best way of doing it. It was important to bear several principles in mind in suggesting the exemption of respectable clubs. It was not desired in any part of the House to draw any distinction between clubs in Piccadilly and clubs in Whitechapel, and any exemption ought to apply equally to bona fide clubs all over the kingdom. He did not in any sense desire to create a class of privileged clubs. If exemption was granted to any club which had been established for five years, and was managed by a committee periodically elected to whom the secretary was responsible, and against which no charge had been substantiated under Section 28 of the Licensing Act of 1902, there would be no really privileged class of clubs set up. Any exemption of that kind would not apply merely to existing clubs but to all clubs, for as soon as they came under the conditions laid down, they were all equally treated. He begged to move this Amendment largely in order to draw

1249
from the Government a statement of their intentions in regard to these clubs. As the Bill was drafted it unduly affected and annoyed the respectably conducted clubs, and the Committee had a right to know at this stage, before further Amendments were discussed, what the general intentions of the Government were. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 3, to leave out subsection (1)."—(Mr. Evelyn Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
*SIR FRANCIS CHANNINGsaid the precise question before the Committee was the annual renewal of the registration of clubs, the object being that such registration should be annually revised in order to see whether clubs were really fulfilling the conditions laid down in the Act of 1902 and this Bill, under which they would enjoy the privileges of clubs. That was the whole question raised by this subsection. He wished to speak without any hostility to clubs, and as a matter of personal interest he had every reason to speak otherwise. He was familiar with the club movement, with its history, and had known intimately the men who had initiated it, Mr. Henry Solly and Mr. Hodgson Pratt and others, and perfectly understood their objects and ideals, and their motive finally in admitting liquor into the clubs in order to draw to them the men who frequented public-houses. He represented probably a vastly larger body of club members in proportion to his electorate than any other man in the House of Commons. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would credit him with sincerity in what he was going to say upon these clauses, about which he wished to speak with absolute freedom and frankness and without the least regard to his own personal interest. The Act passed by Mr. Ritchie some six years ago contained clauses which imposed certain restrictions and tests upon the workmen's clubs of this country, which were largely suggested by the committee of the Club Union themselves. Those clauses were not condemned by this Bill, but when they said they must be strengthened, the
1250
club spokesman made the very natural but at the same time very conspicuous mistake of asserting that those conditions ought to be like the laws of Medes and Persians and ought not to be altered to meet the conditions of the present time. The enforcement of those conditions since 1902 had had a most beneficial effect upon the character of the clubs of this country. They had removed a great many evils which existed within the club movement. But what he wished to point out was that they were now face to face with a wholly different situation. In 1908 with this legislation before them the situation was different from that which Mr. Ritchie had to face in 1902. He would be out of order if he discussed in detail the various proposals of the Bill and the Amendments on the Paper on which he formed that conclusion, but he thought he would be in order in saying this much: that the sweeping provisions of this Bill would undoubtedly effect a very large reduction in the facilities for drinking in on-license houses, and that would create a wholly different situation in regard to the clubs of this country which would call not only for the imposition of now restrictions upon existing clubs and on the formation of new clubs, but also for greater vigilance and a more constant and frequent assertion of the principles under which clubs could safely be allowed to retain their privileges. They not only required greater restrictions to check the evils of club life, but by annual registration they ought to insure every year an opportunity of effectively checking those clubs in order to see that they were answering their requirements and whether any serious or grave objection could be advanced against them. It seemed to him that they should be restricted and supervised with greater vigilance and frequency. Everyone knew what were the great dangers which had to be combated at the present time. He would put it in a nutshell by saying that the real danger to-day was not only the development of club life in lieu of that of public-houses, but of clubs becoming mere unlicensed public-houses and unlicensed and unregulated music-halls. That had reached a pitch calling for more stringent regulations and checks on the part of Parliament, not only in the interest of society, but of the highest ideals of club

1251
members themselves. Some of the clubs which he represented were places which really only as a matter of form would require the annual renewal of registration provided for by the subsection which he was now supporting. There were clubs which really fulfilled the social idea, and which were capable of fulfilling that idea to a still greater extent. They were helping the social life of their districts and contributing to great social improvements and reforms. They did not wish to wipe away these clubs, but they did wish to see that the clubs to which young men, and sometimes young women also, were attracted were properly conducted, and that those resorting to them were not injured by the music-hall entertainments given in these places. He knew a great deal regarding the evils of clubs of that kind. He did not wish to dwell upon them too strongly, but he urged those who desired to make clubs useful social institutions to give the fullest support to the Government proposals now before the Committee. The Majority Report of Lord Peel's Commission insisted on the necessity of annual checking and revising in connection with clubs, and of opportunity being given for legitimate objections being brought forward, on the ground that they were not properly fulfilling the social conditions for which they existed. That necessity was ten-fold stronger now than at the time the late Lord Ritchie introduced his Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he understood that the Chairman had ruled that this was not an unfitting opportunity to do what he was quite sure ought to be done, namely, to survey the general scheme of adding restrictions to those which already existed regarding clubs, the relation between those restrictions generally, and the whole scheme of the Bill as it dealt with on and off-licences. He was sure the broad question, ought to be discussed. It was one of the most difficult points of the Bill, as was admitted by the Prime Minister, who, he greatly regretted was not present. It would be well, before entering into a discussion of details, to pause for one moment to consider what relation the proposed legislation contained in this portion of the Bill bore to the general scheme of the Government. His own view he could put very briefly. If he
1252
was right, he thought the whole Bill stood condemned; if he was wrong, he desired most earnestly to hear from the Minister in charge of the Bill what view the Government really took of this most vexed and complicated group of problems which were inevitably raised when they tried to deal by increased restrictions with the difficulties and evils of clubs. This subsection was preliminary to making further restrictions upon the freedom of Englishmen to associate themselves in clubs for social purposes. He was not one of those who held that the power of association should be absolutely unlimited even in the freest country. He was a member of the Government — the only Government which, so far as he knew, had ever passed any temperance legislation—which embodied in a statute the only restriction which existed upon clubs, and which he was disposed to think, went as far as was wise in restricting the liberty of Englishmen. But he quite agreed that when the Government came forward with a measure that was going to put so enormous a restriction upon the power of retailing alcoholic liquors in licensed premises, they were necessarily brought face to face with the problem of clubs. He thought it was one of the fundamental difficulties of the whole scheme of legislation they were discussing. His own view was that they could not and ought not to attempt any serious restriction of clubs. He did not argue whether there was any serious attempt to restrict the liberty of association for the purposes of club life in these clauses. The hon. Gentleman opposite had touched upon the evils which he said arose from introducing music-hall entertainments into London clubs and clubs in other centres of population. There might be evils. He did not deny that there were. He had been startled by some of the documentary evidence put before him as to the entertainments given in certain Radical clubs in London on Sunday afternoons and evenings to their members. He should have doubted the wisdom of the course they were pursuing. He should not be in order in dealing with that. Nor was the hon. Member in order, because there was not a single provision in this Bill which was intended to restrain, or which would restrain, the

1253
abuse, if abuse it were, of the power of having music-hall entertainments on Sunday afternoon and evening. That went absolutely untouched. What was the evil the Government wished to touch? It could only be the evil which arose from the fact that in clubs, as universally understood in this country, whether of the rich or of the poor, it was the understood privilege of the members, in addition to the other privileges of the club, that they could obtain alcoholic beverages.
MR. LEIF JONES: It is not universal.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there might be clubs where non-alcoholic beverages were sold. He was perfectly certain that there was not one of the clubs that the hon. Member belonged to which laid down such a self-denying ordinance. He should say that the number of clubs where alcoholic drinks were not sold bore but a small proportion to the actual number of clubs in existence. The point he raised was that hitherto it had been regarded as a national and almost inalienable privilege for the ordinary Englishman that he could associate himself with his fellows to form a club for social purposes, and that that liberty included the consuming of alcoholic beverages. He believed it would be insanity from a practical point of view, and a gross infringement of the ordinary liberties of Englishmen, to attempt to deprive them of that privilege. If that were true, they might irritate and annoy clubs, they might send in policemen at this and that hour, they might require the secretary to do this or that, they might insist upon registration at this or the other season of the year; but so long as substantially they allowed people who had associated themselves in a social club to consume alcoholic liquors, so long as they left that privilege untouched, they really left untouched the group of questions which arose from the fact that they had, on the one side, unlicensed premises where drink could be sold, and, on the other, licensed premises under the closest police supervision, where liquor could not be sold except at certain hours on certain days, and under stringent, and, as he
1254
thought, not always very wise, conditions. Did anybody deny that this problem presented great difficulties, and that the scheme of the Government only touched the surface of them? So far as the scheme of the Government was aimed at the preventing the consumption of alcoholic liquors in genuine clubs—if it was aimed at that—it was a sham. The Government's legislation would not stop a single glass of whisky or a single pint of beer being consumed in any bona fide club in the Kingdom. If all this legislation about clubs, therefore, did not touch the vital question of the competition between the club and the public-house, then he asked whether the restrictive legislation on public-houses contained in the other part of their Bill was not completely out of harmony with the liberty which even after this vexatious Bill was passed, they really left to the clubs. Was it not evident that if they were going to draw tighter and tighter the hours in which the liquor was to be sold on licensed premises, to make more and more rigid the conditions in which the public-house was to carry on its trade, they would inevitably add to the number of clubs in existence, where they could get three things winch they could get at a public-house under the restrictions of an extremely stringent law? They would be able to get society, drink, and food; and those were the three things which, after all, men of all classes desired to get in their club. To a certain extent these were given by the competing institution of the licensed public-house. It was true that in some of the large cities the public-houses were largely places where liquor only was sold, and he was afraid that the effect of this legislation would tend to increase the number. Personally, he thought that their extension would be a great calamity, but if this was undoubted in a great number of the licensed premises in great cities, in a large proportion of those in the country districts it could be said that they were places in which the people desired, not merely alcoholic liquor, but some of the features of social life which the club gave in a more perfect form, and which had been enjoyed from time immemorial in hotels, inns, and public-houses. Having these two methods of meeting

1255
these widely diffused wants, the Government put the most stringent regulations on the one class, and some irritating and, he thought, wholly illusory, restrictions on the other class; and then Ministers went about pretending, and falsely believing, that they had put in force a generally restrictive system against the sale of alcohol in the country, when, as a matter of fact, they were only driving the sale from one set of premises where it could be looked after into another set where, they might depend upon it, the feeling of Englishmen would never allow them to impose the kind of control to which licensed premises were subjected. That was the problem with which they were faced in this portion of the Bill. It was raised by the Amendment of his hon. friend. He most earnestly desired to hear from the Prime Minister some general survey of the relations which the Government thought ought to exist as between licensed premises on which restrictions were imposed and the whole system of clubs, of which they were merely scratching the surface. That was a problem of pressing insistence. Everyone must know that the number of clubs was increasing, and that the abolition of the public-house had been immediately followed by the substitution of clubs, not illegitimately, not for the purpose of substituting an unlicensed drinking place for a licensed place, but because the public-house ministered to certain legitimate wants of the community. The Government deprived them of that, and the people supplied themselves by another kind of machinery, by another method, which right hon. Gentlemen could not, and dared not, control, with exactly the same kind of indulgences which the Government wished to restrict in another direction. That was the root objection he had to offer on this aspect of the question. He took much smaller interest in the particular provisions for interfering with clubs. He thought they were vexatious, and, if they took the club system as it would exist after the Bill was passed, he said that the Government had not touched the main and central problem of the promotion of temperance through an attempt to deal with drink by restriction. On the one side they had the public-
1256
houses greatly diminished in numbers and restricted in hours, made more onerous and difficult to carry on, made, in fact, intolerable by every means in the power of the Government; and, on the other hand, they had a large and growing number of places brought into existence for the mutual convenience of their members, where all that went on in the public-house could go on practically unchecked. If the Government insisted on shutting the public-houses beyond the point which the feeling of the locality would tolerate they would see spring up clubs, the bona fides of which they could not deny, but which in many cases were less carefully conducted than the public-house, which the police had in the hollow of their hand. He hoped the Government would take the opportunity of telling them how they viewed this fundamental difficulty lying at the root of their whole legislation and would give them an opportunity of discussing the theories of the Government on those questions which had not been touched upon in the course of these debates. He asked respectfully of them that they would deal with the difficulties which he had ventured to raise.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL, Yorkshire, Cleveland)said it was difficult to understand from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman what attitude the Opposition proposed to adopt in respect of the club clauses of the Bill. He desired to point out to the Committee, in the first place, that while, on the one hand, the Government had been attacked again and again in the House and in the country because they had not done enough to limit the evils of clubs, and for that reason the Bill was not a temperance measure, the right hon. Gentleman now said that, after all, the clauses of the Bill were far too stringent, and that he disapproved of them on that ground.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My opinions have been always the same. In my opinion it is perfectly preposterous to say that you promote temperance legislation by dealing with restriction while leaving the clubs undealt with. I am

1257
opposed to the restriction of clubs, and, therefore, I am opposed to the whole scheme.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that the situation which existed to-day was not the creation of this Bill, but the creation of the Act of 1904. While that Act did undoubtedly promote a reduction in the number of public-houses it die not contain one syllable from the first page to the last, as to the evils which might arise from the growth of drinking clubs. As to this particular Bill, they were entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considered that the Government were going too far or not far enough. The right hon. Gentleman was apparently anxious to secure the support of those who said that the Government were going too far, and also of that other body of public opinion which held that the Government were not going far enough. The position of the right hon. Gentleman apparently was that either they must deprive clubs of the right to sell liquor absolutely, or they must do nothing. That was not the view of the Government. The view of the Government was that the task before them was to discriminate between those clubs which did lend themselves to abuse and in which drunkenness occurred, and those institutions, which were the majority of working-men's clubs, in whch the sale of alcoholic liquor was merely an incident, and which existed mainly for social and recreative purposes. The bad club, the club which was really a co-operative public-house unlicensed and uncontrolled by the law, was not the rule, but the exception. The Licensing Commission took much evidence on this subject, and in Lord Peel's Report there were many interesting passages dealing with this subject.
"The real truth is that the extension of the franchise, the spread of education, and a general improvement of conditions among the working classes have had a great effect in promoting clubs. Besides these, political influences have been at work. Mr. Bryans, secretary of the Association of Conservative Clubs, told us that the Association contained 587 clubs, of which about three-fourths sell intoxicants. He strenuously denies, as does Mr. Hall, that the activity of the club movement is due to desire for drink. The main object of our clubs is good fellowship and education, concerts, lectures, and that sort of thing. I do not think the main object is drink in the least."
1258
"No doubt, a certain class of club is, as we shall see, a very great evil, and should be put down with a strong hand, but these are comparatively few, and have attracted attention out of proportion to their numbers."
"We fully agree with all that has been said by Mr. Hall and others as to the benefits to be derived from properly constituted and well-conducted clubs. We believe that such clubs do much to meet the needs awakened among the working classes by education and general improvement of conditions for some better means of social intercourse and recreation than those provided by the public-house."
"But even at the worst a club is more capable of improvement than the public-house, for a club, unless ostensibly formed for drinking purposes, in which case it should be summarily suppressed, has better objects in view, which sooner or later a public opinion will spring up and enforce. Under proper regulation great things may be hoped for from the club movement."
These passages summed up much more that might be said on the subject. The Government were anxious not unduly to restrict the activities of properly conducted working-men's clubs, but, while saying that, they did not by any means accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman, that they were not doing anything at all to meet what was unquestionably a growing evil. If the club movement was uncontrolled dangers would arise. Already clubs supplying alcoholic liquor were increasing in number, but the growth was not so great as was sometimes imagined, because the basis on which the estimate was often calculated was unsound. Some opponents of the club movement pointed out that a return presented to the Royal Commission in 1896 showed there were then 3,990 clubs, while now there were just about 7,000; but the figure of 3,990 did not correspond with the subject matter of the recent figures, because in 1896 only those clubs were counted which were clubs in the ordinary acceptation of the term, while now there were included in the returns every institution where a few men gathered together, though it might be an athletic club, a masonic lodge, or a Volunteer canteen, so long as they supplied alcohol. He would venture to draw the attention of the Committee to some interesting figures given by Mr. B. T. Hall, of the Club and Institute Union. In regard to Birmingham, the Police Return for 1896 showed thirty clubs. A year or two ago the Home Office Return showed eighty-three clubs.

1259
But that increase of fifty-three was accounted for in forty-seven cases by masonic lodges, bowling and tennis clubs. Volunteer canteens, and other similar institutions, leaving the actual increase only six. There had, however, been a steady growth in the number of clubs on comparable figures, but an increase not by any means to be compared to the decrease in licensed houses. Taking the country as a whole, the clubs were increasing by about 200 a year, while licences were decreasing annually at the rate of 1,600—1,200 with compensation under the Act of 1904, and about 400 owing to misconduct or dropped licences.
SIR GILBERT PARKERCan the hon. Gentleman give figures of membership?
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he found that the average membership in the 1,100 clubs which were contained in the Club and Institute Union had hardly varied at all. In 1903 the average membership of the 1,100 clubs was 291, and last year it was 296. One was not able to get figures of unorganised clubs, but there was no reason to think that the club unit represented to any considerable degree a higher membership than a few years ago. There was no question, however, that there were clubs which existed mainly for the sale of intoxicating liquor, and in which drunkenness did exist, and to discriminate and effectually to suppress and limit the evil of the drinking clubs was the purpose of the clauses now to come before the Committee. He had hoped to take a general survey of the present law relating to clubs, and to show how largely it was extended by the proposals made in the Bill, but he understood that would be out of order on this Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsuggested that it would be convenient if the Government could tell them of any general change or modification of policy in contemplation.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that with the leave of the Chair and without going into detail he should only be too happy to take the survey which the Leader of the Opposition suggested. In the first place the Bill must be read in conjunction with the Act of 1902, which
1260
already contained very large and drastic powers for dealing with certain classes of clubs.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that before the hon. Gentleman went on he would say that if he thought that information was necessary to be given for discussing the details of the particular clause he should allow him to give it, but he could not allow the whole of these clauses to be discussed in a haphazard way, upon this Motion to omit subsection (1). He thought it right to say that before the hon. Gentleman began.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that perhaps the Chairman would be good enough to intimate to him any point at which he thought he was going a little too wide, but it was rather difficult on the one hand to fulfil what was the desire of the Committee and the Government to state clearly their policy on this matter, while not going into subordinate questions which were an essential part of that policy. As he was saving, it was essential that this part of the Bill should be read with the existing law which regulated clubs. The present law required that clubs which sold alcohol should be registered, and required certain particulars to be given on registration. That registration was automatic; it could not be refused by the registering authority. There were penalties for the supply of liquor in any club which was not registered, and that was all; but a club which had once been registered could be objected to and struck off the register on a variety of grounds set out in Section 28 of the Act of 1902, such as the fact that it had less than twenty-five members, that it was not conducted in good faith, as a club—that covered many Amendments on the Paper—or that it was habitually used for unlawful purposes, or that frequent drunkenness was permitted, or that persons who were not members were habitually admitted to the club for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquors, or that the club occupied premises which during the twelve months next preceding had been carried on as a licensed house, and so forth. It was also provided that there should be an interval of at least forty-eight hours between the nomination of members

1261
and their admission, and that the control of the supply of intoxicating liquor should be vested in the members or committee appointed by the members. The Committee would see that these were very considerable powers which must be taken into consideration in discussing any future questions of policy. Then there was power put in the hands of the magistrates on sworn information to issue a search-warrant and give permission to enter the club.
MR. MARKHAMobjected to the hon. Member dealing with questions concerning which he had an Amendment on the Paper. They were under the guillotine, and he stood the risk of being shut out.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member had not travelled out of the narrowest interpretation of the ruling he had given. He was only explaining the Act of 1902.
MR. MARKHAM: I beg your pardon. The hon. Member was referring to provisions which the Government had put down on the Paper.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that he was referring only to the Act of 1902. The magistrates could issue a warrant to enable the police to enter a club.
MR. BARNARD: How many times have they done that?
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELreplied that every year between seventy and eighty clubs were struck off the register. In fact as large a percentage of clubs were struck off the register every year under the Act of 1902 as public-houses were reduced under the Act of 1904.
MR. BARNARD: On what grounds?
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid on various grounds, but mainly on the ground of permitting drunkenness. It was proposed by the clause that the registration should be subject to annual renewal, and they provided opportunities for objection both on the first registration and on renewal, which would give an annual opportunity for the position of
1262
clubs to be reviewed. It was also proposed that the registration could be objected to not only on the grounds specified by the Act of 1902, but on the ground—and this was a large extension of the law—that a club was being used mainly as a drinking club. Other proposals in this part of the Bill he was unable to enter into, but he might briefly mention that the officers of a club were made liable to a penalty in respect of drunkenness or illegal sale, and premises previously used as licensed houses might be disqualified for a period of five years. The question of clubs and off-sale he could not refer to, nor could he refer to the various Amendments that had been put down in order partly to strengthen the clauses, and partly to meet legitimate objections which had been raised in the interest of the clubs themselves. He thought he was entitled to draw attention to the fact that although the Government did not propose to set up a new judicial tribunal they could provide that the procedure of the licensing justices should be a judicial procedure, that evidence should be given on oath, and that costs might be given against persons who raised frivolous objections against clubs. The hon. Member proposed to omit subsection (1) of this clause in order to insert another Amendment to limit the operations of this part of the Act to clubs against which a charge had been proved under Section 28 of the Act of 1902; but that was an illusory Amendment, because as soon as a charge was established against a club the club ceased to exist.
MR. MARKHAMasked whether the hon. Member was entitled to refer to another Amendment on the Paper, and to go away from the one which had been moved.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he understood the hon. Member had moved to omit the subsection because the alteration he desired had not been allowed. The hon. Gentleman was entitled to refer to the matter, but he could not go into the other Amendment qua Amendment until the hon. Member had had an opportunity of moving it.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he was entitled to assert that among the reasons why the Government could not accept the Amendment now before the Committee was that the alternative proposed by the hon. Member who moved the omission of the subsection was an unreal one, for the reason that as soon as a charge was established against a club under the Act of 1902, the club disappeared altogether. There would be no clubs to be registered under this scheme, and the whole clause would fall to the ground. The Government held that their proposals, taken as a whole, while, on the one hand, involving no undue interference with the amenities of properly-conducted clubs, did, on the other hand, carefully watch the possibility of evil occurring, and would effectively suppress the abuses when they arose. They must oppose the Amendment.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSregretted that on this particular matter he would have to vote against his Party. He was so fully pledged as a temperance man to do what he could to remedy the great evils which arose from these purely drinking clubs, that he was bound by his previous opinions and speeches, and his very strong convictions as to the evils that these clubs did, not merely to support the clause, but to go further and move Amendments to strengthen it. He could not deal with the Amendments now, but he would be in order in explaining to the Committee that a good deal of the strengthening which he desired to put into the clause had the unanimous support of the great mass of temperance opinion, not only that on the other side of the House, but also that of the Church of England Temperance Society, on whose behalf he had put down his last Amendment. He could not help thinking that the evil of the club system had not been fully recognised by the Government, the Under-Secretary had said there was a slight increase in the number of clubs, but that that increase had not been so great as the decrease in the number of public-houses in the same period. That might be so, but there was a far greater percentage of clubs to population than there was in 1905.
1264
They had been steadily growing. He could not believe that the Under-Secretary had realised the almost unanimous opinion of those who had to administer the licensing laws, that the club evil would wreck the whole basis of the Bill. The foundation basis of this Bill was that by doing away with so many taps through which liquor ran into the body politic temperance would increase. He suggested that as the Government were going to do away with so many public-houses they must not do so without strongly curtailing the opportunities of instituting and opening an enormous number of drinking clubs. If in every locality clubs were established for every public-house taken away, the condition of England, in this "great leap forward in temperance," as it was called, would not be better, but considerably worse. Practically all the licensing benches and chief constables in the country had during the last three or four years stated in public that unless a drastic reform in the conduct of these clubs was affected in this Bill the measure would be a failure. The Under-Secretary had said that the number of clubs and of members had not greatly increased, but he (Mr. Hicks) knew that the increase of membership was certainly as great as the increase of clubs. In the last three years the membership of clubs in Birmingham had increased from 24,262 to 26,594, in Derby from 7,400 to 10,500, in Leeds from 27,000 to 29,000, and in one of the boroughs of Lancashire one out of every five persons—men, women and children—was a member of a club. That was to say that every adult male in the borough was a member of a club. The hon. Member proceeded to quote the statements made by the chairmen of various benches of magistrates, including those of Durham, Keighley, Huddersfield, Sheffield, Leeds, and Marylebone, to the effect that something ought to be done to restrict and control the operations of these clubs. If the bishops were to be called in aid of this measure as a temperance measure, as they had been called in aid by every Radical supporter of the Bill, he wanted the Government to take the bishops as a whole and not merely rely upon them when they supported one portion of the Bill—to take them as of the same

1265
value when they were supporting the Amendments for strengthening this clause. He himself had had the Bishops hurled at his head at meeting after meeting, and a Bishop was by no means an easy body to have flung at one, particularly a Churchman. But he asked hon. Members to take the Bishops' speeches as a whole, not relying on their support for one portion of the Bill, when they came to the clause which he would have the honour of submitting later. In regard to clubs, the Archbishop spoke of them as a source of danger, and Bishop after Bishop, including the Bishops of Rochester and Durham, expressed themselves to a similar effect. In asking the Government not merely to adhere to this clause, but to accept Amendments to strengthen it, he wanted to assure them that they would have very considerable support from his side of the House. He was bound to say, with all deference, that he did not agree with his right hon. Leader in his attack upon the restrictions which were placed upon clubs. He had sat at the feet of his right hon. friend, who, he thought, would find that restrictions far more stringent than those now proposed in this Bill had been imposed upon clubs by the Conservative Government. If they referred to the club legislation for Scotland they would find that the restrictions put upon clubs in that country, passed by the Unionist Party when in power, infringed the liberty of the subject to an extent ten times greater than that proposed to be laid upon clubs by the Radical Party at the present moment. In the Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904, again, his right hon. Leader and Members of the Conservative Party had imposed restrictions many times more severe than those now under consideration. If those Acts were good enough for Scotland and Ireland, and if it were right that a Conservative Government should regard those restrictions as fair to the people of Scotland and the people of Ireland, he appealed to Members on that side of the House to do something for the cause of temperance here, by minimising the evils which undoubtedly were associated with these drinking clubs. He very seriously appealed to his hon. friends not to allow themselves to be led away by mere hostility to the Bill, but to assist the Government in making the conditions more real and effective than they were at the present time. He felt sure that there
1266
were many on that side of the House who had a strong conviction as to the infinite evil which was caused by drinking clubs, and that they would support Amendments which he and others would bring forward to strengthen the clause. These drinking clubs were frequented by men and women night and day, on Sundays and on Good Friday, and there were music, dancing, and performances into which it was not necessary that he should go, the proceedings having been fully exposed in the House on previous occasions. Such clubs were detrimental to the well-being of the people; and there was a very strong feeling about these performances on Sunday, among a large body of Churchmen and others, and particularly when Good Friday was desecrated by dancing and entertainments accompanied by hot-cross buns. One of the clubs belonging to the Party opposite advertised hot-cross buns as a speciality of a Good Friday performance. He hoped that Members on both sides would agree that they should make the restrictions to be imposed real restrictions, and do what they could to drive a nail into the coffin of these drinking clubs, which were admitted by the magistrates, who had experience in licensing matters, by an enormous number of chief constables, by the Church Army and their officers, and by all those societies which were working for the temperance cause, to be detrimental to the well-being of the people. There was nothing whatever in any of the Amendments which he had put down that would be detrimental to an honest club, whether that club were in Pall Mall, or a working men's club in any part of the country.
MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid he rose as a Scottish Member to give one or two illustrations of what had occurred in Scotland. The hon. Member for Manchester had said that the provisions in regard to clubs in Scotland were more drastic and stringent than those proposed in the Bill, or at present existing in England. That had been disputed by an hon. friend of his, but perhaps he might be permitted to say that be thought they were both right. Some of the provisions of the Scottish law were more drastic than those of the Bill or of the Act of 1902. Glasgow and some of the big

1267
cities of Scotland were asking for provisions in regard to clubs in connection with this Bill. An Amendment was proposed to strike out of the measure the provisions for annual registration, but in Scotland they had that provision now. The Chief Constable of Glasgow and the Deputy Town Clerk of Glasgow read very interesting papers at a conference of associations of borough officials, held at Ayr on the 28th August. The Deputy Town Clerk said that the law of Scotland in regard to clubs required revision on the lines of this Bill. Particular emphasis was laid on the necessity for annual registration, and one of his illustrations was that had they not had annual registration they would not have been able to deprive many of the bogus clubs, and many of the places called shebeens, of their registration. Perhaps the Committee would allow him to put before them one or two figures with regard to Sunday drinking, which was found to be mostly due to clubs. [OPPOSITION cheers.] Yes, and that was an argument for supporting the proposals now before them. As soon as the Scottish Act of 1903 was passed people who floated clubs felt that there would be great difficulty in securing registration, and the consequence was that the number of clubs in Glasgow fell from sixty-nine to forty-nine, and the number of Sunday cases of drunkenness fell 65 per cent. They very soon discovered their mistake, and found that it was easy to get registration under the Act of 1903. Since 1904 the number of Sunday cases of drunk and disorderly had risen from 256 to 370, and the Chief Constable remarked—
"This increase cannot fail to be associated with the fact that during the corresponding period the number of certified clubs increased from forty-nine to seventy-one, and of shebeens from forty-six to seventy two."
He thought that that was no bad illustration of how opportunities led to drunkenness. He joined in the appeal so eloquently made by the last speaker for increased stringency of restrictions. He appealed to those who were zealously interested in the welfare of the community, and to those who took a leading part in the promotion of clubs throughout the country, to give their support to the proposal for stringent restriction. He yielded to no man in his belief that many clubs did admirable work, and deserved the thanks
1268
of the community; but surely, as the Under-Secretary had told the House, there was a considerable number of clubs which were doing the reverse of admirable work, and were sources of social demoralisation and degradation in our midst. He appealed to the managers of good clubs not to throw in their lot with the managers of drinking clubs, for such an alliance would be a very great disadvantage to the community. He asked the House to act with calmness and courage—for both were required—and also with a sense of public spirit and public duty. He believed that the measure before the House struck effectively at drunkenness, and he urged them not to lose the opportunity of reform which the Bill gave.
EARL WINTERTONagreed with the Leader of the Opposition that this was not purely a party matter. His right hon. friend was careful to avoid anything in the nature of party bias and prejudice; but the Under-Secretary for the Home Department had introduced both. The difficulty with which they had to deal was entirely one for the Government to solve. They had got themselves into the difficulty, and it was their business to find a solution. A very real difficulty had arisen from one cause alone, and it could be summed up in three words: "Repression means evasion." The restrictions imposed by the magistracy and the Legislature upon drinking in licensed public-houses had led to the up-growth of unlicensed houses and clubs. He was not saying a word against them for the moment; it was not necessary to do so. These restrictions had led to the up-growth of a number of clubs which were not licensed houses where a man could drink at his free will. The Government by proposing to increase enormously the restrictions to be placed upon licensed public-houses had brought themselves face to face with a great difficulty. They could not consistently prevent people from obtaining a moderate amount of liquor in a properly conducted licensed public-house, and at the same time allow them to obtain as much as they wanted in an unlicensed club. The difficulty was one entirely of the Government's own making, and he deprecated—and he believed his hon. friends would support him—the attempt made by the Under-Secretary to introduce irrelevant bias

1269
and prejudice into the debate. Really one would have imagined he had come down to the House with a carefully prepared speech under the impression that the Leader of the Opposition was going to make an attack on entirely different lines. They all admitted that there was a real difficulty, and they on that side of the House were as anxious as hon. Gentlemen opposite to find some way out of it, though they did not admit that it concerned them so much as the Government. Repression in this country as in every other country had led to evasion. People would find some means of getting over that difficulty and obtaining the drink they desired. The clause raised a wide and important matter. There were certain human desires—he had no doubt the hon. Gentleman below the gangway would call them vices—which could not be repressed by legislation. One of those desires was to consume a certain amount of alcoholic liquor under reasonable and pleasant conditions. That was natural in all countries and with all classes, and if they put as the Legislature and the magistrates put, and as this Bill proposed to put, a restriction on that desire—if they made it as difficult as possible for a person to satisfy that desire in public, they would compel him to satisfy it in private and by some other means. That seemed exactly to express the position that had arisen. It might be very regrettable that a man should enjoy a glass of beer in the company of his friends, but the movement having reached the stage that it had, it was impossible to blame the clubs or their members for what had taken place. The Leader of the Opposition was absolutely right in treating this matter from an unbiassed and non-party point of view. The Government had to get out of the position which had arisen and had to give some reason for it. The Under-Secretary had referred very extensively to the Act of 1902, and had endeavoured, but had failed signally, to make an attack upon the Leader of the Opposition and to draw him into a purely party controversy. He imagined the hon. Gentleman did not take the extreme view which was taken by some of his friends around him, who so far as he could gather from their attitude during these debates, objected to a man taking alcoholic drink at any time. Did the hon. Gentleman or did he not object to any man who
1270
wished to do so obtaining under reasonable conditions a moderate amount of drink in a club?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see the relevancy of this.
EARL WINTERTONsaid he merely followed the last hon. Gentleman who spoke, and the Under-Secretary had read the whole contents of the Act of 1902. The last speaker had made extensive quotations from licensing statistics and licensing justices in Scotland.
MR. H. J. TENNANT: Entirely dealing with the question of annual registration.
EARL WINTERTONadmitted that the law of Scotland had no real relevancy to the clause, as the Bill did not apply to Scotland. He did not wish to go outside the Chairman's ruling, but the whole question of clubs and of the existence of clubs and how they were going to deal with the increase of them arose under the Amendment. Provided under the subsection the number of clubs which applied for annual registration enormously increased—he believed it would increase in five years by 50 per cent.—did the hon. Gentleman think that would be a good thing or a bad thing? In other words, did the Government, in bringing forward this clause, support the extension of clubs to any number? Did they think there was any harm in any number of clubs applying for registration provided they were carried on in a proper and reasonable fashion? If the Government did not object to that they would know exactly where they were. They would know that while hon. Gentlemen opposite did object to drinking in licensed houses, they had not the least objection to drinking in unlicensed houses. The point was really relevant, and he hoped the next speaker for the Government would answer it.
THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot see the least relevance of this.
EARL WINTERTONsaid that his point was that if the number of clubs largely increased, would the Government look upon that as a good thing or a bad thing, and it seemed to him that that was quite relevant to the clause. The

1271
subsection dealt with the registration of clubs, and he submitted that therefore it was in order to put that question. It was the Government's business to get out of the difficulty into which they had got themselves, and he did not intend to assist them to cook their own goose. That could be left for the hon. Member for Appleby and the hon. Member for Lincoln, whom he saw below the gangway thirsting to speak. He thought that even the Under-Secretary for the Home Department would have some difficulty in justifying the attitude of the Government on this clause. In conclusion, he would quote some words of the President of the Local Government Board which were spoken, he thought, before the Bill was brought in. He would not express any opinion as to whether they were true or not, but it certainly seemed to be the feeling of many hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"It requires some moral courage to get publicly drunk in the open bar of a public-house, but little or none to steadily soak or swiftly swill in the front parlour of a drinking club."
He hoped they would have the views of the Prime Minister upon the whole question of the registration of clubs. In his reply the Under-Secretary never once referred to his own clause. What he did was to deal with the action which he thought the Leader of the Opposition was going to take, but he had not said a word in justification of the clause or made any effort to get out of the very real difficulty into which the Government had got.
MR. HART DAVIESsaid that as far as he was aware the clubs most immediately concerned had no objection to annual registration, and if that were so, he did not see why they should be more enthusiastic in their cause than the clubs were themselves. What they objected to was the restrictions being imposed, and the way the registration was to be carried, out. He ventured to say that hon. Members who were vitally interested, in this question had reason to complain of the manner in which the discussion was being carried on, and he would suggest, as nobody objected particularly to this
1272
subsection, that it should be allowed to pass in order that they might get to the other parts of the clause which were far more important.
*MR. WYNDHAMsaid he agreed that this Amendment was not a matter of the very first importance. After all, subsection (1) was nothing more than an advertisement of the provisions which dealt with bogus clubs in the Act of 1902. If they had registration every year the fact that they were there might become known to more persons who might wish to lodge an objection under the restrictions of the Act of 1902. That was not an important matter, but what was important was the fact that they were now at the initial stage of the whole section of the Bill which dealt with the control of clubs, and although the debate had proceeded for two hours they had not, up to the present, received any response to the appeal which the Leader of the Opposition made. His right hon. friend did not throw down any challenge or approach the subject in a controversial spirit, but he appealed to the Prime Minister to give the Committee the benefit of the general view which the Government took of this part of the Bill, in relation to the part they had already dealt with which embodied their view as to the control of public-houses. That appeal had not been responded to, and nobody had addressed themselves to the subject at all. The Under-Secretary to the Home Office made an interesting speech, which, like this particular subsection, consisted largely of an advertisement of the merits of the Act of 1902. He read out all the clauses which dealt with clubs, and which had had a great effect upon clubs. The Committee wanted to know whether the change which the Government were making in the legislation affecting clubs effected any sound equipoise with the legislation they were bringing in to control public-houses. The tendency of every speech had been to show that although they did not address themselves to the question, the effect had been to show that that equipoise would not, under this Bill, be as sound as that established under the Acts of 1904 and 1902. As a temperance reformer the hon. Member for Manchester desired to go much further than the Government.

1273
He admired his sincerity, and they must also admire the logic of his attitude, but the attitude of the Government had not been stated and it appeared to be quite illogical. His hon. friend felt that if they tightened up the legislation affecting the opportunities for drinking in public-houses, they should also tighten up the legislation which controlled drinking in clubs, and the whole of his speech was to that effect. The reason why he could not support his hon. friend in his desire to make the proposal of the Government more stringent against clubs was that he did not think public opinion in this country would tolerate so much interference with what was really common and private life. He did not think it would be wise to interfere with those liberties in one direction because the Government had interfered with them in another. If one scale was weighed down by too great a weight, they could reestablish the balance by putting more weight into the other scale. Another plan was by taking some of the weight off the scale that was already too deeply depressed. The Government had not given any reason for their belief that they were going to establish a better balance between the pressure of legislation on public-houses and its pressure upon clubs. He thought it was businesslike to invite some review or explanation of the attitude of the Government before they came to deal with a number of Amendments which seemed to have very little substance, and would do nothing to restore an equipoise which was effected by the Acts, of 1904 and 1902. It might be argued that in the Act of 1904 they went too far in the direction of placing restrictions upon public-houses as compared with the restrictions placed upon clubs by the Act of 1902. It had been shown that since the Act of 1902 there had been a great development in the number of clubs, and their membership, and the kind of entertainments given in clubs. Therefore, although they were defending the Act of 1904, he thought that Act showed that they went at that time as far as it was possible to go in the direction of placing restrictions upon the consumption of liquor in public-houses unless they were prepared to create a greater evil in relation to the consumption of liquor in clubs. The Government had
1274
not addressed themselves to that problem, but they had placed restriction after restriction upon the consumption of liquor in public-houses, and when they came to the other end of the scale they had nothing to say to show that they had in any way considered how they were effecting an equipoise in relation to clubs.
MR. ASQUITHapologised for not having been able to be continuously present during the proceedings, and assured the Committee that it was due entirely to the fact that matters of very great importance required his consideration and was not from disrespect to the Committee, or from indisposition to listen to the arguments of the other side. He had heard enough of the discussion to make it allowable for him to offer two or three observations. As he understood the Amendment and the interpretation the Chairman put upon it, it was somewhat difficult to steer a middle course between what was relevant and what was out of order. He would briefly attempt to answer the question which had been put to him by the Leader of the Opposition as to the adjustment of the Bill—the manner in which, on the one hand, they were dealing with licensed premises and the manner in which, on the other they were dealing with clubs. He gathered that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were a little embarrassed in approaching the consideration of this matter. It was a much easier question for them to put to the Government than to answer themselves. They were in a difficulty between attacking the Bill on the one hand and the inclination not to attack clubs on the other. He gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, that their view was that they had attained, after careful adjustment, in their own legislation a condition of equipoise. In 1904 the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues passed the Licensing Act, which did not contain a single provision of any kind in relation to clubs. That Bill was advocated, as they all knew, on the ground that it would give rise to an effective acceleration in the reduction of the facilities for drink provided by public-houses, and, therefore, it might have been supposed that it would

1275
also give rise to an increase in the number of substituted facilities provided by clubs. But the right hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to make any provision in that Act to prevent the multiplication of clubs and the abuses arising from it. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were responsible for the Acts of 1902 and 1903—the English Act of 1902 and the much more stringent Scottish Act of 1903, to which in many respects they were seeking by the present Bill to level up the English law. He assumed, from the presence of those two Acts on the Statute-book and the declarations of Ministers responsible for them that they thought a case had been made out for the regulation of clubs. The question then, became a question not of principle at all; and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were just as much committed as the Government were to the doctrine that in the public interest it was not only desirable and politic, but absolutely necessary that some curb should be put upon the indefinite multiplication of clubs, and that some security should be taken that clubs brought into existence ostensibly for the purpose of companionship and recreation and social enjoyment should not be converted into mere drinking shops and unregulated substitutes for licensed premises. If that was so, the sole question surely, that was relevant, was whether or not the Government had either gone too far beyond the necessities of the case or had not approached what the necessities of the case really required. He confessed he did not see how they could profitably or fruitfully discuss that question until they came to the consideration of the particular proposals made. The principle of regulation was conceded. The right hon. Gentleman himself and his colleagues were the authors of measures placed on the Statute-book embodying that principle. Those Acts could be justified on no other assumption than that they must check the multiplication of clubs and the supply of intoxicating liquors there. The sole question was that of degree, of method, and of expediency. In reply to the general inquiry of both the right hon. Gentlemen opposite,
1276
the Government did in this Bill make provision on a larger scale than had ever been made before for a compulsory and uniform reduction of the number of licensed premises. They did it entirely upon the ground that the undue multiplication of these facilities led to excess and intemperance, and all the evils that followed in their train. When they came to the clubs they had precisely the same objects in view. On the one hand, they had not the faintest disposition to interfere with a perfectly legitimate movement — a movement of the people to assemble together for the purposes of discussion, companionship, and study. The Government would do nothing—and if it could be shown that they were doing anything in that sense they would modify their Bill—to interfere with the legitimate growth of what they regarded as a natural social tendency. It was cant, however, to deny that those excellent institutions were capable of being grossly abused, and of taking the place of the very public-houses that they were suppressing because they presented undue temptations and excessive facilities for the consumption of drink. That could not be denied. The Government were endeavouring to strengthen the law of clubs so that, while not interfering with the right of association, they might prevent the establishment, under the cloak of that association, of drinking shops. They did not believe that in any one of the provisions of the clauses which were now to come under discussion they had advanced one inch beyond what was needed to attain that end. They were all based upon the common principle that, while they should admit in the fullest and freest sense those associations of all classes of society, they must take adequate precautions, impartially disstributed and administered, not directed, to one class of clubs—the rich man's or the poor man's—rather than to another, not directed to one object of association, political, social or religious—but applied equally and impartially to all classes of clubs, whatever their composition and ostensible object, which should secure adequate safeguards against this great and growing evil, the excessive supply of intoxicating liquor. He had

1277
necessarily dealt with what were almost platitudes, because he believed the principles he had been laying down would be accepted by nine-tenths of the Members of the House in whatever quarter. That being so, he appealed to the House to pass from these general considerations to the particular provisions, in order to see how far the principles he had outlined were carried out by their legislation.
MR. A. J. BALFOURassured the right hon. Gentleman that all of them must appreciate the difficulty under which the Prime Minister laboured when he had to go through a vast mass of business and at the same time to conduct a controversial Bill through the House. His absence on this occasion he particularly regretted, because he thought the right hon. Gentleman missed the point which he had endeavoured to lay before the Committee. He had told them with perfect truth that the Gentlemen sitting on that Bench were responsible for legislation dealing with the good order of clubs. But let it be remembered that the Act of 1902 was passed when there was none of this coercing restriction upon the general public in regard to public-house accommodation. After the Act of 1904, although licences were largely diminished, the magistrates were specially instructed to have regard to the views and wants of the neighbourhood, and they were not obliged, as they were under this Bill, to make a reduction, which, were it good or bad, was to be wholly mechanical. Let the Committee observe the bearing of that important fact upon the relation between our system of law with regard to licensed premises and our system of law with regard to clubs. The right hon. Gentleman said that they, as much as his own friends, were responsible for the desire to prevent what he called indefinite multiplication of clubs. That, he thought, was not a fair account of the policy of the late Government. They did not at all mind clubs being indefinitely multiplied, only they wanted them to be real clubs—clubs where the consumption of alcohol might, indeed, go on, but with the social life which, in his opinion, should be an accompaniment of the consumption of alcohol. That was all their anxiety. This was a conviction which he held more strongly
1278
than almost any other upon this very difficult question of the consumption of alcohol—that what they ought to encourage was such habits among the people that they did not go and drink alcohol merely for the purpose of drinking alcohol, but that when they consumed alcohol they should do it as part of the general social life of the community. That was what he thought they ought to make their public-houses. He did not think the public-houses were now mere drinking shops, and he was quite certain that they ought to aim at such an arrangement that they should not be drinking shops. The old inns of the country and many public-houses in the town and in the country were centres of quite genuine, respectable, and estimable social life. That was true also of the clubs; but if they were going artificially to restrict social life carried on in those conditions in public-houses by the earlier clauses in this Bill, then it was preposterous to give the freedom which was left untouched by the Act of 1902, and which the right hon. Gentleman wished to leave untouched by this Bill, but which he could not leave untouched if his whole scheme was to be logical, coherent, and self-consistent. The truth was that the admirable phrases which the right hon. Gentleman had used that evening in respect to clubs were totally inconsistent with the view that they ought to prevent the consumption of alcohol by all the means in their power in all places, and it was impossible for any mar who attempted to take a wide view of our laws to deal in the spirit in which the Government had dealt with licences in the first part of the Bill, and to do no more than the Government were now proposing to do for the diminution and suppression of clubs in the second part. The two things were absolutely inconsistent, and they were bound to make their legislation consistent. There were only two ways of doing so. The one was to level up their legislation in respect of clubs to the level of their legislation about licences; the other was to level down the legislation about licences so that it should not be entirely out of harmony with the legislation about clubs. These were the only alternatives open to those who wished to take a reasonable and logical

1279
view of this problem. He and his friends held the first view; his hon. friend held the second view; but the view which the Government took was utterly illogical and could not be defended. It had not been defended. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech did not even touch it. It was because he felt the gross inconsistency between the legislation of the Government in respect to licensed premises and their legislation with regard to clubs that he welcomed the opportunity which the Chairman had allowed, to ask the Committee to try and take that wider outlook of the whole area of legislation and of which he saw no signs in the speech of the Prime Minister, or indeed, if he might speak his whole mind, in any speech delivered from the other side of the House that evening. As to the subclause itself, he did not know that a division would be necessary. The object of his hon. friend in moving it was to obtain that general survey of which he and some of his friends had taken advantage, but which apparently hon. Gentlemen opposite did not wish to embark upon. Their reluctance was intelligible and even perhaps pardonable; but he did not think that they on that side of the House could pursue the matter much further. After the ineffectual protests which had been made and after the appeals which had been made two or three times had fallen on deaf ears, he gathered that no answer having been made no answer was possible.
*MR. EVELYN CECILsaid that after what his right hon. friend had said, and quite coincidently with his opinion, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
A number of Amendments on the Paper having been ruled out of order—
*Mr. EVELYN CECILmoved to insert at the end of the first subsection: "The provisions of this part of this Act with regard to clubs shall not apply to any club against which no charge has been substantiated on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 28 of the Licensing Act, 1902, and which is managed by a committee periodically
1280
elected, to whom the secretary of the club is responsible, and which has been established for five years. Provided always that the justices in their discretion, shall have power to compel any such club to show cause why it should not come under the following provisions of this Act." He was, he said, glad that they had had the general discussion because it enabled the Under-Secretary to make an incidental observation with, regard to this Amendment which he thought of great importance as coming from the Government bench, but which he very respectfully submitted was not correct. The hon. Gentleman said that this Amendment was wholly illusory because, as it was proposed, the provisions of the Bill would not apply to any club against which no charge had been made on any of the grounds mentioned in the twenty-eighth section of the Act of 1902. If any charge was so made was substantiated, the Under-Secretary said that the club would ipso facto cease to exist. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman that his Amendment was illusory. He had looked up the wording of Section 28, subsection (1) of the Act of 1902 which said that—
"Where a club has been registered in pursuance of this Act, a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, on complaint in writing by any person, may, if it thinks fit, make an order directing the club to be struck off the register on all or any of the following grounds."
He did not understand that the club was necessarily struck off, but only if the Court thought fit. It seemed to him that the club would remain an existing club against which a charge had been substantiated under that subsection, but which had not been annihilated by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. This, for instance, might well be the case under sub-clause (a) of Section 28 of the Act of 1902 if the number of members had temporarily sunk below twenty-five. Therefore his Amendment was not illusory, but was perfectly workable. That being so he hoped the Committee would adopt it. It was framed in no controversial spirit; on the contrary, its aim was to prevent that and to exempt bona fide clubs from coming under this clause in the Bill which harassed bad and bogus clubs. He had tried carefully to frame

1281
it so as to draw no distinction between rich and poor clubs. It had the support of the Working Men's Club and Institute Union and every other association of the kind so far as he was aware; and he had not seen or heard any really substantial objection taken to it which would justify its rejection by the Committee. An objection put forward against the Amendment was that it would give rise to certain privileged clubs. That was quite a false impression as he had already shown. If it was the desire of the House not unduly to annoy respectable clubs which had been well conducted, he thought the Committee would best carry out that object by accepting the Amendment which he had now the honour to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 4, at end, to insert the words 'but this provision shall not apply to any club against which no charge has been substantiated on any of the grounds mentioned in Section twenty-eight of the Licensing Act, 1902, and which is managed by a committee periodically elected to whom the secretary of the club is responsible, and which has been established for five years. Provided always that the justices shall in their discretion have power to require any such club to show cause why it should not come under the following provisions of this Act.'"—(Mr. Evelyn Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that the purpose of the Amendment was governed by the words in the middle of its draft—
"Shall not apply to any club against which no charge has been substantiated on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 28 of the Licensing Act, 1902."
As he understood it, it proposed that the provisions of this part of the Bill should not apply to any club about which a charge brought against it had not been substantiated. That would be to weaken very unduly the power conferred by this part of the Bill on the licensing justices. It would be absurd to say that until a club had been convicted of gross abuses it was not to be liable to the inspection which was to detect the abuses and not to be liable to the annual registration which gave the opportunity for objection to be made.
1282
Nor could he conceive that any Court would be justified, having once said that the club was guilty of abuses, in not striking that club off the register; but merely saying that it was to be liable to inspection and to have its registration annually renewed.
MR. EVELYN CECILsaid that if a club through accidental circumstances was reduced to twenty-four members, according to the clause it would be struck off the register under Section 28 of the Act of 1902; but supposing the number was increased immediately to twenty-six why should it be struck off the register?
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that there must be some suitable limit and the number fixed by the Act of 1902 was twenty-five. If any club had less members than twenty-five it might be brought before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and as a matter of fact it would be struck off the register.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that there was one club of which the hon. Gentleman knew which would not have fallen off the register because it had only twenty-four members.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Government did not, of course, know of every case in which clubs were proceeded against before magistrates, but they were not aware of any case in which any charge under Section 28 of the Act of 1902 had been proved against a club, in which the magistrates had not struck it off the register. He could not say that there were no other cases; they had not information on all; but they had a very large number, seventy or eighty a year, in which charges under Section 28 were proved against clubs and the invariable result was that those clubs were struck off the register. It was intended under the Act of 1902 that if a club failed to conform with certain conditions, it should cease to exist. But if, for example, there was frequent drunkenness, or illegal sales of liquor had taken place, the Amendment proposed that the magistrates should have the option of

1283
saying that the club might continue, but it must be liable to annual inspection and so forth. A proposal of that kind would take all the substance out of the clause and limit their power to a bare minimum. Such being the case it could not be accepted by the Government.
SIR E. CARSONdid not think the full meaning of this Amendment had yet been sufficiently developed, and he was not at all sure that a very much greater importance had been attached to it than was warranted by the Under-Secretary in the speech which he had just made. The Under-Secretary had said nothing about the words at the end of the proposed subsection—
"Provided always that the justices shall in their discretion have power to require any such club to show cause why it should not come under the following provisions of this Act."
That left it open to the justices at any time if there was any suspicion whatever as regards the club to summon it to show cause why it should not come within the provisions of the Act. That was the whole distinction between the Bill and the Amendment; his hon. friend said that a club which had hitherto been well conducted and against which there was no black mark in the nature of a conviction under the 28th Section of the Act of 1902, ought not to be asked to come yearly like a public-house before licensing justices at licensing sessions for the purpose of having the whole of its circumstances inquired into at the instance of any person in the neighbourhood who wished for inquiry. What the Amendment proposed was that as long as a club was well conducted it should not have to go through that form, but on the other hand, it allowed the magistrates, if they had any suspicion, or if there had been a conviction under Section 28, to summon the club to show cause why it should not come within the provisions of this Act. He thought the point was a very small one; it was really a matter of the inconvenience and expense with regard to registration, and he should have thought it was well worth considering by the Under-Secretary, whether he ought to put a club which was well conducted and which had nothing against it and
1284
which the magistrates did not even suspect, to the trouble of re-registration at all.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid as he read the proviso it only related to "any such club," that was to say, a club which had already been condemned under the Act of 1902.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he did not read it that way, although it might be so. He should think not. He thought "any such club" meant a club under the proposed subsection. He did not read it in the way the hon. Gentleman read it, but it could be made perfectly clear by the omission of the word "such." What they put before the Under-Secretary was simply that he ought not to put upon a club the burden of having this unnecessary annual renewal, at an annual licensing session, like a public-house, when there was nothing to complain of in regard to it. So far as he was concerned, the great objection that he had to this part of the Bill was that they were gradually building up as regards clubs exactly the same methods as, in reference to public-houses, had led to a claim to be compensated, in regard to which they had had such difficulties to deal with. What did the Government propose to do? They were going to have an annual licensing session as regards clubs, and to his mind the great mischief of that was, that people would think that as they had got this registration as a kind of title-deed from the Government, it was a monstrous hardship to interfere with them under any circumstances whatsoever. Anybody who had ever practised at licensing sessions, as he had in his younger days, and he thought his hon. friend on the other side had occasionally sat opposite to him there—anybody who had watched and seen the appeals that were made by reason of the moneys expended on the faith of these annual grants, as they were called, must know that a great many difficulties were built up by reason of the increased obligations put upon licensed houses, by virtue of successive Acts passed by Parliament. They were beginning to do exactly the same thing now as regards these clubs, and people

1285
would imagine that the moment they got this registration at the annual licensing session they had the same kind of property which had grown up in relation to public-houses. For his own part, he did not believe that any one of these methods that the Government were laying down would have the slightest effect as regards clubs. The stringent provisions of the Act of 1902 entitled a police officer to get a search warrant and go into a club. What had that availed? Absolutely nothing; and he would tell them why in a moment. Clubs had gone on and were going on increasing—and the Prime Minister; himself in introducing this Bill drew attention to that — even since the Act of 1902, which had put down a larger number of them than ever before. The increase of clubs had been most remarkable in various places. The truth of the matter was that there was only one way in which they could deal with these clubs, and that was if they were drinking clubs, they must prosecute them for selling drink without a licence. If they were not drinking clubs, they could not interfere with them, and anything they provided about annual registration, or anything else, would weaken the idea of prosecuting them as drinking clubs, because in such cases people would say that there was a licence, and they could not go behind the licence granted to them at the annual licensing sessions. Whereas if a club were occasionally; prosecuted, as they always could be if I they were drinking clubs, they did not lead people to believe that just because they had got a certificate of registration they could sell drink with impunity in spite of the police. Therefore, so far as he was concerned, he attached very little importance to any of the restrictions which were attempted to be set up by this Bill, and as he believed they would be entirely ineffectual as against clubs which were not bona fide he should, on this part of the Bill, endeavour to mitigate inconveniences and impertinences as regards clubs which were really bona fide clubs, who ought to have the right to go on and carry out their social arrangements without interference by the police or anybody else.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that on reading the proviso more carefully he
1286
thought the words "any such club" meant clubs against which no charge had been substantiated. The Amendment was, therefore, unacceptable for a different reason from the one he gave, inasmuch as it would cast upon the justices the invidious duty of picking out these clubs and saying to other clubs that their registration need not be annually renewed. It would cast upon the justices the duty which no bench would willingly have placed upon it, of saying which clubs were to come up for annual renewal. Of course, in the case of an ordinary club, in reference to which there was no suspicion, the renewal would be merely formal.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the Under-Secretary, in his reply, had confined his consideration largely, if not mainly, to one condition in the argument of his hon. friend, viz., that no objection should have been taken to a club which was managed by a committee periodically elected, to whom the secretary of the club was responsible. There was, however, one matter which deserved attention before he finally made up his mind not to accept the Amendment, and that was, that these clubs must have existed for five years—that was to say that during five years it had been possible for anyone to object to them under the Act of 1902. Any such clubs would not only have been in existence before this Bill came into operation, but before the Act of 1904, so that not one of the clubs as defined in the hon. Member's Amendment could have been erected as a substitute for a public-house. He thought that pat them in another category than the clubs which the Government had in mind, viz., clubs where public-houses or drinking shops had previously been carried on.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,)thought it would be impossible to work this Amendment even if it were accepted by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had said quite truly that there were three conditions before a club got into the category of the house contemplated by the Amendment. It must, first of all, be a club against which no charge had been substantiated under the Act of 1902, and also a club managed

1287
by a committee periodically elected, to whom the secretary of the club was responsible, and it must also have been in existence five years. That, no doubt, restricted the number of clubs to some extent, but he submitted that no reason had been given for making a distinction between these clubs and the other clubs. A club which had been established since 1904 might be just as respectable as any of these. But he thought that in practice in addition to its being invidious to call upon the justices to do it, it would be impossible. How were the justices to know the facts about a particular club to see if it came within this category? Then there was the general objection to making any distinction between club and club in regard to annual registration, and he pointed out in addition to the argument of his hon. friend that neither in the Scottish Act nor in the earlier Act which required registration was there any distinction of this kind.
MR. SEAVERNSasked whether before the Committee went to a division on this question, the Government could give some further information as to the nature of the authority before whom these clubs would appear. It was very material to his decision, because he was one of those who objected most strongly to the licensing justices being that authority. If there was an authority which from his point of view was more satisfactory he would be pleased to support this registration; otherwise he would have to vote against it.
Amendment negatived.
*MR. GRETTONmoved to add at the end of subsection (1) the words "except such clubs and places as may be carried on under the King's Regulations by the naval and military forces." This Amendment raised a question which had been one of the difficulties of the Act of 1902. It had been forced upon his notice owing to his connection with the Volunteer force now extinct. Most battalions had a mess, where alcoholic liquors were supplied, which was open when military work was going forward or when military lectures were being
1288
given, and it had never been settled as to whether these were not, technically, clubs. These messes were now carried on in accordance with the King's Regulations, and it could not be said that the control was vested in a committee. They were actually under the control of the commanding officer, and the management of the mess was under the control of the treasurer who was appointed from a roster by the commanding officer. These clubs or messes did not comply with the regulations laid down in this Bill, and it was doubtful whether they could comply with the provisions of the Act of 1902. The Amendment raised the whole question of the position of the messes carried on in accordance with the King's Regulations for the naval and military forces, also those established in naval towns for naval officers and men employed ashore. The matter was an important one, and it was desirable that it should be cleared up. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 4, at end, to insert the words 'except such clubs and messes as may be carried on under the King's Regulations for the naval and military forces.'"—(Mr. Gretton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR S. EVANSsaid the hon. Member was perfectly within his rights in handing in this manuscript Amendment, but the Government would certainly have liked a little more notice with regard to a matter which the hon. Gentleman himself admitted was rather technical. They did not make in this Bill any alteration as to the kind of club that was to be on the register. All they sought to provide was that there should be annual registration of the clubs which were required to be registered under the Act of 1902. Those clubs which were not required to be registered under that Act did not require to be registered under this Bill. There was no exception of these messes under the Act of 1902 or the Irish and Scottish Acts of 1903 and 1904. The probability was that they were not "clubs" at all within the meaning of Section 24 of the Act of 1904. He was afraid he could not agree to this exception now raised for the first time.
SIR E. CARSONagreed that the new Act did not make any difference with regard to the class of clubs to be registered. All it did was to substitute an annual registration before the licensing justices before whom any fanatic might appear and object to the whole of the clubs. He also agreed that there was no exception in the Act of 1902. He did not know what difference the Territorial Act might make, but it might be worth while to consider, when these elaborate provisions were being made, whether it would not be well to make this exception and exempt these messes from the operations of the Bill and the Act of 1902. There was a precedent for that, because if the hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the Act of 1902 he would see that naval and military canteens did not require a licence, so that there was already an exception made in regard to naval and military canteens.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTTdid not think the hon. and learned Solicitor-General quite appreciated the conditions under which military training took place. The Yeomanry, for instance, went out for annual training for a fortnight. Was the officers' mess which was carried on during the time of the annual training to be registered as a club? He urged the Government, if they could not accept the Amendment now, to consider the technical difficulties and on the Report stage do something to meet the points which had been raised.
EARL WINTERTONdesired to ask, speaking as a member of a Territorial Association, and as a yeoman of some years standing, whether a meeting of the sergeants or non-commissioned officers of a company in the Territorial Forces, held one night a week in a room in the drill hall, would come under the description of a naval and military canteen? Some hon. Members seemed inclined to jeer, but it was rather an important question affecting a large number of naval and military clubs and might, he admitted, require some time to study. Would such a club meeting in a room which was the property of the Territorial Association come under the provisions of the Act of 1902? If they
1290
would, he ventured to think the law should be altered. Under the Territorial Army Act the whole of the Territorial Army was made directly responsible to the Territorial Association and the War Office. If they proceeded on the same lines with regard to the Territorial Army as with regard to the Regular Army, the commanding officer would be directly responsible for every thing that took place in his regiment; and it would be illogical to insist upon a club within a regiment going and asking the licensing justices to register them. The matter should be purely in the discretion of the commanding officer. It would be unfortunate if they made a distinction between a club in the Regular Army and one in the Territorial Army. He therefore wished to ask whether or not the clubs of the Territorial Army would come under the law as it stood.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid this matter required a little more consideration than had been given to it, though he did not say anything at all against the Government on that account, because the Amendment had been brought before them suddenly. By Section 28 of the Act of 1902, subsection (a), it was made an offence for a club to have less than twenty-five members. Probably the Solicitor-General would not agree with that description, but at any rate, it was a ground for striking it off the register. He would further point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman, though he had not a wide knowledge of regimental matters, that few messes contained twenty-five members or had a secretary. He thought that many of the provisions of the Act of 1902 were entirely inappropriate to military and naval clubs. It would be ridiculous for a mess to be brought forward every year at the meeting of the licensing justices, and that these clubs for social purposes should be made illegal because they had no secretary or because they had not a membership of twenty-five. These observations would be still more applicable to the Yeomanry, who only met for training once a year. He pressed the Government not to commit themselves on this

1291
subject, but to consider the omission of these bodies on the Report stage.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the Secretary of State for War considered the Territorial Force to be the second line of the Regular Army. All the members of these messes received a messing allowance—that was to say, the Crown was giving a sum of money per head as messing allowance to every one of the members of these messes. He wished to know whether the discretion of the Crown in regard to these messes was to be brought up year by year before a bench of licensing justices.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he did not pretend to be an authority upon military matters. It was one of the concerns on which he gave up his functions to the Secretary for War. On the legal question, he did not think there was really any difficulty. He should doubt very much, from the description he had heard of the places where the messes were held, whether they would require registration under the Act of 1902. He was quite willing to make inquiry into the matter, and he would trouble his guide, philosopher, and friend the Secretary for War in that part of his military duties. As to the general question he could only say, with reference to the limit of membership to twenty-five, that it was not necessary and he did not think the Under-Secretary had said so. The provision in Section 28 of the Act of 1902 only meant that if a club had gone down in membership, if there was a number remaining of members of the club not coming up to twenty-five, the justices could take that into consideration in connection with other circumstances attaching to the club, in arriving at their decision. He did not think there was any difficulty, but he would go into the question and give further information.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid they were very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his offer of information. There was a question of policy and a question of interpretation of the law. On the latter question he agreed that the hon. and learned Gentleman must have time to consider this rather difficult point.
1292
They recognised that the Treasury Bench did not possess that gift of rapid interpretation of Amendments not put down on the Paper which was expected from the Opposition. Therefore, on the question of interpretation, they were all in favour of giving the hon. and learned Gentleman time to consider. But on the question of policy he would like to know now what was the intention of the Government. Supposing these messes proved to be technically clubs, would the Government so alter the Act of 1902 that they could no longer be treated technically as clubs? At any rate, it was a mistake. No human being ever wanted to turn messes into clubs, and he was sure it would be a wrong policy to do so. All he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to do was to inquire whether messes were technically clubs, and if they were, to bring up an Amendment on Report to correct what was evidently a legislative error, now that they were revising that legislation.
SIR S. EVANSdid not think he could give a pledge to alter the status of clubs as required for registration under the Act of 1902. The Government had adopted that Act, which required not only registration but "annual renewal thereof."
*MR. GRETTONfailed to understand why the Government should not look into this question, which really went further and presented greater difficulties than the Solicitor-General seemed to think. He apologised for having put down the Amendment in manuscript, but in the circumstances he thought he must ask his hon. friends to go into the division lobby with him. Before doing so, he would point out there were two problems involved in this question of military messes and clubs. There was the problem as to the battalion or unit, or whatever it might be, when embodied and under canvas. Clearly under such circumstances no question of a club could arise. But there was the other circumstance, that there was usually a club for the men and sometimes also for officers in connection with a Territorial battalion. Under the Territorial Forces Act, and under military law, there was the

1293
case of non-commissioned officers belonging to the battalion who were accustomed to meet in a building which might come under the definition of a club under the Act of 1902, and for safety, under that Act, they had been careful, acting on the advice of counsel, to have such buildings registered as clubs. The annual registration could not, he thought, be carried out in accordance with the Bill before the Committee. Those clubs, being under military law, could not comply with the provisions for registration. The case must be very carefully gone into and the Solicitor-General should give a pledge that it would be considered.
SIR S. EVANS: That is what I did. [Cries of "No."] If I did give a pledge, I repeat it; if I did not, I now give it.
SIR E. CARSONsaid they all thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had given a pledge, but when his right hon. friend had asked for a declaration on the matter of policy, viz., as to whether these naval and military clubs and messes were to be excluded, he said he would not exclude them.
SIR S. EVANS: No.
SIR E. CARSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman said he could not exclude them; but he might be wrong in that, and he wished to know whether or not what he had said was right or wrong. What he understood was that the Solicitor-General was to make legal research as to whether these messes were within the Act of 1902 or not, and whether, if they were, he could alter the law. It was a very important matter as to whether these messes of the Army and Navy were to be carried on under King's Regulations. It was important for the House to consider and to have it declared specifically whether these clubs were to come under all the various terms which they were now enacting as regards ordinary clubs. Were they to understand that the pledge was that the policy and not merely the law would be considered?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,)said the Government would approach the question of policy with a perfectly open mind. His hon. friend
1294
had given a pledge to consider the law and get to the bottom of the question as to whether these messes were or were not included in the definition in the Act of 1902. Should it be found that they were included the Government would approach the question with a perfectly open mind and consider the desirability of excluding them from the definition of clubs. The Committee, however, must understand that they were now using a word which had no precise meaning, and it would be perfectly impossible for the Government to give a pledge that anything which called itself a mess would be excluded. They would consider whether a definition could be properly found which would exclude combinations which were now termed "messes" which ought to be excluded from the Act of 1902, and if a solution was possible to be found they would find it. It would be improper so long as the term "mess" was undefined, for the Government to give a pledge and say that all messes should be excluded hereafter from the definition of clubs.
*MR. RUPERT GUINNESSwished to remind the First Lord of the Naval Volunteer Reserve and to ask that it should share in any privileges which were granted to the Territorial Forces.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINpressed the Government in no unfriendly spirit to go a little further than they had done. It was perfectly natural that they should require time either to ascertain the exact condition of the law now or to ascertain the exact form of words which might make the law what they desired to see it. Surely it was not unreasonable to ask them, before parting with the Amendment, to give a definite pledge that the messes in clubs carried on under the King's Regulations—not anything which called itself a mess, as the First Lord of the Admiralty said—should be excluded from these restrictions and conditions which were never intended to apply to them. Unless the Government would give them that assurance and say that if they found they were not already excluded they would take steps on the Report stage to exclude them he hoped his hon. friend would go to a division, and they, at any

1295
rate, would assert their view that, whatever the law was, they were never intended to be included and ought not to be included.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 101; Noes, 257. (Division List No. 326.)

AYES.

Agnew, George William

Faber, George Denison (York)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fell, Arthur

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fletcher, J. S.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Armitage, R.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Renton, Leslie

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Roberts, S. (Sheffieid, Ecclesall)

Balcarres, Lord

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Rose, Charles Day

Banbury, Sir Frederick George.

Gretton, John

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)

Stanier, Beville

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Beck, A. Cecil

Helmsley, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hill, Sir Clement

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hills, J. W.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. H. M.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Keswick, William

Thornton, Pery M.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

Castlereagh, Viscount

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cave, George

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Watt, Henry A.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

Whitbread, Howard

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Clive, Percy Archer

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Winterton, Earl

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

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Courthope, G. Loyd

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Young, Samuel

Craik, Sir Henry

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Younger, George

Cross, Alexander

Morpeth, Viscount

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Morrison-Bell, Captain

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Napier, T. B.

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Viscount Valentia.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Branch, James

Curran, Peter Francis

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brigg, John

Davies, David (Montgomery Co)>

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

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Brooke, Stopford

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Alden, Percy

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

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

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bryce, J. Annan

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dobson, Thomas W.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Donelan, Captain A.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Byles, William Pollard

Duckworth, James

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cameron, Robert

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Barker, John

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Clough, William

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Barnard, E. B.

Clynes, J. R.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Barnes, G. N.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Erskine, David C.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Essex, R. W.

Beale, W. P.

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

Esslemont, George Birnie

Bell, Richard

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

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

Everett, R. Lacey

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Fenwick, Charles

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

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Findlay, Alexander

Boulton, A. C. F.

Crooks, William

Fuller, John Michael F.

Bowerman, C. W.

Crosfield, A. H.

Fullerton, Hugh

Brace, William

Crossley, William J.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Gill, A. H.

M'Callum, John M.

Seddon, J.

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

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Seely, Colonel

Glendinning, R. G.

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

Shackleton, David James

Glover, Thomas

M'Micking, Major G.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mallet, Charles E.

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

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Gulland, John W.

Marnham, F. J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Massie, J.

Snowden, P.

Hall, Frederick

Masterman, C. F. G.

Soares, Ernest J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Micklem, Nathaniel

Spicer, Sir Albert

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Middlebrook, William

Stanger, H. Y.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Steadman, W. C.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mond, A.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Strachey, Sir Edward

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

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

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

Summerbell, T.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Myer, Horatio

Sutherland, J. E.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholls, George

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Helme, Norval Watson

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Thomasson, Franklin

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nuttall, Harry

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

Higham, John Sharp

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Grady, J.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Hodge, John

Partington, Oswald

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Holt, Richard Dinning

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Verney, F. W.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Horniman, Emslie John

Perks, Sir Robert William

Walsh, Stephen

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Walton, Joseph

Hudson, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wardle, George J.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Pollard, Dr.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Hyde, Clarendon

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Radford, G. H.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Whitehead, Rowland

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Jowett, F. W.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

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

Wiles, Thomas

Kelley, George D.

Richardson, A.

Wilkie, Alexander

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Laidlaw, Robert

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Lambert, George

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradfrd.

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

Lamont, Norman

Robinson, S.

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

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Roe, Sir Thomas

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

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lupton, Arnold

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Winfrey, R.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Lynch, H. B.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

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

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Joseph Pease and Master of

Maclean, Donald

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

Elibank.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Seaverns, J. H.

MR. HART-DAVIESmoved to leave out "licensing justices" and insert "local stipendiary magistrate or local Court of Summary Jurisdiction." He said that he was inclined to think from something which had fallen from the Prime Minister earlier in the afternoon that the Government were prepared
1298
to meet this point by accepting his Amendment. He did not mean to insinuate that the licensing justices would act with partiality, but those interested in clubs felt that these proposals contained very serious restrictions which ought to be decided in a strictly judicial way. Licensing justices were not always

1299
appointed on account of their knowledge of the law. He had known instances where their knowledge of the law was rather bad. Consequently the clubs felt that this was a matter of paramount importance; they desired the matter to be decided on strictly legal grounds and they did not feel confident that they would obtain such a decision at the hands of the licensing justices. They considered that under this proposal there would be a danger of a certain amount of prejudice on the part of the licensing justices. Under the present system justices were appointed a good deal on political grounds, and a very large number of workmen's clubs were political clubs. Consequently those interested in clubs felt that, insensibly perhaps, the licensing justices might be influenced by their political prejudices and views, and be apt not to take a fair view of the position of the club brought before them. Consequently they felt that the matter ought to be settled on strictly judicial lines, as they were not sure of getting such an absolutely clear and legal decision at the hands of the licensing justices as at the hands of stipendiary magistrates. In London the Court would be presided over by the local stipendiary magistrate in whom they had every confidence, but in the country it would be the justices. There was a difference between the justices sitting as licensing magistrates and sitting at petty sessions, because at the latter Court they were supposed to be governed by the laws of evidence and people had a much fairer show if they came up before petty sessions than if they were tried before the licensing justices. He hoped the Government would regard this Amendment favourably; if they did it would carry very great weight. He thought his Amendment would strengthen the Bill and also the hands of the Government in dealing with this question.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 7, to leave out the words 'licensing justices,' and to insert the words 'local stipendiary magistrate or local Court of Summary Jurisdiction.'"—(Mr. Hart-Davies.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
*MR. BARNESsaid he supported the Amendment, and he did so with the concurrence of the Club and Institute Association and all his colleagues. What they had to bear in mind was not only the absence of legal knowledge on the licensing bench, but there was also a fear that the decisions of the licensing justices were not always in accordance with the requirements of the situation. In many cases the licensing justices were guided more or less by pressure of local prejudice or financial interest. The fear the club authorities had in their minds was that the licensing justices, having little or no knowledge of law, and being unaccustomed to the sifting of evidence, were more or less guided by local prejudice on the one side or financial interest on the other. The licensing justices were sometimes "got at" by the teetotal advocates in a particular district, and by the public-house interest in other districts, and consequently they were not in a position to give an unbiassed opinion. This particular Amendment brought up the whole question of the attitude of the Committee with regard to clubs and public-houses. On the Labour benches they were not at all afraid of the multiplication of clubs. They thought that the public-house was not a desirable place. Even the Leader of the Opposition thought that some of the public-houses had become more or less intolerable places. Having regard to all the circumstances he thought public-houses would have to remain in that unsatisfactory condition. He heard the right hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition bench speak of public-houses as being on the whole very nice places. Some of them in the country where he used to live were, and in his younger cycling days he had spent many happy hours in country inns over his bread and cheese and beer. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to imagine there were such places still. Perhaps there were, but they were not in the populous places. He would like to take the right hon. Gentleman to some of the public-houses in the Walworth Road or in Whitechapel on a Saturday night, and he would very soon alter his opinion as to the character of some public-houses. That was a very regrettable state of things, but he considered it was inevitable as

1301
long as public-houses were carried on exclusively for profit. Everything was subordinated to the selling of liquor. There was no artistic decoration, little cleanliness, or order except that imposed by the public authority. The publican himself had ceased to be anything but an agent of a monopolist brewer or distiller, and had but one object, namely, the making of profit for his employer by the sale of alcohol. For those reasons he and his friends believed in the policy of the Government in the way of limiting the number of those places because they believed the public-houses were bad, and that they must remain so until they were fundamentally altered in character. The way they desired to have public-houses altered was by the elimination of the element of profit altogether, and making them places where those who kept them would have nothing to serve but the public interest, and the Labour Party knew that neither the Government nor the regular Opposition favoured that policy yet.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member is getting very wide of the question before the Committee.
*MR. BARNESsaid he was trying to make his point that the whole thing hinged upon this Amendment as to whether it was desirable to encourage clubs or not. He thought it was desirable to encourage clubs, and therefore it was not desirable to put any restrictions in the way of clubs increasing in number. Under the Bill as it was framed there was an element of uncertainty, because clubs in one place might be dealt with on one principle where the licensing justices were made up of teetotallers, and in another on quite another principle, when the licensing justices were made up of a different set of men altogether. In that respect they thought the Bill was unsatisfactory, and they wished to amend it in the manner suggested because they thought under this Amendment the club people would have the assurance that their application would be made to those who had had a legal training, and were accustomed to sifting evidence, and consequently would be more likely to deal more justly with their application. Briefly, those were the grounds on which
1302
they supported this Amendment. They wished the Amendment to be passed, because they believed that sobriety, order, and the taste of the people would be improved, by the substitution of clubs for social intercourse, and healthy, stimulating enjoyment in the place of public-houses for the sale of liquor alone.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that everybody who had listened to the speech of the hon. Member who had last spoken would agree that it was full of instruction to those who had been following the course of the Bill. He avowed that his desire was not to diminish the number of places where alcohol could be sold, or the facilities with which it could be sold, but only to substitute clubs where there was no public supervision for public-houses where there was. That general policy was consistent neither with the speeches by which the Bill had been defended by its authors and supporters nor with the support which hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had given to it.
MR. BARNESthought what he had said was perfectly consistent, if the right hon. Gentleman would remember that they had Amendments later on the Paper and were going to support others for the prevention of the abuse of clubs.
MR. A. J. BALFOURappreciated the hon. Gentleman's position, and in a certain sense he had some sympathy with him. As this discussion went on he was more and more convinced that the House was on the wrong tack in its endeavour to make the place where the population could only get alcoholic liquor intolerably inconvenient in point of accommodation and absolutely divorced from every other form of entertainment which could be obtained in clubs. Therefore in that sense he had considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. Then the hon. Gentleman told them that he greatly desired this Amendment because they could trust the stipendiary magistrate, but not the licensing magistrates; that the licensing justices were gentlemen liable to have their judgments perverted either by the desire to placate the public-householder on the one side or the teetotal faddist on the other. That, he thought, was the view of the hon. Gentleman. If that was an accurate

1303
account of the licensing justices, how on earth could the hon. Gentleman support a Bill which handed over such an enormous amount of the property of licence-holders to their unfettered control? He confessed he was puzzled beyond measure at the combination of enthusiastic support of His Majesty's Government which the hon. Gentleman had shown by his votes and the very chill approval of the Government principles which he had shown by his speech. He did not at all deny that the hon. Gentleman's position might be consistent; he might have a general coherent view of the whole problem of selling liquor in the country which might be held consistently with the support of the Bill. What was that view? It was that they should substitute in every case a club for a public-house—that every citizen of this country whom they deprived of the power of going to a public-house should have in exchange the right of going to a club. That was the hon. Gentleman's idea, and it might be a good idea, but it was wholly inconsistent with the idea that they ought to deal with the liquor trade of this country, and with the sale of liquor, in all particulars so that those who would be inclined to exceed the measure of sobriety should be precluded from so doing, and that they should be supported and assisted in their refusal to yield to temptation by policemen on the one side and by magistrates on the other. Very likely there might be something to be said for this Amendment. He did not know in the least what course the Government would take, but he did not think the speech of the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to pass without pointing out the extraordinary light it threw on the general attitude of those who said that they specially represented working men, and who, he believed, did represent working men in their clear determination that, whether in the public-house or out of the public-house, they were not to be deprived of the right which every other class of the community enjoyed, and of which he agreed it would be a monstrous thing to deprive them.
*MR. VERNEYsaid the very existence of a club when
1304
this Bill became law would depend on registration, and that was what made the clause now before the Committee very important. He entirely endorsed what was said by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars division that those who represented clubs were all asking the Government to give clubs in this matter a Court which they would respect and willingly obey. Clubs and public-houses were to be distinguished, and particularly in this respect. The licensing justices had an entirely different duty to perform from that of deciding whether a club was to be registered, or whether the registration was to be renewed. The licensing justices, he understood, had to decide only whether a public-house was necessary in a particular district, or whether the holder of a licence had committed any breach of the law or of the conditions imposed by the licence. Important as that duty was, it was entirely different from that which would, be performed by the Court which had to decide whether a club was to be registered or not, or whether the registration was to be renewed. He asked that the House should consider whether there could not be supplied from the beginning such a tribunal as would be regularly and willingly obeyed by the members of clubs. There was nothing so good in a community as a good club, and nothing such an intolerable curse as a bad club. If a working man got drunk in a club, he was a traitor to his class and to his club, because he brought down a penalty on many who were perfectly innocent, for only a small percentage of drunkenness in a club was sufficient to condemn it as an evil in the community. He had known excellent clubs which had done much to further the cause of temperance, and they would continue to do so if they were left alone. On the other hand, he had known clubs which had really become a regular curse in the district to which they belonged, not because a majority of the members were misbehaving themselves, but because a small minority dragged down the character of the club. What really determined the character of a club? There were two or three points of vital importance. There should be an excellent manager and there should also be a first rate committee.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really going far beyond the scope of the Amendment before the Committee.
*MR. VERNEYsaid his main point was that the licensing justices were for many reasons not the best tribunal to deal with the question of club registration. Some months ago a Conference was held in a Committee-room of the House at which members of clubs from many parts of the country appeared. They included the representatives of a political club in process of formation in a village in Surrey. A deputy stated that it was proposed to establish a Radical club in that village, and that in Surrey the licensing justices were all Conservatives. In that particular instance they could not expect for entirely impartial treatment in a matter which ought to be considered purely judicially. He was not saying that that was the general case. He was ready to admit that there were many magistrates who would do their best to decide on purely judicial lines, but at the same time, in view of exceptions such as he had stated, it was surely well to avoid even the shadow of partiality by providing a tribunal which would be free from any kind of political or other bias which might interfere with purely judicial action.
MR. LAMBTONsaid he would like to put a question to the hon. Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow, who had said that the licensing justices were generally actuated by prejudice or a desire for profit.
*MR. BARNES: No, Sir. I carefully guarded myself against saying anything of the kind. I said that those responsible for the management of clubs had that fear in their minds.
MR. LAMBTONsaid the hon. Gentleman expressed their feeling, evidently thinking that there was some foundation for it. He would like to ask the hon. Member why he did not vote for the Amendment of Clause 20 which gave to the licensing justices the fullest power to decide upon the property of other people, and upon the conditions to be attached to every public-house, subject to no appeal except to the Com-
1306
missioners appointed under this Bill. If they were not fit to undertake the duty of registering clubs, then he said that the hon. Member, who had supported clauses giving them more important duties, had no right to take part in this discussion.
MR. H. J. WILSONsaid he wished to state his experience in Sheffield, where he lived. The Court of Summary Jurisdiction consisted of two magistrates who might be the youngest, least experienced, and most prejudiced. On the other hand, the licensing magistrates were selected from a large number, presumably because of their experience. How did clubs expect to gain by the transfer of jurisdiction from seven selected men to two non-selected men? He was wholly unable to understand what clubs would gain by the transfer.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, in reply to the question asked by the previous speaker, that there was a totally different atmosphere in the two Courts. Petty sessions was a Court which had the feelings and traditions of a Court of justice, and for that reason the supporters of the Amendment asked that questions of this kind should be decided by a judicial tribunal. He did not want to throw any reflection on the way in which the licensing justices performed their duties. But the duties in question were not ordinary licensing duties. They were questions as to whether or not a particular state of facts existed—questions of evidence—and questions of evidence ought to be decided by a Court of justice. The Solicitor-General had put down an Amendment that the evidence should be taken on oath. Although that Amendment was good so far as it went, it was not sufficient, because it did not alter the character of the tribunal by which the evidence was to be heard. Further, the tribunal was to decide whether or not the proposed club was mainly a drinking club. That in itself did not seem to him to be a satisfactory definition. It was vague, and there would be grave danger to an apparently well-conducted workmen's club if that definition was to be adjudicated upon by a tribunal which was not a Court of law.

1307
The Government had attached great weight to the Peel Report. That Report stated that registration ought only to be refused on certain grounds after trial before a properly constituted judicial authority to which no suspicion of partiality or bias could attach. This was no question of administration or of knowing the wants of the public, and therefore the Commission did not think it should be done before the ordinary licensing authority. The authority suggested in the Report was the Recorder, or the County Court Judge, or, in Scotland, the Sheriff. The Commission recommended in fact that questions of this kind should be decided by the ordinary judicial tribunal. He asked the hon. Gentleman to give a favourable consideration to this Amendment, which had a very large body of support on that side of the House. They wanted to carry with them well-conducted and respectable clubs. That opinion had been expressed more than once on both sides of the House. And here the Government had a great opportunity for carrying this proposition into practical effect. It was notorious that the most respectable and well-conducted clubs had the strongest repugnance to come for registration before the licensing justices. He thought that that repugnance on their part ought to be respected if it could be consistently with the object of the Bill. He submitted that all the objects desired could be attained by altering the tribunal; and if altered they would also succeed in carrying with them the sympathy and support of well-conducted clubs.
MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid he endorsed the appeal which had been made to the Government to accept this Amendment. One thing which struck him very forcibly and which he recommended to the consideration of the Committee, was that they had experience to guide them and that they ought not lightly to change a tribunal which up to the present time had given satisfaction. By the Act of 1902, which they were now extending, there was power given to deal with such matters to a Court of Summary Jurisdicton. Why should they change that Court now and go out of their way to give the licensing justices, sitting as licensing
1308
justices, the power which was taken out of the hands of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction? In a Court of Summary Jurisdiction there was no difficulty, because there they had evidence taken on oath. The Act of 1902 had really worked well so far as cases which had been brought before that Court were concerned, and why should they change the Court which had been well tried and had given satisfaction hitherto in dealing with matters of this description? He asked the Government to accept the Amendment, which really involved no question of principle; it was only a matter of detail. In view of the fact that there was a general feeling amongst those concerned that they preferred to go to the Court which they knew to going to a Court they which did not know so well, he asked the Prime Minister to accede to what he believed to be the general wish.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that the hon. and learned Member had stated quite truly that there was no question of principle in this matter which they were now discussing. It was merely a matter of machinery and they were bound to regard it with a perfectly open mind. The only question in dealing with machinery was which would be the most efficient for the purpose and least objectionable to those interested and whose susceptibilities they all desired to respect. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the jurisdiction was very much extended under this Bill as compared with that under the Act of 1902. The licensing justices were selected for the purposes of this clause because of the simplicity and uniformity of the procedure in dealing with matters of that kind; and to meet the objection, which he thought was a solid one, that the licensing justices as such were an administrative body the Solicitor-General had put down an Amendment on the Paper which empowered the licensing justices to receive evidence upon oath and to grant costs. That the Government thought would have sufficiently met the objection that the proceedings should not be otherwise than of a judicial nature or subject to judicial procedure. He confessed that, upon the whole, he was very much impressed by the arguments used from all quarters of the House, and he was disposed to accept

1309
the Amendment of his hon. friend—of course in its proper form, for he did not think it was in proper form as it stood and would have to be re-cast. He did so without subscribing in any way to any reflection, expressed or implied, upon the capacity and conduct of the licensing justices, nor in accepting the Amendment was he endorsing the commentory of the hon. Member for Durham on the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow. The acceptance of the Amendment did not cast any slur or reflection on the licensing justices as to the way in which they had discharged their duties. Licensing justices in this country exercised an administrative function, in a judicial spirit and temper, of course, and he thought there was some solid and substantial ground in the contention that night that the functions they were about to entrust to them in regard to clubs were more of a judicial than administrative character, and therefore were more fit to be given to a body which would act in accordance with the ordinary laws of evidence. On the whole, he was disposed to accept the Amendment.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he greatly regretted the decision come to by the Prime Minister. The licensing magistrates for many years had done their duty well, and he maintained that the Amendment was a reflection upon them. They had placed in the hands of the licensing justices the whole complicated machinery with regard to licensed premises where large interests and thousands of pounds were involved; but now they were going to tell 900,000 members of clubs that the licensing justices were not fit and proper people to deal with the question of clubs. The licensing justices throughout the country had made a particular study of this question, but the proposal was to remove from their review and decision all matters relating to the registration of clubs, because it was said that there might be in the minds of some people a fear that they did not act fairly and justly. That was a slur which ought not to be cast on the licensing justices as a whole. Licensing justices had done more for society in seeing that clubs were properly registered than in any other work they
1310
had done. They had taken every possible step under the Acts of 1902, 1903, and 1904 to regulate clubs, but notwithstanding they had become the curse of whole districts, of the working-man and of the community generally. In the division which he represented club after club containing 2,000 registered members was struck off the register simply because gambling and betting was a constant occurrence in them. They were, however, going to say that the licensing justices were not fit and proper persons to carry out these provisions. The Majority Report of the Commission recommended that three magistrates should have authority to deal with this question, of clubs, but in point of fact the Government had not accepted one single recommendation, either of the Minority or of the Majority Report, in regard to clubs and the conditions of registration. Why had they not been accepted by the Government? The object of the Bill he understood to be to lessen the facilities for drink. The hon. Member for Glasgow had told them that he wished to see clubs spring up so long as they were a convenience to the working-man, but his object as a temperance reformer was to diminish the facilities for drink. But this Bill, instead of diminishing those facilities, gave facilities for people getting drink all night. It was simply a question of votes and nothing else. The Prime Minister talked about cant, but listening to the debates and the bidding for the brewer's vote on the one side, and for the club votes on the other, he did not know where to find honesty in public life.
SIR HENRY KIMBERsupported the Amendment. He did not cast any reflection upon the licensing authority, but there was a fear, well or ill-founded, on the part of members of clubs throughout the country that the licensing magistrates in the administrative duty of dealing with licences were not actuated by judicial instincts, and that their mode of proceeding was not that of a judicial tribunal. They imagined that the whole question of whether a licence should be granted or not, or renewed or not, was left to them as a judge and jury to be disposed of according to their own sweet will,

1311
and that they were not bound by the rules or the laws of evidence, or by questions as to the admissibility of evidence. There was this particular reason for this Amendment, that the particular act that they were now discussing, and which was to be referred to this tribunal, was one of a penal character. It was a question of cancelling a licence which was in the previous year granted to a man justly and rightly, and it was proposed that somebody or other—that anybody from anywhere—could make a complaint, whether it was well founded, or right or not, and urge it against the renewal of the licence before the licensing justices. That was a quasi-criminal charge which ought certainly to go before a legal tribunal, and one which would be guided by the rules of law and of strict evidence. He believed that this was one of the Amendments which was proposed by a highly respectable body, the Club and Institute Union, in which were represented most of the clubs of the Kingdom. He thought nothing could be said about their respectability, nor the reasonableness of their claims. They did not wish to establish drinking clubs, as they considered them their worst enemies. In his division he had half a dozen large clubs which had existed for many years, and what they said was this: "We wish to obey the law; we do not wish to turn our clubs into public-houses, and if the attempt is to be made by anybody outside to take away our right to existence, then we should prefer to go before a legal tribunal. We will abide by the law, and we will be judged by the law." But they said: "Do not put us in the hands or in the power of the licensing justices." They said they knew that in the selection of the licensing bench discrimination was made against brewers and others interested in the liquor interest, but it had always been a matter of complaint by many working-men's clubs that, on the other hand, those who had political opinions against the trade were allowed to sit on that bench without objection. He had heard it said that they would not allow brewers to be there, but they did allow brewers of soda-water and other poisonous waters to sit there without objection. These were things which
1312
were the subject of great exaggeration no doubt, but he did not think it necessary to make any reflection upon the personnel of the licensing justices in order to establish the desirability of this Amendment. He thought the true ground was stated by the Prime Minister, that the licensing justices in their procedure, their duties, and their administration were not judicial; they were not bound to proceed according to the ordinary rules of evidence or law, whereas, this being a quasi-penal proceeding, the nature of it required that it should be tried before a tribunal which was bound to proceed according to the ordinary rules of legal procedure and legal evidence.
*SIR FRANCIS CHANNINGwished to say one or two words before this Amendment was finally disposed of. He did not think the hon. Baronet opposite had quite appreciated the fact that the Government had introduced into the original proposal, the qualification of the oath and the liability to costs in cases of unreasonable proceedings. That, it seemed to him, gave quite enough of the judicial element in this matter, but he wished to express his own very deep regret at the apparent surrender of the Government of what seemed to him to be not perhaps a vital point of their scheme, but at any rate a very important point of it. He looked at it from this point of view. This was a question of local government as well as a judicial question, and it seemed to him a matter of common sense that they should appoint the same authority to deal with, clubs as dealt with the greater question of the public-houses. He did not in the least admit that there was any incongruity, or any injustice, or any unfairness, or anything which could be resented by the members of clubs in starting such machinery. On the contrary, he thought the lessons of local government must convince every thoughtful man that the same authority deliberately chosen locally and imperially should deal with the whole purview of this very important question. The licensing justices were the authority called upon to deal with public-houses and to make great reductions in their number; they were, therefore, the best authority to deal with the same evils in clubs and to check their

1313
spread. He insisted, and he pressed this point upon the Committee, that the magistrates, the authority, whatever it was, should be the same. The law had nothing whatever to do with clubs except so far as a club or its members placed themselves in the position of a public-house. The law had nothing to say-to clubs. Clubs were self-governing institution, they only came within the scope of the administrative action of whatever authority Parliament pleased to appoint when the same evils and the same errors were found in clubs as were found in public-houses. He therefore held, although it was not a matter of supreme or decisive importance, that it was more desirable that this scheme should be the original plan of the Government, and he thought they did quite enough in putting down the Amendments which gave judicial procedure to the magistrates to remove the really valid objection taken by some clubs. He had read with astonishment the language of some clubs as to the character of the licensing justices and he did not believe that those bodies, whether they were employers or were of one political colour or another, would act unjustly in administering these provisions. On these grounds he deeply regretted the course His Majesty's Government had taken.
MR. JAMES PARKERdesired on behalf of his colleagues and himself to thank the Government for accepting the Amendment. His reasons for supporting the Amendment were entirely different from those advanced by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Member wanted the licensing justices to deal with clubs and public-houses so that all these questions should be dealt with by one authority, but speaking for himself and his colleagues they were of opinion that these two institutions should be kept as severely apart as possible. They thought that the granting of a licence for this particular trade to one person was an entirely different function from the registering of an institution composed of men who met together and purchased articles from themselves. They were opposed in any way to bringing the two classes of institutions under the same control. He wished further to
1314
resent the remarks of the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division of Nottinghamshire. They were not all vote-catching with respect to this particular Bill, and he denied that the Labour Party could be accused of trimming, whatever might be their differences of opinion. They were not vote-catching in regard to clubs and public-houses. They were supporting the Bill so far as the public-house was concerned, and they were trying to make the club a bona fide club and to remove from the Bill those provisions which were un necessarily restrictive in their character and would not tend in the direction of temperance. He would help Members opposite to do anything which would do away with the vicious club, but he would do nothing that discouraged the club that was well conducted.
*MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid he did not wish to argue the case once more as the Government had already given way on it, and it was not much use crying over spilt milk. Personally, he thought the original plan of the Government was on its merits much better. When they had provided a judicial procedure the point that the justices might act in a casual way or without proper discretion, had been fully met, and there was an appeal from the justices to a Court of law, so that if there were members on the bench who could be got at by teetotal fanatics who were interested in some way he did not understand on financial grounds, appeals could have been made to a Court of law. On its merits he thought the scheme was much better, but, unfortunately, it ran counter to the opposition of a powerful body. At all events his real point on this matter was that there was a very close connection between licensing and these clubs. He thought that the central aim of this clause was a precaution to weed out the badly-conducted club, and a precaution against suppressed public-houses springing up in the guise of clubs. For that reason he attached great importance to there being unity of administration and some link between the licensing authority and the authority which was going to deal with clubs. He did not rise merely to continue the protest that had already been made, but there

1315
had been great objection taken on the ground of political prejudice. That was the real ground—the fear that on the ground of politics the justices would differentiate against Liberal and Radical clubs. He did not think they could or would. The justices of the country were not a perfect body, but he did not think they could do that. Public opinion would be far too strong for them. That point was raised in reference to Scottish clubs, and in the Scottish club law it was got over in this way. Clubs to be registered required a certificate of bona fides from two justices. Might he not ask the Government to look with a favourable eye upon an Amendment which was down in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Manchester. The hon. Member was anxious to stiffen up the provisions of the Government in reference to clubs, but he had not given much help on this particular occasion, and his anxiety to stiffen up the club clauses now conflicted somewhat with his recommendations on the Licensing Commission in 1899. Then he recommended a scheme which was much less strong than the Government scheme in many important respects, but at all events he had got down an Amendment under which no club would be registered except with a certificate of bona fides. That had been found to be of real value in weeding out badly-conducted clubs in Scotland, and he thought it would provide just that link of administration between the licensing authority and the authority which controlled the clubs. Might he therefore ask the Government, as they had thought fit to make this change, to say whether they would not look with a favourable eye upon that so that there might be some unity of administration. He did not think anybody would deny that on a bench of justices would be found at least two righteous men who would look at the matter with impartial eyes. He did not think in Scotland there had been any difficulty with any well-conducted clubs. He quite agreed that they had to differentiate between the well-managed and the ill-managed club. He hoped the Government would see their way to making that modification in this recasting of their scheme.
SIR S. EVANSsaid they were quite willing to listen to all reasonable appeals
1316
on this and all other important Amendments, and if they reached the one to which the hon. Member referred it would receive the same consideration as other Amendments had done. He only wanted to say a word or two in answer to his hon. friend who raised the protest and also to the hon. Member for Norwich. He thought the difference between the two tribunals was a little exaggerated. It really was a question more of procedure than anything else, and he thought the desire of those who had pressed the Government not only in the course of this discussion, but earlier, was to have a judicial body acting judicially as a Court of justice and not as an administrative body. They were making no comments upon the conduct of the licensing justices at all. Everybody knew that the licensing justices came from the same body of people as the justices who formed the Court of summary jurisdiction. Of course, there was also the stipendiary, whose services were required by many people when the particular clause would have to be administered, and he would remain there for that purpose. But it really was more a question of procedure. When they came to Clause 39, where they were dealing with offences which might be charged against officers of clubs, the secretary of the club would come before the Court of summary jurisdiction under that clause. The reason why licensing justices were first put in was that they tried to make the Bill as symmetrical as they could. It would not be wholly symmetrical, but it would not be wholly unsymmetrical either. They had the same body, the Court of summary jurisdiction, dealing with the whole question of clubs in many matters coming within their purview from Sections 36 to 42 inclusive. The words of the Amendment were not the proper words, but he thought the Committee understood what was meant by the mover of the Amendment, and what was considered to be the effect of it, and, therefore, they would accept these words here and substitute them also elsewhere in the clause, but they would have to be recast.
Amendment agreed to.
*MR. HERBERTmoved to amend the subsection by providing that the application for the renewal of registration must be accompanied by "an affidavit of the secretary proving that not less than one-half of the income of the club is derived from sources other than profit upon the sale of intoxicating liquors." He said the object of his Amendment was to make it necessary for the secretary of a club in making his application for registration to send in an affidavit to the effect that the income of the club did not consist, to the extent of more than onehalf, of profits upon the sale of intoxicating liquor. It was by the later provisions of the Bill to be made an objection to the registration of a club that it was used mainly as a drinking club, and that was an exceedingly indefinite expression upon which opinions might easily and would probably differ, and the result of leaving clubs subject to an indefinite condition of that sort would be that they would be subjected to great uncertainty. They would have to fight for their existence on every occasion, and, of course, they might be put to great expense in so doing. It seemed desirable, therefore, in the interests of the clubs themselves, that they should in some way or other give some clearer definition of the meaning of the words "carried on mainly as a drinking club." His object was certainly not in any way to interfere with clubs, but to help them. He agreed with every word that was said by the hon. Members for Glasgow and Halifax with regard to the position of clubs. They had defined the position of hon. Members below the gangway in regard to clubs, and in so doing they bad been entirely defining his own views. He desired in every way to forward the existence of good and respectable clubs, and he was entirely with hon. Members below the gangway in their desire in a rational way to restrict those clubs which were not of a respectable nature. The Leader of the Opposition had again and again in the course of the discussion put to them a dilemma in which he said they were. He said they desired to reduce the number of public-houses and at the same time to increase the number of clubs, where drinking was unregulated, and, therefore, he put it to
1318
them that they were hypocritical and were not really advancing a temperance measure, and that they were desiring to increase the difficulties of the control of the liquor trade. That was not a true dilemma. It was a false argument, and the answer to it was this, that the conditions under which drinking would take place in the clubs were entirely different from those under which it took place in a public-house. It must be remembered that when a man was in his club he felt he was at home. He was under no obligation to drink anything he did not want. In a club there were games, reading, and other occupations and social intercourse, and there was no one whose interest it was to force upon him drink that he did not want. When he went into the public-house in the conditions under which public-houses existed at present the case was entirely different. There was no amusement for him. He was sitting there in somebody else's house, the house of a man whose business it was to sell as much liquor as he could. The working man was a very decent fellow at bottom and showed it in this way. He did not like to feel an intruder, and when he was sitting in somebody else's house he did not like to sit there without paying his footing, and he quite appreciated that feeling. He was, therefore, made to drink more liquor in the public-house than he would be disposed to in his own club. Not only was that true in theory, but he was told by two hon. Members for Staffordshire of two very remarkable instances which happened in their constituencies. In villages in their constituencies recently clubs were opened. They had a large number of members, they were good clubs, and they found by experience that the amount of liquor consumed in those clubs did not exceed one-fifth of the amount by which the total amount of liquor in the public-houses in the villages decreased. He had asked these two hon. Members to be so good as to verify the figures, and they had not done so at present, but they told him they were satisfied that they were substantially correct. If what he stated was correct, it was a very remarkable circumstance, and ought to weigh materially in the minds of the Committee in dealing with this question; because

1319
if it was found by experience, when there was an opportunity of meeting in a social way, and of consuming alcoholic liquor, that the privilege was not abused, even when there were no unnecessary restrictions, such a fact ought very materially to influence the minds of hon. Members and it became clear that it was a fallacy to suggest that if a public-house was closed and a club opened in its place, that merely transferred the same amount of drinking from regulated to unregulated conditions. He did not desire to be bound to the exact proportion of the income he had mentioned in his Amendment. There was an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham which proposed an entirely different proportion, and it might be that the experience of hon. Members would show that the figure which the hon. Gentleman named was a better one than that which he suggested. If that were so, he would be perfectly willing that that figure should be inserted. All he desired was to have the position of the clubs clearly defined. It was very difficult to obtain the exact figures on matters of this sort. His Amendment had been under the consideration of the Working Men's Club and Institute Union, and figures had been sent to him by the secretary of that union with the object of showing that the Amendment was quite impossible. But if they looked at the figures which that Gentleman gave it would be seen they did not help in the slightest degree, because the Amendment was confined to the profits which accrued to the club from the consumption of alcoholic liquors. The secretary's figures simply gave the total amount of income received from refreshments, and if with the time and possibilities at his disposal he had not been able to give any figures which showed that his Amendment was impossible, it was not an unfair inference that the Secretary had found himself unable to put forward a club, which could be vouched as a respectable club, where more than half the funds necessary to carry it on were derived from profit on the sale of intoxicants. He had not sufficient personal experience of these working men's clubs to pin himself to the figure which he had put in
1320
his Amendment, although he should have thought that if a club obtained more than half the funds necessary to carry it on from profits on alcoholic liquor it could be fairly described as mainly a drinking club; and therefore he was perfectly willing, if it was thought that the figure given by the hon. Member for Altrincham was more reasonable, or any other suggestion was made, to accept it, for all he wished was to act in the interests of the clubs so that the matter might be made definite and clear. It must not be forgotten that, if the Committee left the words indefinite, the duty of construing them would be thrown on the Courts, and he thought it quite conceivable that the Courts would put upon the words in the Bill the construction which by his Amendment he desired Parliament to do.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 7, after the word 'justices,' to insert the words 'and such application is accompanied by an affidavit of the secretary proving that not less than one-half of the income of the club is derived from sources other than profit upon the sale of intoxicating liquors.'"—(Mr. Herbert.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Government did not think it possible to devise a hard and fast mathematical line to distinguish drinking clubs from those clubs which did not exist mainly for the consumption of alcoholic drinks. In some clubs the profits on the sale of intoxicating liquors might be exceedingly large while the subscriptions might be very moderate. A club might have a bagatelle table, a billiard table, reading-rooms, library, lectures, a football club, and subordinate institutions of all kinds, and yet with a moderate consumption of liquor the income from liquors sold might exceed the revenue from all the other sources together. A mala fide club might very easily evade a restriction of the kind proposed in the Amendment, by charging a comparatively high subscription and selling the liquors at low rates, thus encouraging drinking. Then there were cases of clubs which lived rent free. Such clubs had no reason for a large

1321
subscription, because they had a place provided for them by the employers of the workmen who formed the club. Generally a club of that sort charged a small subscription, while the charges for drink were the ordinary prices for liquors consumed on such premises. They might find two clubs exactly similar in all respects, except that one had a building provided for it by the employers of the workmen and therefore paying no rent, while the other paid rent and charged a correspondingly higher subscription. The club which paid no rent might sell no more liquor than the club which paid a rent, yet the proportion in which its profits were derived from liquor might be adduced to bring it within the scope of the Amendment, while the other club remained outside of it. These reasons, apart from others which might be adduced were, he thought, amply sufficient to convince the Committee that this was not really a desirable Amendment, and he trusted that his hon. friend would not press it.
EARL WINTERTONsaid he found himself in the most unusual and unenviable position of having to agree with the Under-Secretary and the Government. He was bound to say, if such an Amendment had been moved from that side of the House, that he was not sure the Government would not have said it was "mere obstruction." He understood the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to say that he was not an expert in the matter of the proportion of the profits of clubs derived from the sale of drink and from the sale of food. He thought the hon. Gentleman was not present when on a former occasion the profits derived from the sale of drink and other sources were given in relation to the National Liberal Club. He thought that in that case, as, of course, in others as well, as much as two-thirds of the profits were derived from the sale of intoxicating drink. He agreed with the Under-Secretary for the Home Department that it was impossible to draw a hard and fast line. It would be grossly unfair, and he believed, as he had said, that if such an Amendment had been proposed on that side of the House it would have been described as obstructive.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMsaid that when the noble Lord agreed with the Government it was time to say: "I wonder where we are." He would not say a word against well-conducted clubs, where they were to be found. The Labour Party were willing to do all they could to protect proper working men's clubs, but three-fourths of the clubs were known to be purely drinking dens where all kinds of evil existed. Some of the Labour Party had had occasion to mark those clubs which had degenerated into places for the sale of liquor. Clubs had arisen in his part of the country which attracted men who used to go to the Sunday school and the Lord's house on the Sabbath. He knew valleys where men spent the peaceful Sabbath in these clubs. If he had command of the English tongue like some members of the Opposition, he could depict the difference on the Sabbath between the picture of the village where there were no clubs for many years, and the picture now to be seen since clubs came with their evils. In Wales they had been receiving the blessings of the Sunday Closing Act for many years, seeing the people becoming sober, as it were, by law. It was said that they could not make people sober by Act of Parliament, but by law they could remove the temptations which the clubs had brought into their valleys. In the Rhondda Valley on the Lord's Day, before clubs were established, the scene was one of peace, but since their advent there had been a direct increase of the evils which they brought in their train. They could not expect people to say much for the clubs as they were conducted in South Wales where they were a curse. He called upon the Government to do what they could to suppress these drinking dens, and to see that they did not get more liberties than they had already. He was a teacher in a Sunday school and was proud of the fact, and he had found that men who used to come to that Sunday school before these clubs were opened had been lost. Could he have but the eloquence of an angel he would expend it all in trying to persuade hon. Members to do all that was possible to end what was a curse to the country.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid he did not question the

1323
sincerity of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, because he did so in a very eloquent manner, which they expected from him, but he could not say that he agreed to the proposition put forward by him. He thought everyone would agree that it was obvious that if this Amendment were incorporated in the Bill it would mean the closing of a great many workingmen's clubs. He did not say that in any spirit of disparagement of the working men's clubs, but they knew perfectly well that many of these clubs had a very small subscription; it was of importance that they should have a small subscription so as to get as many members as possible, and it was very obvious that half of the profits of these clubs were derived from the sale alcohol to members. This was not a controversial matter in any sense of the word. They were all interested in clubs, and they had to recognise—and he thought they all welcomed that movement—that there was a great extension of club life in the country. It was true that there were clubs and clubs, and that a great many clubs had been formed owing to the repressive and restrictive legislation put forward by the Government, and that drinking had been indulged in in that way. The last speaker had referred to Sunday closing in Wales, and he (Lord Castlereagh) quite agreed that owing to Sunday closing in Wales a great many of those who looked to Sundays for drinking purposes had been driven into clubs for the purpose of satisfying those demands. It was not his idea of the extension of club life, and he could not believe that such clubs did any good whatsoever. He was convinced that if this Amendment was incorporated in the Bill, it would have the effect of closing a great many working men's clubs, and he was sure that if they were closed—he did not care on which side of politics they were—it would do a great deal of harm to the life of the working men of the country. He opposed the Amendment.
MR. CROSSLEYsaid that as he had an Amendment on the Paper somewhat similar in character to that before the House,
1324
he might perhaps be allowed to say a few words upon this subject. He was trying to find out some automatic way of showing whether clubs were mere drinking clubs or properly conducted clubs. He thought if an annual balance sheet, properly audited by an accountant, showing what proportion of the club's revenue was obtained from liquor, and what was obtained from other sources, were submitted to the licensing justices they would be able to see from that sheet whether the club made its way merely through the sale of drink, or otherwise, and could act accordingly. He was afraid that many of these clubs would develop into mere drinking dens, and if by any ingenuity they could find out some way of seeing whether a club was going right or wrong it would be welcomed by the working men. He believed in club life; very often it was a question of the "tail wagging the dog." If respectable working men said that drinking was on the increase, and that the club was no longer as useful as it had been they would leave it and go somewhere else, and the club would go from bad to worse. They would much rather stay away than fight their own officials. Therefore some rule should be made showing automatically whether a club was going right or wrong. He believed that many drinking clubs existed. He had the greatest horror of licensing these clubs himself. A friend of his reported to him a visit he made to one of these clubs. The visit was paid on a Monday morning. He found every department full and all the people drinking. In the theatre, a woman, with very little attire, was singing an abominable song, and fourteen waiters were serving drink. That was in the morning before one o'clock.
AN HON. MEMBER: Bank-holiday?
MR. CROSSLEY: No. The president of the club was drunk, and was threatening vengeance on any Government that threatened to interfere with clubs. While they knew that there were clubs that were doing more harm than public-houses they must admit that there were many good and well-managed ones. They really wanted to see restrictions on bad clubs. In Manchester the drunkenness

1325
caused by clubs was considerable. Between the hours of 12 and 3 a.m., after all those ejected from the public-houses had in all probability got home, the arrests for drunkenness were very numerous, and those cases of drunkenness were attributed by the police to the clubs. He supported the Amendment.
*MR. BARNARDsaid nobody wanted to interfere with bona fide clubs; they aimed at something quite different. Whilst this Amendment went in the right direction he was not quite certain that it was the best that could be selected out of those on the Paper, for dealing with this matter. He should have preferred, though he did not think it was quite perfect, the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle as being more likely to obtain what was desired, because it was perfectly clear that unless the conditions expressed in the Bill were specific and precise it would be easy to go behind them and defeat their object. Although they all had ideas in regard to tied clubs, it was almost impossible to prevent them. There was no legal claim on a man who betted and did not pay, but the bookmaker usually found it worth while to take the risk, and it might be worth while for a person who could not get a tie to take the risk of loaning out the money without such tie, knowing perfectly well that the debt would carry the tie with it. He thought that if the Government accepted the idea contained in this Amendment, and others dealing with this subject, and took the matter in hand, they could put something down to deal with this question on the Report stage, which would largely commend itself to the majority of the Members of the House. Under the present Bill if licensed houses were decreased by 30,000 out of 90,000, the proportionate increase of clubs would be much larger than it had been in the past. That was why he hoped the Government would make the clauses governing and controlling clubs more stringent.
MR. HERBERTasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. NUSSEYmoved an Amendment to provide that an applica-
1326
tion should be accompanied by the names and addresses of the members and any additions to or removals therefrom made within twenty days of the date of the application for the renewal of registration. The Amendment was not moved, he said, in a hostile spirit to the Bill or to the ordinary well-conducted club. He had always had the greatest sympathy with the club movement, and had done all he could to encourage well-conducted clubs, not only in his constituency, but elsewhere. But however desirable it was to be a member of a well-conducted club, it was certainly undesirable to be a member of a bogus club. The Amendment was aimed against bogus clubs, because at present magistrates had no information regarding these at their disposal. The difficulty at present in regard to bogus clubs was to find out who were the members, where they lived, whether they were respectable members of society or known to the police, whether they had any convictions recorded against them, or whether they were sufficient in number to form a club. It seemed to him it was desirable that such information should be obtained before granting a licence, and all that information could be got within the four corners of his Amendment. He was informed that there was a similar provision in the Scottish Act which had been found of great assistance in the administration of the Act and had led to a great number of clubs being turned off the register. He did not think his Amendment could be called inquisitorial. The secretary of a club, in applying for a licence, had to sign a document declaring that he had a list of the names and addresses of all the members of the club, and this Amendment would only be asking him to produce it in Court. Under the present law he knew of no power which would compel the secretary to produce that list of members unless the club was not being properly conducted. He did not think there was any fear that the licensing justices or the Court empowered to grant licences would act in other than an impartial manner. Their duty would be more of an administrative than a judicial character. The licensing justices would act impartially, and they would have no object in view except to establish bona fide clubs. He asked the

1327
Government to give this Amendment favourable consideration, and he moved it on the ground that it would strike a serious blow at the formation of bogus clubs and would not hinder in the least the carrying on of bona fide working-men's clubs.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 8, after the words 'application,' to insert the words 'upon being furnished with the names and addresses of the members and any additions to or removals therefrom made within twenty days of the date of the application for the renewal of registration.'"—(Mr. Nussey.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR S. EVANShoped that his hon. and learned friend would not press this Amendment becuse it was impossible for the Government to accept it. Even if it was adopted it would not carry out the intention of the hon. Gentleman. Such a register would only set forth the names and addresses of members of such a club at a particular date. There would be no information regarding these during the remainder of the twelve months. With the object of the hon. Member to put down bogus clubs they all agreed, but the Amendment would go further and enable people to inquire into the affairs not only of the club, but of the members as well. That was not a proper thing to allow. Already, under the Act of 1902, provision was made for the secretary of a club making an annual return to the clerk of justices showing that a register of the names of members and a record of their subscriptions was kept. For those reasons the Government were quite unable to accept the Amendment.
*MR. SUMMERBELLthought the anxiety with regard to workmen's clubs was being carried a little too far in this Amendment, and he hoped the Committee would reject it. A good deal had been said in the debate about working-men's clubs. For a great many years they had clubs in this country and he was a little surprised that some hon. Members had painted such black pictures about the way they were carried on. [Cries of "No, no."] At
1328
any rate the hon. Member for Manchester had done so.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid he did not confine his remarks to working-men's clubs, and he made no such suggestion.
*MR. SUMMERBELLsaid that at any rate many of the remarks were applied to workmen's clubs and not to political clubs which had been a long time in existence. What happened in many political clubs? Evils were to be found there. Young men were to be found drinking, playing cards, and gambling. The anxiety of hon. Members regarding working-men's clubs had been a little bit overdrawn. He was a member of a working-men's club and hon. Members could go there any time and they would not see a woman there and no women were allowed there. That rule applied to a large number of working-men's clubs. There might be bad clubs, but let not the Committee have a general condemnation of all working-men's clubs on that account. He asked hon. Members to show a little more fair play in their criticisms so far as bonafide working-men's clubs were concerned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR S. EVANSformally moved to substitute for the words "licensing justices" in subsection (2) of the clause the words "local stipendiary magistrate or local Court of Summary Jurisdiction."
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 9, to leave out the words 'licensing justices' and insert the words 'local stipendiary magistrate or local Court of Summary Jurisdiction.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYmoved to leave out subsection (3). He said this was a new provision, the meaning of which he really did not know. Did it mean that if from inadvertence someone had failed to make an application for registration within the specified time, a club might be struck off the register? It seemed to him that it would be a very severe penalty to impose for the neglect of a

1329
secretary that the club should be automatically struck off the register.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 11, to leave out subsection (3)."—(Viscount Helmsley.)
Question proposed, "That the subsection stand part of the clause."
SIR S. EVANSsaid it was unnecessary for him to discuss the policy of this subsection. As had been pointed out, it was possible that there might be inadvertence on the part of someone in failing to apply for registration within the time specified, and that the club might thereby be subjected to penalties. He had no great objection to add words which would allow the Court to decide whether the neglect to apply was due to inadvertence or something of that kind.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYexpressed himself Satisfied with the promise given by the Solicitor-General, and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR S. EVANSmoved to add at the end of the subsection the words "unless the Court is satisfied that the application was not made owing to inadvertence."
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 14, at end, to add the words 'unless the Court is satisfied that the application was not made owing to inadvertence.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the Amendment would give unlimited time for making the application. He suggested that the hon. and learned Gentleman should limit the time for making the application to a period of three months from the expiration of the year.
SIR S. EVANSsaid an application for renewal must be made in the month of January. This Amendment only dealt with a particular matter, and the application could not be made at
1330
any time after the expiration of the year.
EARL WINTERTONsaid it was most undesirable that the time should be limited. If a secretary through inadvertence failed to apply for renewal, he should be afforded every opportunity of rectifying his mistake.
MR. SIMONsaid the clause as printed provided that unless an application for renewal was made during the first twenty days of January the club would cease to be registered. The result of the Amendment would be that the club would be liable in penalties for selling liquor unless the Court was satisfied that the application was not made owing to inadvertence. He doubted very much whether the form of words which the Solicitor-General had proposed would have the effect intended. The secretary of a club might satisfy a midsummer Court that the application was not made owing to inadvertence, but did that mean that a prosecution for something that had happened in February was to be automatically cancelled, or were words to be put in to make the subsection retrospective?
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid a prosecution might take place in the interim, and, therefore, something should be done to protect the club from the penalties which might be imposed for the illicit sale of drink owing to the inadvertent omission to have the registration renewed. He suggested that the Solicitor-General should take time to consider the form of the Amendment.
SIR S. EVANS: I have taken the words from the Scottish Act.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Committee should be quite certain what they were doing. The lawyers who had spoken had contradicted each other. As the matter stood he did not understand what the intention of the Amendment was.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the object they had in view was to save clubs from the penalties

1331
which otherwise would fall upon them for neglect by inadvertence to apply in the specified time for renewal of registration.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. EVELYN CECILmoved to leave out subsection (4). He wished to know whether this subsection, if retained in the clause, would not require some modification in view of the Amendment which had just been made on the previous subsection.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 15, to leave out subsection (4)."—(Mr. Evelyn Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'the' in line 15 stand part of the subsection."
MR. GRETTONsaid that fourteen days were allowed for lodging objections after publication of the notice that an application had been made for the registration or the renewal of the registration of a club. In a case where an application had been delayed owing to inadvertence would the time for lodging objections be fourteen days from 21st January, or fourteen days from the time the application was made? If objections could be lodged later than fourteen days from 21st January, how was notice to be given of the application?
SIR S. EVANSsaid that if the Court came to the conclusion that the application was delayed owing to inadvertence, all the proceedings which now followed in the ordinary course would be followed in such a case.
Amendment negatived.
SIR S. EVANSmoved a consequential Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 15, to leave out the words 'licensing justices,' and to insert the word 'court.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid he wished to move an Amendment with the object of making the Bill more bona fide, and
1332
more stringent with regard to clubs. The Amendment provided that an application for a club certificate should be accompanied by a certificate, signed by two justices having jurisdiction in the place where the premises in respect of which the application is made are situated, that to the best of their knowledge and belief the club for which application for registration is made is to be, and in the case of an existing club has been and is to be, conducted as a bona fide club, and not mainly for the supply of intoxicating liquor. He insisted that this Amendment was not at all factious, but would only ensure the registration of bona fide clubs, and eliminate from the register those which were nothing more than drinking clubs. He suggested that any club that was unable to get from two justices of the peace in the division in which the club was situated, a certificate that from their own knowledge it was a bona fide club, must be in a very poor way. Clubs had very largely increased of late, and any workmen's club which was either political or social, or anything but a drinking club, could easily get two magistrates to certify that. The Amendment was taken textually from the Scottish Licensing Act of 1903, passed by his own party, and if the promoters and committees of clubs in Scotland were able to get that certificate, he did not see why similar persons could not get exactly the same certificate from two magistrates in England. He therefore appealed to all Members who really desired to strengthen bona fide clubs to support his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 17, after the word 'purpose,' to insert the words 'accompanied by a certificate, signed by two justices having jurisdiction in the place where the premises in respect of which the application is made are situated, that to the best of their knowledge and belief the club for which application for registration is made is to be, and, in the case of an existing club, has been and is to be, conducted as a bona fide club and not mainly for the supply of intoxicating liquor.'"—(Mr. Joynson-Hicks.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he hardly thought that

1333
the hon. Gentleman was in earnest in proposing this Amendment. It was an insult to clubs and an innovation. How was it possible for any two magistrates to know enough about a large number of clubs to be able to grant a certificate, and to become responsible for the conditions which his hon. friend desired? It was an utterly impracticable suggestion. He supposed that if the two magistrates did not grant the certificate the club would cease to exist or the registration would not be renewed.
MR. J. W. WILSONappealed to the Government carefully to consider whether they could not accept the Amendment. It seemed to meet the case when the jurisdiction with regard to clubs had been taken away from the majority of the justices in consequence of the suggestion that they might use their power in a manner not to merit the confidence of all sections of the community. The object of the Committee, he took it, was to prevent a confiscated licence being turned at once into a club, where liquors were consumed, and it seemed to him that a certificate of two justices was a very small thing to ask. He could not but think that it would be a distinct gain to the Court which had to decide these cases and would produce confidence.
MR. LAMBTONsaid that the Amendment was quite contrary to the subsection which had already been passed. The Committee having decided that the licensing justices should not be admitted on this matter, because there was some suspicion in regard to the majority of them, it would be absurd now to put it into the power of two justices only to say whether the certificate should be granted. He hoped the Government would reject the proposal.
*MR. REESsubmitted that this Amendment was a superfluity of naughtiness. If it was to apply to previously existing clubs, how absurd it was that clubs of long standing and acknowledged respectability were to require a certificate of this sort from justices who possibly were not suitable persons to speak of their character. It was not the intention of the Bill to
1334
create a new heaven and earth, but to encourage the institution of respectable clubs and provide safeguards for them, and to discourage clubs of an opposite character. It was quite a common thing in a small town to have both a Liberal and a Conservative club, and he thought a section like this by which the renewal of the registration of a Conservative club depended on a certificate of character from two Liberal justices, or vice versa, might lead to abuses and ill-feeling. He hoped the Government would be content with the section into which a good Amendment had already been imported and would not accept this Amendment from the opposite side, which was at the moment over-riding the temperance horse.
*MR. CHARLES ROBERTSdesired to support what had been said by the hon. Member for North-West Manchester, but he wished he would make it go a little further, because the Scottish Act provided not merely for a certificate on the original application for registration but on the annual renewal. He did not see why the hon. Member for North-West Manchester should fall below the high standard which his own party had already set up. It had been said that what the Amendment provided for would be inconsistent with the tribunal already set up, but he would point out that the Scottish Act, which was the work of the Unionist Government, set up a judicial tribunal, the Sheriff Court. He thought that the provision was a really valuable one, and that it would be always possible to get two justices who would be really fair in granting a certificate. For that reason he appealed to the Government to give this extra power. In all quarters of the House they had been asked to distinguish between bona fide and bogus drinking clubs. Let the Committee take this further practical step to differentiate between them.
SIR GILBERT PARKERdid not think it necessary to multiply certificates of character in order to obtain general security against abuses. It might be necessary in Scotland, but he did not think it was so in England. The Government had already provided

1335
adequate security against bogus clubs by inspection and for objections being lodged against particular clubs. He did not think it was necessary with a club any more than with a private person to ask for a certificate of character every time an application was made for registration. When dealing with such questions they ought to bring to bear upon them their present judgment and not the past judgment of any Government. The Amendment was unnecessary; what was more, it was unreasonable, and he could not support it. If it was unreasonable in the case of private persons it was more unreasonable in regard to a club, where there was an accumulation of people who ought to be supposed to be of unobjectionable character until objection was raised to them. This appeared to him to be a most unreasonable Amendment, and he was sorry to say he could not vote with his hon. friend for it.
MR. MARKHAMsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had described this as a most unreasonable Amendment, but if he would go through Hansard, the hon. Gentleman would find that in 1903 he supported this very Amendment, in a Bill brought in by a Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley was then sitting on the Treasury bench and was a party to the measure which applied this provision to Scotland. He lived among the working classes and claimed to have as much knowledge of them as hon. Gentlemen below the gangway opposite, who were always speaking on their behalf in the House. As to the restriction of clubs, he had himself established three clubs, and was establishing another one at the present moment, so that he was the last man to stand up in the House and advocate that clubs should be closed, but he did say that there was no more intolerable evil than the drinking and gambling clubs that prevailed in the district in which he lived. The Amendment was surely a most reasonable one, and was not of the unreasonable character described by hon. Members opposite, who had themselves been party to this particular provision. There was not a Petty Sessional Division in England or Wales where there were not two magistrates who knew whether a club was
1336
being used as a bogus club or whether it was a genuine club established and carried on according to law. There were in every licensing district throughout the kingdom two magistrates who would be able of their own knowledge to certify whether a club within their particular licensing area was used for the purpose of a drinking club or a bona fide club for the comfort and convenience of the people using it. What was the character of the club which would be dealt with by the Amendment? If hon. Members would refer to the Report of the Royal Commission they would find, not only in the minutes of evidence but in the recommendations of both the Minority and Majority Reports, evidence to show that numerous clubs were started in various parts of the country and run for the profit of individuals. That had happened in his part of the country. The local magistrates were, after all, the best men to judge between bona fide and bogus clubs, and, in his opinion, when an application for registration was made, it should be made to the people who had the power to deal with public-houses. If the Government accepted this Amendment, founded on the Scottish Act, under which two magistrates only had to give their certificate in their own licensing area that a club was a bona fide club and not a bogus club, that would cover the Amendments which he himself had placed on the Paper. Owing to the gag, which had been thrust down their throats, however, the Committee would be unable to discuss many important Amendments. [OPPOSITION cries of "You voted for it."] He did not vote for it. The whole of this thing was a farce. The party on the other side were bidding for the publicans' votes, the party on his side were bidding for the club votes, and between the two the cause of temperance went to the wall for the sake of political considerations.
*MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid he should support this Amendment with the greatest amount of pleasure, if it would carry out the declared intention of the mover, but in his opinion it would do the exact opposite. He was therefore sorry that he could not agree in this respect with his hon. friend, the Member for Lincoln. First of all, what did the Amendment say? It

1337
said that two justices should give a certificate to the best of their knowledge and belief that—
"The club for which application for registration is made, is to be, and in the case of an existing club has been and is to be, conducted as a bona fide club and not mainly for the supply of intoxicating liquor."
They had to say that a club not already in existence was to be conducted in good faith. What two magistrates were able to say from their knowledge that a club was going to be conducted in good faith? They would therefore have a certificate which was absolutely worthless, although it would be given from good intentions. Supposing it was going to be a political club? Supposing it was going to be a Conservative club? All that was required was to go to two Conservative magistrates and they would give the certificate. The same thing would happen if it was going to be a Liberal club; two Liberal magistrates would sign it. And he was bound to confess the same thing would happen if it was going to be a Labour club: two Labour magistrates would sign. As regarded existing clubs it was not stated that the certificate was going to carry any guarantee that the magistrates signing it had inquired into the circumstances of the case. Therefore the certificate would be got much too easily to carry any value, and when it was obtained it would be taken to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and then it would be treated by that Court—as it had to be treated—as prima facie evidence that the club was good. If the certificate was required, then he submitted that it was required for the only purpose for which it could be required, viz., as prima facie proof that the club was good. That was all right if they made it carry a guarantee that the circumstances of the club had been inquired into, but the effect of the Amendment as it stood would really be to shelter bogus clubs much more than it would deter them.
SIR S. EVANSsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment, although they were entirely in sympathy with those who thought it would do some good and would prevent the granting of certificates to bogus clubs or prevent renewals to bogus clubs. But he must tell the Committee that the Amendment would have no effect of that kind,
1338
and it was quite possible that it would have just the contrary effect. Supposing the applicant went to magistrates who had no knowledge of the locality or the rules of the club but who to their best knowledge and belief thought the club was going to be conducted as a bona fide club—supposing they were wrong in that belief, what happened? The club held a certificate of two justices practically in favour of opening the club. But the application for opening the club must be made to two other justices, and they would by this Amendment fetter them, and make it difficult for them to overrule that certificate. The Amendment was quite unnecessary and might be mischievous. In the case of a bona fide club it would be mischievous if they could not get the certificate of two justices, because it would prevent an application to the proper tribunal. On the other hand, if it was not mischievous it was absolutely useless, because if it did not fetter the justices it had no effect at all in regard to clubs about to be established. If the Amendment meant anything at all, it applied, not only to clubs about to be established, but also to clubs already established, and therefore, applied to the renewal of a licence. Again, in the case of existing clubs, and there were hundreds of bona fide clubs in existence, it would be absurd to have a certificate of this character. It would be a work of complete supererogation to say to those people that before they could get a certificate they must ask two of their members to say that the club was well-conducted. He thought he had said enough to convince those who had supported the Government in this Bill that they ought to support them in this. They were dealing with a clause which affected clubs which were not registered. It began—
"The clerk to the licensing justices shall not register any unregistered club except on an application made by the secretary for the purpose."
And then came this Amendment—
"Accompanied by a certificate signed by two justices,"
and so forth. Upon its merits, even if couched in the proper phraseology, which it was not, the Amendment ought to be refused.
MR. WALTER LONGagreed with, the learned Solicitor-General in the view he took in regard to this Amendment. But he desired to express the sincere sympathy of the Opposition for the hon. Members for Lincoln and Mansfield at the position in which they found themselves at the conclusion of this debate. The hon. Member for Lincoln had made a most touching appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment in order that something might be done. The hon. Member was forced in the depths of his agony to admit that the only practical suggestion for dealing with clubs came from the Opposition side of the House, and he wanted the Government to do something which would have a real effect upon bogus clubs. He agreed that the Amendment was one which could not possibly be accepted, and he hoped his hon. friend behind him would not press it. It proposed to throw upon two magistrates a duty which they could not possibly perform. The hon. Member for Mansfield finished completely and artistically the picture the hon. Member for Lincoln had commenced. He had told the Committee that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were angling for the publicans' votes They were not ashamed, if the Government attempted to deprive the publicans and the owners of breweries of their property, to say that on those benches would be found advocates to stand up for their interests; but the Government were now told by one of their own supporters that this Bill was framed to secure the votes of those interested in clubs, and between the two parties temperance fell to the ground. If there were two contending parties, he was prepared to believe that they on that side were fighting for votes they already possessed, whereas the Government were fighting for what they had not got, and, therefore, the condemnation in respect of angling for votes came from one of the Government's own supporters. He agreed that this was one of the most important clauses in the Bill, and if temperance by the stamping out of illegitimate and illegal traffic in drink
was the real object of the Government they would have allowed further time for the discussion of the club question.
SIR S. EVANSpointed out they were only taking one clause that day, and had allotted three days to the clubs.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that this was the vital and most important clause, and the debate upon it ought not to have been limited to one day. It should have taken three or four. The Government did not pretend, and had not pretended, that they were dealing with the question in an effective way, and their condemnation, in its most eloquent terms, came not from the Opposition, but from their own supporters.
MR. W. R. REAstated that the Amendment expressed a feeling strongly held by a considerable body of opinion in the House. They felt it necessary that something should be done to stiffen up these provisions, not so much in regard to existing clubs but to prevent the rapid growth of bogus clubs in the future.
MR. MARKHAMpointed out that the Member for Spen Valley wrote a special Memorandum which was attached to the Report of the Royal Commission. In the Report which he signed certain recommendations were made in regard to the management of clubs, but not a single one had found its way into the Bill or been accepted by the Government. In that Memorandum, the right hon. Gentleman said that ultimately the sale of drink in clubs would have to be more stringently dealt with than in the Report of the Royal Commission. In those circumstances he asked the right hon. Member how he could reconcile that statement with his approval of the action of the Government.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKShoped that members of the Ministerial Party who took the view that the Government were not going far enough would vote for the Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 24; Noes, 370. (Division List No. 327.)

AYES.

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

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Craik, Sir Henry

Baldwin, Stanley

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Fell, Arthur

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

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

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

Percy, Earl

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerest, N.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Joynson-Hicks and Mr.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Markham.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Maclean, Donald

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

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Acland, Francis Dyke

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Agnew, George William

Clough, William

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Clynes, J. R.

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Alden, Percy

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gulland, John W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hall, Frederick

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Armitage, R.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Ashley, W. W.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Asquith, R. Hon. Herbert Henry

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

Astbury, John Meir

Crooks, William

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Crosfield, A. H.

Hart-Davies, T.

Balcarres, Lord

Cross, Alexander

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crossley, William J.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Curran, Peter Francis

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dalmeny, Lord

Haworth, Arthur A.

Barker, John

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Helme, Norval Watson

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Helmsley, Viscount

Barnard, E. B.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Barnes, G. N.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Henry, Charles S.

Beale, W. P.

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

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Dobson, Thomas W.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Beck, A. Cecil

Doughty, Sir George

Higham, John Sharp

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Duckworth, James

Hill, Sir Clement

Bell, Richard

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Hills, J. W.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Hobart, Sir Robert

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Hodge, John

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustime

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Black, Arthur W.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Holt, Richard Durning

Boulton, A. C. F.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Hooper, A. G.

Bowerman, C. W.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Horniman, Emslie John

Bowles, G. Stewart

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Brace, William

Erskine, David C.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Bramsdon, T. A.

Essex, R. W.

Hudson, Walter

Branch, James

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Hunt, Rowland

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Everett, R. Lacey

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Brigg, John

Faber, George Denison (York)

Hyde, Clarendon

Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Brodie, H. C.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

Fenwick, Charles

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Bryce, J. Annan

Ferens, T. R.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Bull, Sir William James

Findlay, Alexander

Jowett, F. W.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fletcher, J. S.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Byles, William Pollard

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Kekewich, Sir George

Cameron, Robert

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Kelley, George D.

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Carlile, E. Hildred

Fullerton, Hugh

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gardner, Ernest

Laidlaw, Robert

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Cave, George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Lambert, George

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Gill, A. H.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Lamont, Norman

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Glendinning, R. G.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Glover, Thomas

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peekham)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

1342

1343

Levy, Sir Maurice

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Steadman, W. C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Pollard, Dr.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Summerbell, T.

Lupton, Arnold

Radford, G. H.

Sutherland, J. E.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rainy, A. Rolland

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lynch, H. B.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rees, J. D.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Remnant, James Farquharson

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Markarness, Frederic C.

Renton, Leslie

Thomasson, Franklin

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Renwick, George

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

M'Arthur, Charles

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

M'Callum, John M.

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

M'Crae, Sir George

Richardson, A.

Thornton, Percy M.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Ridsdale, E. A.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Verney, F. W.

M'Micking, Major G.

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Vivian, Henry

Maddison, Frederick

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Robinson, S.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Walsh, Stephen

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Walters, John Tudor

Marnham, F. J.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Walton, Joseph

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Massie, J.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rose, Charles Day

Wardle, George J.

Menzies, Walter

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wason, Dt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Micklem, Nathaniel

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Middlebrook, William

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Watt, Henry A.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Whitbread, Howard

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Montgomery, H. G.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

White, Tuke (York, E. R.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Whitehead, Rowland

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Wiles, Thomas

Myer, Horatio

Seaverns, J. H.

Wilkie, Alexander

Napier, T. B.

Seddon, J.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Seely, Colonel

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Nicholls, George

Shackleton, David James

Williamson, A.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Nield, Herbert

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Simon, John Allsebrook

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

Nuttall, Harry

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Winfrey, R.

O'Grady, J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wodehouse, Lord

Parker, James (Halifax)

Snowden, P.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Partington, Oswald

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Paulton, James Mellor

Soares, Ernest J.

Young, Samuel

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Stanger, H. Y.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

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

Stanier, Beville

Joseph Pease and Master of

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Elibank.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Starkey, John R.

And, it being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded this day.
Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 317; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 328.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Acland, Francis Dyke

Agnew, George William

Alden, Percy

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Laidlaw, Robert

Armitage, R.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lambert, George

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Erskine, David C.

Lamont, Norman

Astbury, John Meir

Essex, R. W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Everett, R. Lacey

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Fenwick, Charles

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Barker, John

Ferens, T. R.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lewis, John Herbert

Barnard, E. B.

Findlay, Alexander

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Barnes, G. N.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lupton, Arnold

Beale, W. P.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Fullerton, Hugh

Lynch, H. B.

Beck, A. Cecil

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Bell, Richard

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bellairs, Carlyon

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

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

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Glendinning, R. G.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Glover, Thomas

Maclean, Donald

Black, Arthur W.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Bowerman, C. W.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Callum, John M.

Brace, Wiliam

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Crae, Sir George

Bramsdon, T. A.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Branch, James

Gulland, John W.

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

Brigg, John

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

M'Micking, Major G.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Maddison, Frederick

Brodie, H. C.

Hall, Frederick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Bryce, J. Annan

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Marnham, F. J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Massie, J.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hart-Davies, T.

Menzies, Walter

Byles, William Pollard

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cameron, Robert

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

Middlebrook, William

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cave, George

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Haworth, Arthur A.

Montgomery, H. G.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.

Helme, Norval Watson

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morrell, Philip

Cheetham, John Frederick

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Henry, Charles S.

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

Clough, William

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Myer, Horatio

Clynes, J. R.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Napier, T. B.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Higham, John Sharp

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nicholls, George

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

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hodge, John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Holt, Richard Durning

Nuttall, Harry

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hooper, A. G.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

O'Grady, J.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Horniman, Emslie John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Crooks, William

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Partington, Oswald

Crosfield, A. H.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Paulton, James Mellor

Cross, Alexander

Hudson, Walter

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Crossley, William J.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Curran, Peter Francis

Hyde, Clarendon

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

Dalmeny, Lord

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Pollard, Dr.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

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

Jowett, F. W.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Joynson-Hicks, William

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

Duckworth, James

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Radford, G. H.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Kekewich, Sir George

Rainy, A. Rolland

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Kelley, George D.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

1346

1347

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpt'n

Rees, J. D.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wardle, George J.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

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

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Richardson, A.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Waterlow, D. S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Snowden, P.

Watt, Henry A.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Soares, Ernest J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Spicer, Sir Albert

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Stanger, H. Y.

Whitehead, Rowland

Robinson, S.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Steadman, W. C.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wiles, Thomas

Roe, Sir Thomas

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wilkie, Alexander

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Rose, Charles Day

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Summerbell, T.

Williamson, A.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Sutherland, J. E.

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

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

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

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Thomasson, Franklin

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

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

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

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Seaverns, J. H.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Winfrey, R.

Seddon, J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wodehouse, Lord

Seely, Colonel

Verney, F. W.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Shackleton, David James

Vivian, Henry

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

Walsh, Stephen

Joseph Pease and Master

Sherwell, Arthur James

Walton, Joseph

of Elibank.

NOES.

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

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

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fardell, Sir T. George

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, W. W.

Fletcher, J. S.

Percy, Earl

Balcarres, Lord

Gardner, Ernest

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Baldwin, Stanley

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Renton, Leslie

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Renwick, George

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks-

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Stanier, Beville

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Starkey, John R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills, J. W.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staft'sh.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bull, Sir William James

Hunt, Rowland

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

Keswick, William

Thornton, Percy M.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kimber, Sir Henry

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Clive, Percy Archer

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

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

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Winterton, Earl

Courthope, G. Loyd

M'Arthur, Charles

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Young, Samuel

Craik, Sir Henry

Markham, Arthur Basil

Doughty, Sir George

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Samuel Roberts and Mr.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Salter.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morpeth, Viscount

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st July,
1348
adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at six minutes before Eleven o'clock.

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns showing that Frederick Oliver Baron Ashtown, and Arthur Kenlis Baron Farnham, had received an equal number of votes in the recent election of a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Earl of Rosse, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto; delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, the Act of Union prescribes that whenever by reason of an equality of votes in the election of a Lord Temporal of Ireland to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom the complete election shall not be made, the names of those Peers for whom such equality of votes shall have been so given shall be written on separate pieces of paper, and put into a glass by the Clerk of the Paliaments at the Table of the House of Lords while the House is sitting, and the Peer whose name shall be first drawn by the Clerk of the Parliaments shall be deemed to be elected. That describes the procedure which will now be followed.
Then in pursuance of the provisions of 39 and 40 Geo. III. c. 67, the names of the said Peers were written on pieces of paper of a similar form and put into a glass by the Clerk of the Parliaments, and the name of the Lord Ashtown having been first drawn out by the Clerk of the Parliaments, he was declared to be duly elected.

PETITION.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition for amendment of; of the provost, magistrates, and councillors of the Royal Burgh of Forres; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1894 TO 1906.
  Return of all British and Foreign ships ordered by the Board of Trade, or its
  1130
  officers, during the period from 1st July, 1907, to 30th June, 1908, to be provisionally detained as unsafe. (In continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 3678.])

  Report of the London Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade.

  CHECKING OF PIECE-WORK WAGES IN DOCK LABOUR (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Report of the Departmental Committee on the checking of piece-work wages in dock labour; Report and Minutes of Evidence.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CHILDREN BILL.
  Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  *LORD LEIGHmoved to delete the proviso that subsection (1) should not apply as respects any infant where the period for which it was received was forty-eight hours or less. He explained that his object was to allow of premises being visited where children were received for payment in places such as crèches. In these places children were said to be often quieted by means of narcotics, and it seemed only right that there should be power of inspection.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word 'authority' to the end of subsection (1).'" (Lord Leigh).
  THE LORD STEWARDsaid the noble Lord's Amendment would render it necessary that

  1131
  notice should be given to the local authority even if a child were put out for a single afternoon with a relative. What the Bill did was to re-enact the present law, which was that notice should be given where tin period for which the child was received was longer than forty-eight hours. That, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, was sufficient.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Drafting Amendments, agreed to.
  *LORD LEIGHmoved to leave out subsection (1), which ran—
  "A local authority may exempt from being visited, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think fit, any particular premises within their district which appear to them to be so conducted that it is unnecessary that they should be visited."
  His object was, he said, not so much to secure the omission of the subsection, if the Government still thought it better to exempt particular places from being visited, as to suggest that where places were exempted, and children were subsequently found to be ill-treated, there should then be power to inflict heavier punishment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, lines 33 to 37, to leave out subsection (4)."—(Lord Leigh.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPthought it would be more convenient if the noble Lord placed an Amendment on the Paper for the Report stage to secure his object. The Amendment which he had now moved was certainly one which His Majesty's Government could not accept. There were a number of institutions conducted by very well-known societies which it was unnecessary to visit, and the object of the subsection was to give power to the local authority to exempt such well-conducted institutions.
  EARL RUSSELLasked whether, under the subsection as it stood, it would be possible to withdraw the exemption at any period if the place became ill-conducted.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he would think so certainly, but he would make sure on that point before the Report stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ALVERSTONEmoved to amend the provision that—
  "If the occupier of the premises or any other person obstructs any visitor or other person acting in pursuance of such a warrant, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act."
  by inserting, after the word "obstructs," the words "or causes or procures to be obstructed." He said that as the subsection stood it would not be possible to get at the occupier if he employed a third person to obstruct. He therefore suggested the additional words for the purpose of strengthening the clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 12, after the word 'obstructs' to insert the words 'or causes or procures to obstructed.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he gladly accepted the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to leave out paragraph (d) of Clause 3. The clause ran—
  "An infant, in respect of which notice is required to be given under this Part of this Act, shall not, without the written sanction of the local authority, be kept: (a) By any person from whose care any infant has been removed under this Part of this Act; or (b) in any premises from which any infant has been removed under this Part by reason of the premises being dangerous or insanitary; or (c) by any person convicted of any offence under Part II. of this Act; or (d) by any person who, after being given an opportunity of being heard, has been declared by order of the local authority unfit to have the care of infants; and any person keeping an infant contrary to this section shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act."
  He said it had been represented that paragraph (d) gave the local authority

  1133
  power, as it were, to prejudge the case. This was thought to be unfair, and as the omission of the paragraph would not in any way weaken the Bill he hoped their Lordships would agree to the Amendment. If a person had been proved to be unfit to have the care of an infant the infant would be removed, and the individual concerned would fall under paragraph (a).
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, lines 25 to 27, to leave out paragraph (d)."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD ALVERSTONE, while agreeing to the omission of the paragraph, asked the Government whether something of the kind ought not to be inserted of a wider scope. There was the case of a person who had been declared unfit by some other authority. He thought some provision of the kind ought to be considered before the Bill left their Lordships' House.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ALVERSTONEmoved to add after the word "keeping" the words "or causing to be kept." The provision would then read—
  "And any person keeping or causing to be kept an infant contrary to this section shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act."
  He said this Amendment and the one standing in his name to Clause 5 were of the same kind as his Amendment to Clause 2 to which the Committee had agreed. The object was to get at the individual who employed a third person and endeavoured to transfer his responsibility. He submitted that the additional words strengthened and improved the clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 28, after the word 'keeping,' to insert the words 'or causing to be kept.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPaccepted the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  Verbal and consequential Amendments agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7:
  LORD ALVERSTONEsaid that the clause was certainly wider than he had originally thought, because it contained the words that—
  "If any such person directly or indirectly insures or attempts to insure the life of such an infant, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act."
  But he still thought it desirable to strengthen the words—
  "And if a company … society, or person knowingly issues or procures or attempts to procure to be issued to such a person a policy on the life of such an infant the company or other person shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act."
  He suggested the addition, after the words "issued to," of the words "or on behalf of or for the benefit of," and, after the words "such a person," of the words "as aforesaid."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 4, after the word 'to,' to insert the words 'or on behalf of or for the benefit of,' and after the word 'person' to insert the words 'as aforesaid.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the point which had been raised by the noble and learned Lord had occurred also to the Home Office, but they suggested this form of words—namely, to leave out "to such a person" and to insert "to or for the benefit of such a person as aforesaid or to any person on his behalf."
  LORD ALVERSTONEintimated that he would be quite satisfied with these words if the noble Earl would move them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 4, to leave out the word 'to such a person,' and to insert the words 'to or

  1135
  for the benefit of such a person as aforesaid or to any person on his behalf.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed so.
  Verbal Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8:
  LORD ALVERSTONEmoved to amend subsection (1)—
  "If any person required to give a notice under this Part of this Act knowingly or wilfully makes, or causes or procures any other person to make, any false statement in any such notice, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act."
  by adding, after the word "false," the words "or misleading." A misleading statement might not be held to be a false statement. It was desirable that there should be accuracy as well as truth.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 9, after the word 'false,' to insert the words 'or misleading.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10:
  *LORD CHEYLESMOREmoved to amend subsection (1)—
  "The local authority for the purpose of this Part of this Act shall: (a) As respects the County of London, exclusive of the City, be the County Council; (b) as respects the City of London, be the Common Council; (c) elsewhere be the guardians of the Poor Law union."
  by substituting "metropolitan borough councils" for "county council." He did not move this Amendment in any spirit of antagonism to the London County Council of which he had the honour of being a member, but in the interest of the children and of the sorely taxed London ratepayer. He submitted that the provisions of the Bill could be much more effectually carried out by the metropolitan borough councils than by the county councils. It was agreed that it was most
  1136
  important that the houses in which children were received should be in good sanitary condition. To ensure that there must be sanitary inspection. The borough councils were the sanitary authorities for the metropolis, and the London County Council had no means of inspecting these houses. He would cite one instance as showing how necessary it was that there should be adequate sanitary inspection. A lady at Lewisham recently applied to be registered to take in twenty-five children. Permission was granted by the London County Council, but in a very short time several of the children died. The matter was reported to the sanitary officer of the borough, and on the house being inspected it was discovered that the drains were in a very bad state, and were actually ventilated into the rooms in which the children were living. Every borough council had its sanitary officers and there were only three boroughs in London—Shoreditch, Deptford, and Greenwich—which had not appointed female health visitors. It was largely owing to the efforts of these ladies that the rate of mortality amongst infants had been considerably reduced in the metropolis. There were at the present time 247 houses in London registered for the purpose of taking in more than two children. Even if that number were doubled or trebled the staffs of the borough councils would be equal to coping with them. But if the London County Council were constituted the authority under the Act it would lead to considerable additions to the staff and consequent increased expenditure. It would be to the advantage of London that the authority for the purposes of this part of the Act should be as respects the County of London the borough councils, and he hoped the Government would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 33, to leave out the words 'County Council,' and to insert the words 'metropolitan borough councils.'"—(Lord Cheylesmore.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, in opposing the Amendment, said that this part of the Bill did not confer any new powers, but merely continued the existing law as established by the Act of 1897. The

  1137
  London County Council did inspect at the present time and had discharged this function without, so far as he knew, any complaint, except the single case to which the noble Lord had referred. But that case was not so much one of complaint against the baby farm as that the sanitary inspection of the premises had been bad, which seemed to him quite a different point. The object of the clause was to continue the London County Council the authority for inspecting these premises, and the noble Lord made a curious appeal when he asked their Lordships, in the interest of economy, to establish twenty-eight new organisations.
  LORD CHEYLESMORE: They already exist.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that each borough council would have to create a fresh department or appoint additional officers in order to inspect these baby farms. The London County Council already had these officials, and had carried out this work in the past. Moreover, it was very desirable that in an area like London there should be uniformity of practice, and that could only be obtained by having a central authority. If the Amendment were adopted the practice would vary, and there would be a tendency for baby farmers to remove to districts where the inspection was not so stringent.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONthought their Lordships would feel that it was undesirable in this case to load up the London County Council with more work. An Amendment had been passed a few months ago by the House with the object of transferring the work of carrying out the Old-Age Pensions Act from the London County Council to the borough councils, but that Amendment was rejected by the House of Commons on the ground of privilege. Although it would be unwise yet to draw conclusions, he thought the disadvantages arising from the rejection of their Lordships' Amendment were obvious. Moreover, if the noble Earl in charge of this Bill would look at its details he would see that much of the work in question would have to be done locally.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid the noble Viscount had himself given a reason why the Amendment should not be pressed. A similar Amendment in connection with the Old-Age Pensions Act had been set aside in the other House on the ground of privilege, and as it would necessarily follow from Lord Cheylesmore's Amendment that the cost under this Bill would be transferred from the general rate of London to the local rates of the various boroughs it was clear that the Amendment would fall to the ground for the same reason.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We have not yet heard any sufficient reasons for the refusal of the Amendment. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill told us that under the existing law these duties belong to the London County Council. No doubt that is true; but this is not merely a Consolidation Bill. It is also an endeavour to improve the law wherever we find the law capable of improvement. What we hear is that the London County Council itself is very decidedly in favour of making this change, and is convinced that this work could be better done by the borough councils. Nor am I at all deterred by the noble Earl's statement that if this proposal were adopted twenty-eight new organisations would have to be created. Surely the borough councils must have machinery at their hand adapted for the performance of these duties. I confess that unless I hear a stronger case against the Amendment I shall be disposed to vote with my noble friend behind me.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord FITZMAURICE)did not understand the mover of the Amendment to say that the London County Council had expressed an opinion in its favour, and he thought it should not go forward that there had been an expression of that kind by the London County Council. He was not in a position to say, one way or the other, whether the London County Council were in favour of the proposal in the Amendment; but on the merits he would point out that they had an existing organisation for this purpose and no one had alleged that they had not performed their present duties in a satisfactory way. He contended that it was of enormous importance to

  1139
  have uniformity of administration in matters of this kind. There was also the question of expense. It was a notorious fact that if they multiplied a large number of officers over a great area a much more formidable total in the matter of salaries was reached than if the expenditure were centralised. The staff for this work existed in the London County Council; it was a staff of a special character which could not very well be absorbed in other work, and therefore, the probability was that if the proposed change were made in the authority under the Bill many of these officers would have to be compensated. Therefore, from whatever point of view it was looked at the Amendment was not desirable.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid the time that had elapsed since the Bill took final shape in the House of Commons had been too short to allow of a formal pronouncement on the subject of this Amendment by the London County Council. He admitted it might be undesirable to press the Amendment at the present stage, but protested against the imposition of multifarious duties upon the London County Council.
  LORD CHEYLESMOREwithdrew the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11:
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to add to subsection (1)—
  "The provisions of this Part of this Act shall not extend to any relative, or legal guardian of an infant who undertakes the nursing and maintenance of the infant, or to any person who undertakes the nursing or maintenance of an infant under the provisions of any Act for the relief of the poor or of any order made under any such Act; or to hospitals, convalescent homes, or institutions established for the protection and care of infants, and conducted in good faith for religious or charitable purposes, or boarding schools at which efficient elementary education is provided,"
  the words—
  "Or to any religious or charitable society which shall pay any person for keeping an infant, or to the person so employed, provided that such society shall have obtained from the
  1140
  Local Government Board a certificate that it is a fit and proper institution to be exempted from the provisions of this part of this Act."
  His object was to extend the exemptions to Presbyterian and other Protestant institutions in Ireland where a system of boarding-out was adopted. Though the clause as it stood might work perfectly well in England, it would be useless in Ireland, having in view the relations between religious denominations and representation on the boards of guardians. Without some such Amendment as proposed the inevitable result would be that the institutions in which he was interested would be compelled to return to the institutional system, which was much less efficient and more expensive than the system of boarding-out.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 13, after the word 'purposes,' to insert the words 'or to any religious or charitable society which shall pay any person for keeping an infant, or to the person so employed, provided that such society shall have obtained from the Local Government Board a certificate that it is a fit and proper institution to be exempted from the provisions of this part of this Act.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Government fully recognised the strength of the noble Earl's case, so far as Ireland was concerned. There had been, however, no suggestion that the Amendment should be made to apply to any other part of the United Kingdom. If the noble Earl would be satisfied by restricting it to Ireland the Government were disposed to accept the Amendment, which however, should find a place in Clause 132 (Application of the Act to Ireland).
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he would adopt the noble Earl's suggestion. He would withdraw the Amendment now, and move the insertion of the words when Clause 132 was reached.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12:
  *LORD LEIGHmoved to amend the provision—
  "If any person over the age of sixteen years, who has the custody, charge, or care of any child

  1141
  or young person wilfully assaults, ill-treats neglects, abandons, or exposes,"
  etc., by leaving out the words "wilfully," "ill-treats," and "or," and by inserting, after the word "exposes," the words "or wilfully ill-treats." He said that this was more than anything else a grammatical Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 25, to leave out the words 'wilfully,' 'ill-treats,' and 'or,' and after the word 'exposes' to insert the words 'or wilfully ill-treats.'"—(Lord Leigh.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPcould not accept the definition of the Amendment which the noble Lord had given. It was more than a mere verbal Amendment. The effect of it would be to make the provision read—
  "If any person … assaults, neglects, abandons, exposes, or wilfully ill-treats."
  —that was to say, the qualification, for instance, that the neglect must be wilful would be taken away. The Amendment was not one which the Government were prepared to accept. The clause as drawn followed the Act of 1904, and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to children was in favour of the maintenance of the form of words proposed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendment, agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend subsection (2)—
  "A person may be convicted of an offence under this section, either on indictment or by a court of summary jurisdiction, notwithstanding that actual suffering or injury to health to the child or young person was obviated by the action of another person,"
  by leaving out the words "to the child or young person," and inserting the words "or the likelihood of such suffering or injury to health." He said it had been pointed out that subsection (2) as it stood would suggest that subsection (1) only applied when actual suffering or neglect had resulted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 8, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words 'to the child or young person,' and to insert the words 'or the likelihood of such
  1142
  suffering or injury to health."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14:
  LORD ALVERSTONEmoved an Amendment to provide that the offence should be to allow a child to be "left alone" in a room without a fireguard. The clause read: "Allows that child to 'be' in any room," etc., and his view was that it should not be an offence within the meaning of the section for a mother to leave the child for a very short time. Nothing had struck him more than the extraordinary way in which the elder children of a family looked after the infants. These young children took an extraordinary motherly care of their younger brothers and sisters, and Parliament ought to be careful not to include a case in which a little child had been left in the charge of a sister a few years older. It seemed to him that that had not been quite sufficiently thought out by the framer of the clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 9, line 36, to leave out the words 'be,' and to insert the words 'remain alone.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPpointed out that the word "be" was goverened by the subsequent words "without taking reasonable precautions against" the risk.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: I agree.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that, in the opinion of the Government, the case of elder children would be met, for that would be taking reasonable precautions. But what would happen under the Amendment supposing there were a twin? It could not be said if they were burned that either of the children had been left alone.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: I had not thought of twins.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that under the Amendment no action would lie in that case. Then, supposing an accident of this kind occurred and the mother was drunk. There, again, the child would not be remaining alone, but no action would lie. In these circumstances he could not accept the words suggested, but if the noble and learned Lord thought further words desirable the Government would be very glad to consider them on Report. But, in their opinion, the clause as it stood was really sufficient.
  LORD ALVERSTONEwithdrew the Amendment. He hoped, however, that the Government would consider the point. The answer of the noble Earl did not in any way deal with the question of temporary absence from the room. His fear was that this would be one of those clauses which would be thought to press too hardly, but if the noble Earl would consider the matter before the Report stage he would be satisfied.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16:
  Verbal Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17:
  LORD ALVERSTONEsaid his four Amendments to this clause raised a matter of some importance to which he incidentally called attention during the Second Reading Debate. The clause ran—
  17.—(1) If any person having the custody, charge, or care of a girl under the age of sixteen years, causes, encourages, or favours the seduction or prostitution of that girl, he shall be guilty of a misdeameanour and shall be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding two years. (2) For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to have favoured the seduction or prostitution (as the case may be) of a girl if he has conduced thereto by knowingly allowing the girl to consort with, or to enter or continue in the employment of, any prostitute or person of notoriously immoral character."
  1144
  He had to consider the clause from the point of view of the administration of the criminal law, and he objected to the use of so vague a word as "favours." Vague words of that character were never desirable in creating a criminal offence. The framers of the Bill had obviously seen that his objection was one that required to be met, for they had, in subsection (2), inserted what he might call a definition of the word "favouring." He suggested that it would be better to strike out the word in both places. As he understood, what was intended was that a man should be deemed to have "favoured" if he had knowingly allowed the girl to consort with or to remain continuously with persons of immoral character. He would, therefore, suggest that the better alternative would be that the clause should read—
  "If any person having the custody, charge, or care of a girl under the age of sixteen years causes or encourages the seduction or prostitution of the girl, etc."
  and subsection (2) could then read—
  "For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to have caused or encouraged the seduction or prostitution (as the case may be) of a girl if he has knowingly allowed the girl to consort with, or to enter or continue in the employment of, any prostitute or person of notoriously immoral character."
  His object was to get rid of the ambiguous word "favours" and to keep in the wider scope of the words "causes" and "encourages," at the same time omitting the words "conduce thereto," which would be most difficult to prove. He would now move his first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 29, to leave out the word 'encourages.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that one legal Amendment was difficult enough to grapple with at one time, but when four Amendments were dealt with simultaneously it became still more complicated. The words in the clause were exactly those used in Section 12 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, and it was thought very desirable to make the language of this clause correspond with that provision which dealt with a similar matter. He would have thought that the noble and learned Lord would himself be anxious that two Acts

  1145
  of Parliament dealing with the same matter should have similar phraseology. The other point seemed to be a very different one, and was really concerned not only with Clause 17 but also with Clause 18. Subsection (2) of the clause now before the Committee dealt with the case where the girl had been seduced, and Clause 18 dealt with the occasions which the noble and learned Lord had specially mentioned when the girl was exposed to the risk of seduction or prostitution, and, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, that provision was sufficient to meet the case. In the opinion of the Home Office the noble and learned Lord's Amendment went further than was really necessary, because if nothing happened, it was thought that the Amendment would inflict too great a punishment upon the delinquent. He thought the method of dealing with more than one Amendment at a time open to objection. His Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider whether they could do anything in the matter on Report, but at the present moment they were not inclined to take any steps in the direction indicated.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid that anyone who was familiar with the administration of the criminal law would heartily concur with the Lord Chief Justice in his objection to the retention of ambiguous words. What did the Government mean by the word "favours"? If they meant the definition given in the clause, what was the objection to substituting those words for the objectionable word itself? He sympathised with the Lord Chief Justice, and indeed with all His Majesty's Judges, when they were called upon in summing up to the jury to give an exposition of such a word as "favours." If the learned Judges were asked to give their real opinion, they would be obliged to say they did not know what the word actually meant. As the word had been defined, why not insert the definition instead of the word? That would render the matter very simple. As to the point of order he entirely differed from the noble Earl the Lord Steward. The Lord Chief Justice did not pretend to be moving his other Amendments, but explained the effect of them upon the rest of the clause in order
  1146
  to make intelligible the Amendment he was moving. That seemed to him to be perfectly in order.
  *THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): I do not know that we need labour the point as to whether or not the noble and learned Lord opposite was precisely in order, because we undoubtedly often adopt the course of discussing two or three Amendments at once—a course which might not be regarded elsewhere as strictly orderly. As regards the use of the particular word "favours," I am given to understand that the analogy which is employed is that of Section 12 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. That was the Act of the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Cross, and it has been the law ever since. Whether the term is, in itself, open to objection from the point of view of Judges is, of course, another question, and upon that I am not competent to give an opinion. I should have thought, speaking purely as a layman, that there was a course of conduct which might be described as favouring as distinct from encouraging. The noble and learned Lord pointed out just now that a statement might be misleading without being untrue, and I should have thought that the difference between favouring and encouraging was somewhat analagous to that between an untrue statement and a misleading statement.
  LORD ALVERSTONEsaid the noble Earl the Lord Steward had not understood the distinction between Clause 17 and Clause 18. The latter clause only dealt with the question of a parent or guardian exposing a girl to the risk of seduction. Clause 17 dealt with two acts which were deemed to be "favouring"—one was knowingly allowing the girl to consort with prostitutes, and the other knowingly allowing the girl to enter or continue in the employment of any prostitute or person of notoriously immoral character. If those two offences were proved, that ought to be sufficient to establish the offence without the necessity of proving that they had conduced to seduction. The existence of Clause 18, which dealt with a different state of things altogether, was no reason why subsection (2) of

  1147
  Clause 17 should not be strengthened. In placing these Amendments to Clause 17 on the Paper he had the support of most experienced men at the Bar who had conducted prosecutions under the present Act for the past fifteen years.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ALVERSTONEthen proceeded to move his three consequential Amendments.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 30, to leave out the word 'favours,' and to insert the words 'encourages.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 34, to leave out the word 'favoured,' and to insert the words, 'caused or encouraged.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 35, to leave out the words 'conduced thereto by,' and to leave out the word 'allowing,' and to insert the word 'allowed,'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19:
  *LORD KINNAIRDmoved to amend subsection (1) so that it should read—
  "Any constable shall take into custody, without warrant, any person—"
  The word at present in the subsection was "may"; but it was strongly felt by certain bodies that this power should not be merely left a matter of discretion to the policeman.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 11, line 10, to leave out the word 'may,' and to insert the word 'shall.'"—(Lord Kinnaird.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPcould not accept the Amendment. The offence might only be of a trivial nature, and it was very
  1148
  undesirable to make it compulsory upon the policeman to arrest without a warrant.
  LORD ALVERSTONEagreed that it would be most unwise to substitute the word "shall." The Amendment would introduce a dangerous precedent, and he hoped it would not be pressed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 20:
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21:
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHpainted out that this clause, which dealt with the disposal of the child or young person by order of the Court, contained a provision that under certain circumstances a child might be committed to the care of a relative of the child or young person, or some other fit person; and in Clause 39 there was a definition to the effect that the expression "fit person" included any society or body corporate established for the reception or protection of poor children or the prevention of cruelty to children. He believed that as the law now stood it would be within the power of the magistrate in Scotland to commit the child to the care of the parish council. As there was no inclusion of a parish council in this clause or in the definition clause, he rather thought that an alteration was being unwittingly made in the law of Scotland in this matter. As the parish council in Scotland was the authority that would have to take charge of the child under these circumstances it would be reasonable that parish councils should be included in the definition so far as Scotland was concerned.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he would be glad to look into the point and communicate with the noble Lord.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25:
  THE EARL OF MEATHmoved to amend subsection (1)—
  "The Secretary of State may cause any institution for the reception of poor children or young persons supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions, and not liable to be inspected by or under the authority of any Government Department, to be visited and inspected from time to time by persons appointed by him for the purpose, and the Secretary of State, with the consent of any society or body corporate established for the reception or protection of poor children or the prevention of cruelty to children may, subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe, appoint officers of the society or body corporate for the purpose,—"
  by deleting all the words after "inspected from time to time by" and inserting the words—
  "An inspector or assistant inspector of reformatory and industrial schools, or by any person or persons experienced in the training of children, or belonging to the medical or nursing professions appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose."
  It seemed to him a novel idea that the Government of the day should be empowered to appoint officers of a private society to criticise and report to Government upon the operations of another society. A great deal would depend upon the tact of the man or woman sent down, and if they were not tactful and discreet immense friction would result. They were not to be paid by the State and were not to be under the control of the State, except that they might be dismissed if they did wrong. But what would the dismissal mean to them? If they had acted in accordance with the wishes and desires of their own particular society, which was driving a particular idea into the public minds, they would return to their society triumphantly and probably have their salaries increased for displaying sufficient courage to stand up in support of a particular theory. He was not opposed to inspection. On the contrary, he heartily joined with the Right Rev. Primate, who stated in his speech on the Second Reading that, being at the head of an enormous number of Church institutions, he welcomed inspection. He did not think inspection an unmixed evil, but it was the lesser of two
  1150
  evils. He did not want officers appointed by societies established for the protection of poor children, or the prevention of cruelty to children, because he was afraid these society inspectors were too much imbued with the one idea of their society when they went into any home. The very fact that these inspectors spent their days and nights with the one thought and doing the one act made them persons not of the judicial mind. Justice would be endangered if there were not some such restriction as that proposed in his Amendment. He pointed out that these societies were only too willing to place the services of their officers gratis at the disposal of the Government. The Amendment would not limit the power of the Secretary of State as regards the appointment of officials so long as they were fit. His whole object was to eliminate the unfit.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 17, line 20, to leave out from the word 'by' to the end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'an inspector or assistant inspector of reformatory and industrial schools, or by any person or persons experienced in the training of children, or belonging to the medical or nursing professions appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.'"—(The Earl of Meath.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, while not accepting the Amendment, offered, as a compromise, to strike out the latter part of the clause which empowered the Secretary of State, with the consent of any society or body corporate, to appoint officers of the society or body corporate for the purpose.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: And will you add my words?
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: No. The compromise I suggest is that we should strike out all words after "purpose."
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Perhaps the noble Earl would allow us to consider his proposal, and, if necessary, make a suggestion with regard to it when we come to another stage of the Bill. As I understand it, the noble Earl suggests that the words after "purpose," in line 21, should be omitted, and that the clause should so stand. That would, of course, leave it open to the

  1151
  Government or to the Department to appoint what I suppose my noble friend on the cross benches would call amateur inspectors, who would not have any particular training or aptitude for the work that would devolve upon them. There is absolutely no guarantee that these appointments would be filled up from any particular source.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the inspectors referred to in the noble Earl's Amendment had already more than enough work to do and it was impossible to throw upon them the additional work of inspecting all the reformatory and industrial schools. The Amendment would limit too much the choice of the Secretary of State, who was, however, anxious to avail himself of the services of men of experience in connection with various societies. It was rather imaginary fear that the Secretary of State would send anybody down who was unfit or who would try to make mischief.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid that every Government Department with which he had been connected had experienced difficulty in checking the undue zeal of some of these officials. If an inspector of one charitable society were appointed to inspect the institution of another charitable society, there would be in that a source of great friction. He hoped the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would consider how this danger could be guarded against.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPthought the compromise he had suggested met the point. The additional words proposed by Lord Meath would, in the opinion of the Home Office, limit too much the choice of the Home Secretary in the matter.
  LORD ALVERSTONEventured to think the Government had met Lord Meath to a considerable extent, and suggested that it would be possible, on Report, to bring up some supplementary words to limit the persons to be appointed.
  THE EARL OF MEATHaccepted the compromise, and withdrew his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPthen moved the deletion of the latter half of the subsection.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 17, line 21, to leave out from the word 'purpose,' to the end of the subsection."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26:
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that under the Inebriates Acts one justice was sufficient, and therefore it was proposed to make that apply in the present case.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 18, line 22, to leave out the words 'two justices,' and to insert the words 'a justice.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 27 to 32 agreed to.
  Clause 33:
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid it had been pointed out by a prominent police magistrate that this clause, which in-acted that—
  "When, in pursuance of this Part of this Act, any person is convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction of an offence, and that person did not plead guilty or admit the truth of the information, or when in the case of any application to a court of summary jurisdiction under this Part of the Act for an order committing a child or young person to the care of any person, or for an order for contribution to the maintenance of a child or young person, any party thereto thinks himself aggrieved by any order or decision of the court, he may appeal against such a conviction, or order, or decision to Quarter Sessions—"
  deprived the man who pleaded guilty to the right of appeal to a jury. In all other cases where an appeal was given, the fact of having pleaded guilty did not deprive a defendant of his right of appeal. If their Lordships agreed to his Amendment the defendant would

  1153
  have a right of appeal against the sentence, if, in his opinion, it was too heavy.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 22, lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words 'and that person did not plead guilty or admit the truth of the information.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 34:
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to omit this clause, which provided that where a misdemeanour under this part of this Act was tried on indictment, the expenses of the prosecution should be defrayed in like manner as in the case of a felony. He said this clause was rendered unnecessary by the passing of another Act in the present session.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 34."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 35 to 40 agreed to.
  Clause 41:
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to omit the words "or other person having the powers of a constable and," from the provision that—
  "It shall be the duty of a constable and of a park keeper, or other person having the powers of a constable and being in uniform, to seize any cigarettes or cigarette papers in the possession of any person apparently under the age of sixteen whom he finds smoking in any street or public place."
  He did not know what sort of persons were referred to by the words which he proposed to omit. Perhaps the noble Earl would explain.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 23, line 30, to leave out the words 'or other person having the powers of a constable and.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPexpressed his willingness to accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT HILLmoved an Amendment to make "boys" not "persons" apparently under sixteen years of age liable to have cigarettes or cigarette papers in their possession seized. He had a later Amendment on the Paper cancelling that part of the clause which forbids a constable or park-keeper to search any person found smoking. He considered it an extraordinary proposal to impose the duty of seizure and to deny the right of search.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 23, line 32, leave to out the word 'person,' and to insert the word 'boys.'"—(Viscount Hill.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPpointed out that the alteration suggested would allow girls to smoke. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn. He would presently suggest words which he believed would meet the case. He fully recognised the strong opinion behind the noble Viscount in this matter. The clause had also been the subject of comment in the Second Reading debate, and the Government were anxious to do all they could to meet the points raised.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT HILLhad an Amendment on the Paper to delete the proviso at the end of the clause, viz.:
  "Provided that such constable, park keeper, or other person as aforesaid shall not be authorised to search any person so found smoking."
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid it would, perhaps, be convenient before the noble Viscount moved his Amendment if he stated that the Government were prepared to substitute "girl" for "person" in this proviso. He thought no Member of their Lordships' House would wish the police constable to have the right of search in respect of a girl. If, therefore, the word "girl" were substituted for "person" the constable would have the right to search a boy.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 24, line 2, to omit the word 'person,' and to insert the word 'girl.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD ALVERSTONEsaid that, though the noble Earl's Amendment met the particular point, he failed to see any power of search. If it was desirable—and he thought it was—that a boy should be searched, then words should be inserted to give that power.
  THE EARL OF MEATHhoped power of search would be given, for otherwise the whole provision was rendered ridiculous.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that if the noble Viscount was of opinion that no right of search existed as the clause stood, it would be very desirable for him to bring up a form of words on Report to give that power. His Majesty's Government would consider them.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 42 agreed to.
  Clause 43:
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved an Amendment to omit from the clause the words "uniformed boy messengers in the employment of a messenger company and employed as such at the time." So far as he could understand, a uniformed boy messenger might smoke himself if under the age of sixteen because his uniform protected him, and collusion might take place between boys under sixteen and a boy messenger for the purpoes of procuring cigarettes. It was quite evident that this was a legislative feat performed by some private Member in the other House. How a uniformed boy messenger came to be mixed up with a boy employed by a dealer in tobacco completely puzzled him. Perhaps the noble Earl could give some explanation.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 24, line 25, to leave out the words or was a uniformed boy messenger in the employment of a messenger company and employed as such at the time."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPcould not accept the Amendment. Very strong representations were made to the Government on the subject in another place, and it was not thought that this exemption would really weaken the effect of Part III. No matter what provisions were inserted, ingenious boys determined to smoke would, of course, find some way of doing so. Boy messengers were in an exceptional position. They were in uniform, and if they went into a tobacconists to buy cigarettes there was a considerable presumption that they were buying them for other persons. It would be for the convenience of the public that boy messengers should be enabled to make purchases.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that, after listening to the remarks of the noble Earl, he was more in the dark than before. The noble Earl did not tell the Committee who the persons were who made the representations, and why uniformed boy messengers were picked out in particular. Other people might wish to include boys wearing another sort of uniform. It really seemed absurd to single out messengers in the employment of a messenger company.
  EARL RUSSELLthought Lord Camperdown had overlooked the words which provided that the uniformed boy messenger should be in the employment of a messenger company and should be employed as such at the time. There was, therefore, very little fear of the collusion to which the noble Earl had referred. Cigarettes could, be bought in penny packets, whereas the fee of the messenger would be a minimum one of threepence.
  LORD ALVERSTONEasked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to state why a uniformed boy messenger should have this privilege.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he had already given the reason. It was for the convenience of the general public.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 44:
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to amend subsection (1) which provided that—
  "For the purposes of this Part of this Act the expression 'cigarette' includes cut tobacco rolled up in paper, tobacco leaf, or any other material."
  by omitting the words "any other material," and inserting "any material in such form as to be capable of immediate use for smoking." As the provision now stood, the expression "cigarette" might include tobacco rolled up in an old flannel petticoat.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 24, line 30, after the word 'or,' to insert the word 'in,' and after the word 'material' to insert the words 'in such form as to be capable of immediate use for smoking.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPaccepted the Amendment.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 45:
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to add to the provision—
  "The expression 'child,' used in reference to a child ordered to be sent to a certified industrial school or to be transferred from a certified reformatory to a certified industrial school, applies to that child during the whole period of detention, whether in the industrial school or out on licence, notwithstanding that the child attains the age of fourteen years before the expiration of that period."
  the words—
  "And when used in reference to proceedings for the purpose of enforcing an attendance order includes any person who, by virtue of any enactment is deemed to be a child for the purposes of the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907."
  He explained that this was a technical point to meet the case of blind or deaf children.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 25, line 25, after the word 'period,' to insert the words 'and when used in reference to proceedings for the purpose of enforcing an attendance order includes any person who, by virtue of any enactment is deemed to be a child for the purposes of the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended agreed to.
  Clauses 46 to 56 agreed to.
  Clause 57:
  *LORD LEIGHmoved to amend subsection (1)—
  "The managers of any certified school may establish or join with the managers of one or more other certified schools in establishing, a scheme for the payment of superannuation allowances to officers of the school or schools who become incapable of discharging the duties of their offices with efficiency by reason of permanent infirmity of mind or body, or of old age, upon their resigning or otherwise ceasing to hold their offices—"
  by substituting the word "shall" for "may," and adding, at the end of the subsection, words providing that for this purpose the provisions of the Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act, 1896, should be applied with such adaptations as might be made by Order in Council. He submitted that superannuation allowance for reformatory officers should be instituted by His Majesty's Government instead of being left to the various reformatory committees. All reformatory officers should be on the same footing in the matter of superannuation as Poor Law officers, elementary school teachers, and others, and it would seem unfair if some reformatory committees were to grant pensions and others did not.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 28, line 20, to leave out the word 'may,' and to insert the word 'shall,' and in line 20, after the word 'offices,' to insert the words 'and for this purpose the provisions of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, shall be applied with such adaptations as may be made by Order in Council.'"—(Lord Leigh.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment. These schools were, generally speaking, of a private and voluntary character, and it was, therefore, undesirable that the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act should be applied. He thought their Lordships would recognise the inadvisability of applying an Act of this kind to officers of private institutions The noble Lord would see that power was given to the managers of any certified

  1159
  school to establish superannuation allowances, although the clause did not compel them to do so. He hoped the noble Lord would be satisfied with that power, which was a step in the right direction.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 58:
  *LORD KINNAIRDmoved an Amendment to make the clause provide that where a youthful offender apparently over twelve but under eighteen years of age was charged with an offence punishable with penal servitude or imprisonment the Court might order him to be sent to a certified reformatory school. He said the object was to prevent a boy from being branded as a convict for the rest of his life and so kept out of certain desirable situations.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 29, line 3, to leave out from the word 'offender' to the end of line 10, and to insert the words 'apparently over twelve years of age, but under eighteen years of age he is charged before a Court with an offence punishable with penal servitude or imprisonment, the Court, if satisfied on inquiry that it is expedient so to deal with the youthful offender, may order him to be sent to a certified reformatory school.'"—(Lord Kinnaird.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Amendment would alter entirely the character of reformatory schools, and His Majesty's Government were quite unable to accept it. The point mentioned with regard to conviction had not quite so much in it as might appear at first sight, because the abolition of the conviction would not affect even the majority of cases. Out of 1,490 cases sent to these schools in 1906, 824 were cases in which it was known that there had been one or more previous convictions. If the age were raised as suggested they might have young men of twenty-one in the reformatory schools, and that would entirely alter their character. The Prevention of Crimes Bill now before the House of Commons made provision for sending offenders between sixteen and twenty-one years of age to a Borstal institution.
  LORD ALVERSTONEsaid there was another very grave objection to the
  1160
  Amendment. The noble Lord proposed that certain boys should be dealt with before anything had been proved against them. It would be quite impossibe to permit of lads being dealt with as though they had been convicted when they had been merely charged.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *LORD LEIGHmoved to amend subsection (1)—
  "Where a youthful offender, who in the opinion of the court before which he is charged is twelve years of age or upwards but less than sixteen years of age, is convicted, whether on indictment or by a court of summary jurisdiction, of an offence punishable in the case of an adult with penal servitude or imprisonment, the court may, in addition to or in lieu of sentencing him according to law to any other punishment, order that he be sent to a certified reformatory school."
  by leaving out the words "less than sixteen years" and inserting the words "not more than sixteen years." He said his object was to make it clear that children could be dealt with up to the age of sixteen.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 29, line 5, to leave out the word 'less,' and to insert the words 'not more.'"—(Lord Leigh.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPresisted the Amendment. It was not quite clear what exactly was the noble Lord's intention in putting down the Amendment. If it was to enable persons between sixteen and seventeen years of age to be sent to reformatories, that was open, though not so seriously, to the objection raised to Lord Kinnaird's Amendment. But in the form in which it was drawn the Amendment would have practically no effect at all. A boy who was sixteen years and one day was more than sixteen. Therefore the only difference between the language in the Bill and that in the Amendment was that under the Amendment a lad could be sent to a reformatory on his sixteenth birthday. Unless he was tried on his sixteenth birthday there would be no point in it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT HILLmoved to leave out from the beginning of subsection (1) the

  1161
  word "convicted" and to substitute the word "adjudged." In the opinion of many people, the word "convicted" was too strong, and he hoped the noble Earl would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 29, line 5, to leave out the word 'convicted,' and to insert the word 'adjudged.'"—(Viscount Hill.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the noble Viscount's Amendment was practicaly the same as that moved by Lord Kinnaird with which the Committee had already dealt.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved an Amendment the object of which was to enable the Court, instead of sentencing a youthful offender to imprisonment, to make a Probation Order under the Probation of Offenders Act of last year.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 29, line 20, to leave out the words 'commute the order to such sentence of imprisonment,' and to insert the words 'in lieu of the detention order make such order or pass such sentence.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 59:
  EARL RUSSELLasked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill what was meant by the words "any person may bring before a petty sessional Court any person apparently under the age of fourteen years." Did they mean bring them by way of summons, or was it intended that they should be physically brought before the Court?
  EARL BEAUCHAMPdid not think it was contemplated that physical force should be used, but merely that proceedings should be taken in the legal fashion. If, however, it was not clear he would see to it on Report.
  *LORD KINNAIRDmoved an Amendment with the object of giving power to
  1162
  magistrates to take a child away from the mother if the latter were a reputed thief or prostitute. This, he explained, was merely restoring the clause to the shape it assumed when originally introduced in the other House. There was considerable feeling in the matter, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 30, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'other than the mother of the child.'"—(Lord Kinnaird.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment. If a child was living alone with its mother she had a right to its custody. The clause was a result of a long and careful discussion in the House of Commons and represented a compromise between those who were anxious to remove children from immoral surroundings and those who thought the parental right should not be interfered with.
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid the practice in previous legislation had always been to consider the interest of the child and not that of the parent; and though he felt most deeply that it was a sad thing to have to separate a child from its mother, yet he thought the child should be rescued, if necessary, in these circumstances.
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid that as the law had stood up to now it was open to the Court to consider whether the disreputable character of the mother was a sufficient reason for taking away the child. It might be the opinion of the Court that the circumstances were such that the child might be safely left with the mother, notwithstanding her doubtful reputation. But, as this clause stood, all power of deciding that point was taken away from the Court. As the object of the legislation was to remove the child from contaminating influences, he thought the law as it stood far preferable to the amended form.
  *LORD ALVERSTONEhoped the point would be further considered by the Government. The clause as it now stood barred inquiry by the Court

  1163
  altogether. He had frequently discussed this point with the late Mr. Waugh, whose name would always be connected with the protection of children, and Mr. Waugh informed him that in nine cases out of ten, when they were dealing with women who came within the class described as common prostitutes, it was hoping against hope that the presence of the child would do anything to reform the mother. Seeing that the object of the Bill was to protect children, he hoped His Majesty's Government would give some attention to this point. He did not like the hands of the magistrates being tied in the way proposed.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsupported the Amendment, and said he did not think they had any right to gamble with a child's future, especially when the betting was ten to one against the possibility of the presence of the child having any effect in the reformation of the mother. In the case of a child with property whose mother had gone to the bad, the child would be made a ward and would undoubtedly be taken from her mother. He preferred the law as it now stood to the law as presented in this clause.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANSurged that the matter might be reconsidered. He hoped that the Government would see their way not to exclude such children from the beneficent action of the magistrates, who might be safely trusted to use a wise discretion in each case.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that in view of the discussion the question should be carefully considered and dealt with on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT HILLmoved to amend subsection (2), which provided that—
  "Where a child apparently under the age of twelve years is charged before a court with an offence punishable in the case of an adult by penal servitude or a less punishment, the court, if satisfied on inquiry that it is expedient so to deal with the child, may order him to be sent to a certified industrial school—"
  by substituting the age of "fourteen" for that of "twelve." He thought it would do no harm to add another two years, and a boy of fourteen was certainly
  1164
  not too old to be sent to an industrial school.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 30, line 21, to leave out the word 'twelve,' and to insert the word 'fourteen,'"—(Viscount Hill.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid there was very sound authority for the Government's adhering to the age in the clause. He quoted the opinion of Colonel Legge, His Majesty's Inspector, against the age being raised as proposed, and said this view was shared by others intimately acquainted with industrial and reformatory schools.
  THE EARL OF MEATHopposed the Amendment, and said there was undoubtedly much more chance of reformation in the case of boys of twelve than in that of boys of fourteen.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 60:
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to substitute for "young person" the words "person apparently of the age of fourteen or fifteen years." He said the object was to protect from the consequences anyone who might bring before the court a person who was apparently of the age of fourteen or fifteen, but who afterwards proved not to be.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 32, line 19, to leave out the words 'young person,' and to insert the words 'person apparently of the age of fourteen or fifteen years.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  *LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTONasked whether it was desirable to have such loose words as those proposed. Would it not be better to say, "under fifteen years"?
  EARL BEAUCHAMPdid not think there was very much in the point. They had the Government draftsman behind them in suggesting the words proposed.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  THE EARL OF LYTTONmoved the addition of a new clause. By Clause 60, power was given to the Court to commit a young person to the care of a relative or other fit person, and in another part power was given to discharge a child to the care of a probation officer; but nowhere was any power given to commit a child to the care of a relative under the supervision of a probation officer. The object of his Amendment was to make such treatment possible. In America, where the probation system had been carried out far more extensively than in this country, the power sought to be given by his Amendment had been found of great value. It had been pointed out to him that the words "shall be placed" made it obligatory upon the Court that whenever a child was discharged to the care of a relative, the supervision of a probation officer should also be provided for. He admitted that his proposed new clause was, perhaps, too strong in its present form, and he would substitute "may" for "shall" and move the Amendment in that form.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 60, to insert the following new clause: 'Where under the provisions of this part of this Act an order is made for the committal of a child or young person to the care of a relative or other fit person named by the Court, in any case where such child or young person has been charged with an offence before the Court making the order, such child or young person may be placed under the supervision of a probation officer in like manner as if he had been charged with an offence and dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907.'"—(The Earl of Lytton.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that although in the opinion of the Home Office it would be unnecessary, after the Court had decided upon the fitness of a person, to provide for the super vision of a probation officer, he would offer no opposition to the clause in its permissive form.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 61:
  Verbal Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 62:
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend the proviso in subsection (1)—
  "Provided that if it is found impossible to specify the school in the detention order, the school shall be such as a justice having jurisdiction in the place where the Court which made the order sat may by endorsement on the detention order direct,"
  by inserting after the word "shall," the words "subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the determination of the place of residence of a youthful offender or child." The object was to indicate that in fixing the school the magistrate must have regard to the place of residence according to Clause 74. The determination of the place of residence was, of course, important in settling what local authority was to be responsible for the maintenance of the youthful offender.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 33, line 2, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the determination of the place of residence of a youthful offender or child.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.
  Clause 65:
  *LORD KINNAIRDmoved to extend the age-limit for detention in a reformatory school from nineteen years to twenty-one years. If a boy was sixteen when committed it would not be possible, as the clause now stood, to keep him in the reformatory school for the desired period of five years. He thought it would be admitted that the older the boy was when committed to the school the longer it would take to reform him.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 34, line 7, to leave out the word' 'nineteen,' and to insert the words twenty-one.'"—(Lord Kinnaird.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Government were of opinion that the youthful offender should not in any case be kept in a reformatory school until he reached

  1167
  the age of twenty-one. The maximum age for detention was deliberately changed by Parliament from twenty-one to nineteen owing to experience gained, and he thought it wise to adhere to that age.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 66 and 67 agreed to.
  Clause 68:
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to amend subsection (1)—
  "(1) Every youthful offender sent to a certified reformatory school shall, on the expiration of the period of his detention, if that period expires before he attains the age of nineteen years, remain up to the age of nineteen under the supervision of the managers of the school,"
  by adding, after the word "remain" the words "for two years or." As the subsection stood, if the youthful offender was eighteen and a half when convicted he would only remain for six months.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 36, line 31, after the word 'remain,' to insert the words 'for two years or.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPcould not accept the Amendment. He had already stated the objections to an extension of the age-limit.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 69 to 73 agreed to.
  Clause 74:
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to leave out subsections (1) and (2), viz.—
  "Where a youthful offender is ordered to be sent to a certified reformatory school, it shall be the duty of the council of the county or county borough in which he resides (to be specified in the order) to provide for his reception and maintenance in a certified reformatory school suitable to the case, having regard to the requirements of this Part of this Act. (2) Where a child is ordered to be sent to a certified industrial school, it shall be the duty of the local education authority of the district in which he resides (to be specified in the order) to provide
  1168
  for his reception and maintenance in a certified industrial school suitable to the case, having regard to the requirements of this Part of this Act."
  He did not move this Amendment for the purpose of pressing it upon the Government, but to secure a locus standi in order to draw attention to what was taking place. Hitherto it was voluntary on the part of the local authority to provide for the reception and maintenance of a youthful offender ordered to be sent from its district to a reformatory or industrial school; but by this clause it was compelled to do so, and to do so at its own cost. It was true that the Treasury gave a subvention; but, as was well known, the Treasury never handed out more money than it could possibly help, and certainly there was no guarantee that the subvention would adequately relieve the burden on the local authority. This duty had nothing whatever to do with local government. It was a national affair, and therefore its cost should be a national charge. He moved the omission of the compulsory subsections.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 41, lines 6 to 17, to leave out subsections (1) and (2)."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid this duty had been very largely exercised hitherto by progressive local authorities, and the Government considered that there was no hardship involved in making it general. There was no reason to suppose that the Treasury grant would be inadequate.
  LORD BELPERsaid that by making this duty obligatory Parliament was compelling local authorities to spend money in this direction whether they liked it or not. The point really was that this sort of thing was constantly going on, and while members of the Government had recognised by their speeches that the incidence of local taxation was not fair at the present moment, Parliament was constantly, by all sorts of Bills, making the case more unfair, and doing so without in any way inviting the opinions of the representatives of the ratepayers. Clause 110 gave power to the Treasury to contribute

  1169
  to this purpose, but what they complained of was that no minimum was fixed. Therefore, the local authorities were entirely at the mercy of the Treasury, and the amount they would have to provide would depend on the sum which the Treasury would contribute. He did not know whether any assurance could be given on the point, but the subsections in question aggravated a state of things which it was recognised ought not to continue.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYagreed that there was a material difference between local authorities acting in this matter of their own free will, and being compelled to do so, and to do so at their own cost. He disliked invading the right of the people in a locality to manage their own affairs in their own way and compelling them to pay whatever charges a bureaucratic authority ordered them to pay. He thought that where the Government forced the hands of the local authorities it ceased to be a local matter and became an Imperial matter. Therefore, the local authorities had strong reason to claim that the bulk of the cost should be made a national charge.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  *LORD LEIGHmoved to omit subsection (9), viz—
  "(9) A local authority may contribute towards the ultimate disposal of any inmate of a certified school for whose maintenance in such a school the authority are under this section responsible, or towards whose maintenance the authority have voluntarily contributed."
  The powers given by this subsection were extremely vague; so much so, that a local authority might even set up a boy in business or give him a pension for life. He knew there was a similar provision in the Act which this Bill would repeal, but there would seem now to be an opportunity of laying down more definite terms as to the allocation of this money.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 43, lines 10 to 14, to leave out subsection (9)."—(Lord Leigh.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the subsection reproduced words to be found in enactments quite lately passed, and the Government thought it would be better to retain it. It was not compulsory; it merely gave power to a local authority, where it desired to do so, to give a boy a start in life, and he thought it would be a pity to deprive the local authority of that power.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved the insertion of a new subsection in fulfilment of a promise given during the Report stage in the other House. It was really an agreed subsection, and he hoped there would be no opposition to its insertion.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 45, line 18, after the word 'Act,' to insert the following new subsection: '(18) As respects the City of London the Common Council shall, notwithstanding anything in this section, be the local authority liable for providing for the reception and maintenance in a certified reformatory school of a youthful offender committed by a court of summary jurisdiction acting in and for the city. Provided that nothing in this provision shall exempt the City of London from contributing towards the expenses incurred by the London County Council in respect of reformatory schools, but the London County Council shall in each year repay to the Common Council for each youthful offender maintained by that council a sum equal to the average cost to the London County Council in that year of the maintenance of a youthful offender in a reformatory school for whose maintenance the London County Council are responsible, which cost shall be ascertained in accordance with the directions of the Secretary of State.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 75:
  Verbal Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 76:
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 77 to 81 agreed to.
  Clause 82:
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend subsection (3)—
  "(3) If a parent or other person is unable to pay the sum required by the order to be paid, he shall apply to the guardians of the Poor Law union comprising the parish in which the parent or other person is resident, who, if satisfied of such liability, shall give the parent or other person sufficient relief to pay the sum, or so much thereof as they consider him unable to pay, and the money so given shall be charged to the parish as provided by the Elementary Education Act, 1876, in the case of money given for the payment of school fees'"—
  by omitting the words "and the money so given shall be charged to the parish as provided by the Elementary Education Act, 1876, in the case of money given for the payment of school fees." This Amendment was drafted by the Local Government Board, who suggested that the relief which was given ought to be charged to the union and not to the parish.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 50, line 2, to leave out from the word 'pay' to the end of the clause.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 83 to 86 agreed to.
  Clause 87:
  Verbal Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.
  Clause 90:
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 91:
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to delete the words—
  "And where any such officer can only be removed with the consent of a Secretary of State
  1172
  or the Local Government Board, such consent shall be part of the tenure of his office."
  He explained that the words were inserted with the object of preserving the rights of the officers at the London County Council school at Feltham. It was thought that they had certain rights and could not be removed without the consent of the Secretary of State or of the Local Government Board, but on inquiry it was found that none of the officers had this right. It was, therefore, now proposed to omit the words as unnecessary. The Amendment was agreed to by the London County Council.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 53, line 10, to leave out from the word 'passed' to the end of the clause."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 92:
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 93 to 96 agreed to.
  Clause 97:
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 98 and 99 agreed to.
  Clause 100:
  *LORD KINNAIRDmoved to add at the end of the clause, which provided that—
  "The conviction of a child or young person shall not be regarded as a conviction of felony for the purposes of any disqualification attaching to felony."
  the words "except as provided in Clause 59, section (3)." These words seemed to him to be necessary; otherwise convicted children might be prevented from being sent to industrial schools.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 58, line 6, after the word 'felony,' to insert the words 'except as provided in Clause 59, subsection (3).'"—(Lord Kinnaird.)
  Earl BEAUCHAMPdeclared the Amendment unnecessary. Clause 100 simply provided that the conviction of a child or young person should not be regarded as a conviction of felony. Subsection (3) of Clause 59, which the noble Lord referred to, enabled the Court to send a boy or girl in certain circumstances to an industrial school instead of to a reformatory school. That power already existed, and the child could be sent without the words which the noble Lord wished to add.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 101 to 107 agreed to.
  Clause 108:
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 109:
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 110:
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 111:
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend subsection (3), which ran—
  "His Majesty may by Order in Council under the Metropolitan Police Courts Acts, 1839 and 1840, provide for the establishment of one or more separate juvenile courts for the metropolitan police court district and for assigning as a division to each such court such portion of that district as may be specified in the order"—
  by adding words at the end to enable the Secretary of State to require the county council to provide the necessary accomodation, although the expense of it would be defrayed by the Secretary of State out of the Police Fund.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 63, line 33, after the word 'order,' to insert the words 'and where such an order
  1174
  is made the London County Council shall, if so required by the Secretary of State, provide the necessary accommodation for the purpose at any place of detention provided by the council upon such terms as to payment and otherwise as may be agreed between the Secretary of State and the Council, or in default of agreement, as may be settled by the Treasury.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 112:
  EARL BEAUCHAMPasked permission to transfer Clause 112 (Prohibition on children being present in Court during the trial of other persons) to Part VI.—the miscellaneous and general section.
  THE LORD CHAIRMANsaid it would be necessary to negative the clause here, and to move its insertion when Part VI. was reached.
  Amendment moved—
  "Tto leave out Clause 1 12."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 113 agreed to.
  Clause 114:
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to substitute "April" for "January" in this clause, which ran—
  "This Part of the Act shall not apply in the case of any proceedings instituted before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and nine."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 64, line 14, to leave out the word 'January,' and to insert the word 'April.'"—(Earl Beauchamp,)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 115 agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPthen moved the insertion of the words which formerly constituted Clause 112.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 116, to insert the following new clause, 'No child (other than an infant in arms) shall be permitted to be present in Court during the trial of any person charged with an offence, or during any proceedings preliminary thereto, and if so present he shall be ordered to be removed, unless he is the person charged with the alleged offence, or during such time as his presence is required as a witness, or otherwise for the purposes of justice. Provided that this section shall not apply to messengers, clerks, and other persons required to attend at any Court for purposes connected with their employment.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 116 and 117 agreed to.
  Clause 118:
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to leave out subsection (2), which provided that—
  "Any constable who finds a person wandering from place to place and taking a child with him may, if he has reasonable ground for believing that the person is guilty of an offence under this section, apprehend him without a warrant, and may take the child to a place of safety in accordance with the provisions of Part II. of this Act, and that Part shall apply accordingly as if an offence under this section were an offence under that Part."
  It was nothing new that a constable might arrest a man without a warrant when he saw him actually committing a crime; that was obviously commonsense. But this subsection went a great deal further, and was, as far as he knew, unprecedented. Under this subsection a constable would be empowered to arrest a man without a warrant on suspicion that his child was not being properly educated. Surely that was not a crime of sufficient magnitude to justify power of arrest without a warrant being given. The procedure known as the school attendance committee procedure was the proper method of dealing with an offence of this kind.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 65, lines 20 to 26, to leave out subsection (2)."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPregretted that the noble Earl regarded the provision in the subsection as extreme. It was, as a
  1176
  matter of fact, the only way in which the object of the clause could really be carried out. In the case of vagrant children the difficulty was to catch the persons concerned. If the course suggested by the noble Earl were adopted, by the time the warrant was obtained the vagrant would have disappeared carrying the child triumphantly with him.
  LORD FARRERhoped Lord Donoughmore would allow the subsection to stand. He knew from personal experience the difficulty of dealing with these cases. On one occasion a number of these people encamped on ground near his residence; there were eleven vans in all, and the children numbered thirty. In his endeavour to get the names he appealed to the police, but they declined to go on to common land unless they received instructions from the Lord of the Manor. To get the necessary sanction from the Lord of the Manor took five hours, and by that time every one of the vans had disappeared. This illustrated the extreme difficulty of dealing with these people without some such provision as that proposed. He believed the County Councils Association were unanimous in wishing for legislation of this kind.
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHurged the Committee to support the Government in this matter. These people evaded the present powers by their rapid means of locomotion, and without the subsection he was afraid the clause would be inoperative. The matter had been considered by the County Councils Association, and they were anxious that some practical powers should be given.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREexpressed his willingness, after what had been said, to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 119 agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CARLISLE, in the absence of Lord Monkswell, moved the insertion of a new clause. It was, he said, practically the same as a clause in the Licensing Bill now under consideration

  1177
  in the other House, but it seemed to him that it would be a very desirable addition to this Bill. Even supposing the Licensing Bill to be perfectly safe, it would be an awkward arrangement that persons dealing with cases of this kind should have to look for their authority to two different Acts of Parliament. The clause followed the universal colonial practice. There it was found to act perfectly well; the only difference was that in the Colonies the age was much higher. The Amendment carried out the temperance and hygienic teaching now given in schools, and embodied the policy of trying to instil temperance rather through the young than through adults.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 119, to insert the following new clause: (1) The holder of the licence of any licensed premises shall not allow a child to be at any time in the bar of the licensed premises except during the hours of closing. (2) If the holder of a licorice acts in contravention of this section, or if any person causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure any child to go to or be in the bar of any licensed premises, except during the hours of closing, he shall be liable on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding, in respect of the first offence forty shillings, and in respect of any subsequent offence five pounds. (3) If a child is found at the bar of any licensed premises except during the hours of closing, the holder of the licence shall be deemed to have committed an offence against this section unless he shows he has used due diligence to prevent the child being admitted to the bar. (4) Where any person is charged with an offence under this section in respect of a child who is alleged in the charge to be under the age of fourteen, and the child appears to the Court to be under that age, the child shall be deemed to be under that age unless the contrary is shown. (5) Nothing in this section shall apply in the case of a child who is resident but not employed in the licensed premises or in the case of premises constructed, fitted, and intended to be used in good faith for any purpose to which the holding of a licence is merely auxiliary. (6) The bar of licensed premises means any open drinking bar or any part of the premises exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor.'"—(The Earl of Carlisle.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Amendment was really the introduction of practically foreign matter. The Bill had been received with such approval on both sides that the insertion of the proposed new clause might make its passage difficult. In these circumstances he hoped the noble Lord would not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 120 agreed to.
  Clause 121 agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved to insert after Clause 121 the following new clause:—"Where a woman is convicted of the murder of her infant, and that child was under the age of one year, the Court may, in lieu of passing a sentence of death, sentence her to penal servitude for life or any less punishment." The fact was that the passing of sentence of death upon a woman convicted of this offence was, if one might thus speak of so terrible an occurrence, a mockery. As a matter of fact, it had not been carried out in such cases since 1849. The practice had always been to let these unhappy women out after about three years imprisonment. He thought that public opinion was shocked at the idea of the death sentence being passed in cases where it was manifestly inhuman to carry it out, and, on the other hand, it was very much to be regretted that the death penalty should be nominally infliced when there was no reality behind it. Juries were in the habit of taking things upon themselves; they would not convict in many of these cases, and, if they did convict, it was for a minor offence. He did not propose that the death sentence should never be passed. He could conceive cases in which it would be appropriate, although he was glad to think they would be very few; but what he proposed was to allow an option to the Judge.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 121, to insert the following new clause: 'Where a woman is convicted of the murder of her infant, and that child was under the ago of one year, the Court may, in lieu of passing a sentence of death, sentence her to penal servitude for life or any less punishment.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ALVERSTONEsaid the noble and learned Lord had raised a most difficult and delicate question, and he was a little sorry that it had been raised in this Bill, because the Amendment was very far outside the original scheme of the Bill. It was quite true that Judges who had the great responsibility of passing sentence in such cases felt at times that they were obliged to pass a

  1179
  sentence which they knew would not be carried out; but he did not think it right to speak of this as a mockery. He agreed that there were cases in which it was desirable that the death sentence should not be carried out, but he was not sure, in the general interests of human society, it was not better that this should be part of the prerogative of mercy rather than part of the judicial function. Nobody felt more than he did that in these cases the woman was often very much more sinned against than sinning. But the clause as framed went rather far. It was a very grave matter for consideration whether such an option as that set forth in the clause should be given in cases in which the circumstances were not such as those to which the Lord-Chancellor had referred. The longer he lived and the more he was brought into contact with the criminal law, the more was he satisfied that it was essential that the death penalty should be maintained. However, the contention which he submitted to their Lordships in this case was merely that the question before them was a very grave one, which ought to be very fully and carefully considered. There were, no doubt, cases in which it would be a relief to possess the power suggested, but it was a grave alteration of the law which was suggested, and it would, he thought, have been better if it had not been dealt with in this Bill. It certainly had nothing to do with the protection of children in the ordinary sense of the phrase. The alteration of the law might in itself be a valuable one. There was a very great deal to be said on both sides of the question. He did not think, however, that it could be dismissed quite so briefly as the Lord-Chancellor had dealt with it, by applying the word mockery to proceedings under the existing law. The matter was a very grave and serious one, and he was not satisfied by the opinion of his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, notwithstanding the respect in which he held that opinion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORrecognised that it was a serious matter to propose any commutation of the death-sentence. Referring to the question whether such a clause ought to be introduced into this Bill, he pointed out that there would probably not be another
  1180
  opportunity of bringing in a Bill or clause dealing with the subject for a considerable time. The matter related to children and the protection of children. If the Committee thought it proper to reject the clause, let them do so on its merits. He had not the least intention of using the word "mockery" offensively. To pass sentence of death, however, was a very solemn matter. He did think it was a mockery—if he might be permitted the use of the word—that such a sentence should be passed without the probability that it would be carried into effect and when it related to a class of cases for which for upwards of fifty years there had been no execution. Capital punishment in these cases had practically become obsolete in England, and he was thankful that that was so. He did not propose to abolish sentence of death. If it were thought desirable that this punishment should be imposed in a particular case, the new clause left the matter to the discretion of the Judge. His view was that if the Judge thought capital punishment ought not to be inflicted, he ought to be able to say so and to make the outward form of the sentence correspond to the reality. Those who had been trained in the study and practice of the law—including himself—were not able without an effort to do justice to a question of this kind. It was a matter for the considered commonsense of men of the world whether it was not better that the appearance of a Court of Justice should correspond to the reality.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not rise with any idea of discussing the Amendment of my noble and learned friend upon its merits. I think I am probably expressing the opinion of many lay Members of your Lordship's House when I say that, after listening to the speeches that have been delivered, I should feel very great difficulty in deciding how to vote if I were compelled to record my vote this evening. I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice himself frankly admitted that there was a great deal to be said on both sides in regard to this question. What I shall venture to suggest is this. To the best of my belief this Amendment only

  1181
  appeared on the Paper this morning; at any rate, most of us have had no opportunity of considering the question deliberately, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether, in these circumstances, he would not consent to let the matter stand over until Report, by which time we shall have had fuller opportunity of examining the matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORassented.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 128:
  LORD ALVERSTONEpointed out that this clause incorporated the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879. By Sections 10 and 11 of that Act the magistrate could only deal with children with the consent of either parent or guardian. He feared that if it got about that under this new legislation only consent could give the magistrate jurisdiction parents and guardians might be inclined to withhold their consent. It was obviously important that in the Courts for dealing with these cases the magistrates should have this power without the consent of the parent or guardian.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 70, line 19, after the word 'thereto,' to insert the words 'Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections ten and eleven of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, the justices shall have jurisdiction to deal with any charge against a child or young person without his consent or the consent of the parent or guardian of the person so charged.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that, in the opinion of the Government, the Amendment went too far. It clearly would deprive a child and young person of their right to be tried by jury on any charge of an indictable offence, except homicide. Great importance was attached to the privilege of the possibility of trial by jury, and it would be a serious matter to take that right away from children and young persons in the ruthless way proposed.
  LORD ALVERSTONEhoped the noble Earl would consider the matter with a
  1182
  view to some alteration. He could not help thinking that the necessity for consent might render part of the Bill of very little use.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPinvited the noble and learned Lord to put down words for Report, and the Government would consider them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 129 agreed to.
  Clause 130:
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to define the expression "Common Council" as meaning the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the City of London in common council assembled.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 71, line 4, after the word 'person' to insert the words 'The expression "Common Council" means the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the City of London in common council assembled.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 131:
  EARL BEAUCHAMPexplained that the Amendments standing in his name to this clause had been drawn up by the Scottish Office. They were designed to make the Bill apply to Scotland, and he could assure their Lordships that none of the Amendments took more power for Scotland than would exist in England.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 71, line 40, to leave out from the word 'shall' to the end of line 41, and to insert the words 'for the purposes of Part I. of this Act have the same powers of making inquiries, calling for Returns, and applying to the Court of Session as they have for the purposes of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 76, line 34, after the word '1890,' to insert the words 'Provided that, in the case

  1183
  of a Royal parliamentary or police burgh, the expression "police authority," where occurring in Section 59 and in Section 120 of this Act, means the town council; and provided further, that whore in any such burgh expenses chargeable to the police fund or as part of the current expenses of a police authority would, under the existing law, be payable out of the burgh general assessment, expenses so chargeable under the provisions of this Act shall be defrayed as expenses incurred by a town council under Section seventy-four of this Act.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 77, after subsection (24), to insert the following new subsection: (25) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, nothing in this Act shall be construed to repeal, alter, prejudice, or affect any of the provisions of the Glasgow Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Repression Acts, 1878 and 1896 (hereinafter referred to as the Glasgow Acts), and the Commissioners and directors acting under the Glasgow Acts shall continue to have the full rights, privileges, and powers at present competent to them. Provided, nevertheless, that the Secretary for Scotland may, by order under his hand, provide for altering, amending, or adapting the Glasgow Acts so as to provide: (a) For the retiral of the existing directors, for the reconstitution of the board of directors, for the election of new directors, for subsequent elections of directors, for the annual retiral of one-third of the directors, and for supplying vacancies arising from time to time; (b) for the assessments authorised to be levied under the Glasgow Acts being levied in the same manner as assessments for the expenses of a town council for the purposes of Section seventy-four of this Act instead of as in the Glasgow Acts provided, and for the reduction of the maximum amount thereof, if thought proper, and for the application of the said assessments; (c) for authorising the said directors to grant securities over all lands and heritages vested in them, including school houses; (d) for raising the age up to which, under the Glasgow Act, a child may, upon the request of the school board, if the Court think it expedient, be sent to a certified day industrial school from thirteen years to fourteen years, and for providing that any order for payment of contributions by a parent under the Glasgow Acts shall be enforceable as a decree for aliment; and (e) for otherwise altering, amending, or adapting the provisions of the Glasgow Acts, as may seem to him necessary to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act, or to enable the powers under the Glasgow Acts to be exercised as if they were powers under this Act. Any such order may be revoked and varied by a subsequent order.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 132:
  THE EARL OF MEATHmoved to amend the subsection which made it unlawful for a pawnbroker in Ireland to take an article in pawn from any person apparently under the age of thirteen, by making the age fourteen. He pointed out that the Bill had already made the age fourteen in England, and argued that there was no reason for making any difference in the case of Ireland. The only argument he had heard which at all appealed to him was that Irish children were so much more intelligent, that an Irish child of thirteen could be considered equal to an English or Scottish child of fourteen. His Amendment was supported by at least fourteen Irish associations which had petitioned and passed resolutions in its favour, and he appealed to their Lordships to prevent what he regarded as a really unnecessary differentiation between Great Britain and Ireland.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 78, line 31, to leave out the word 'thirteen,' and to insert the word 'fourteen.'"—(The Earl of Meath.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPresisted the Amendment. If, he said, it were accepted now, there was no chance of its meeting with approval in another place. The subject was there discussed at considerable length, and the age in the clause was arrived at as a kind of compromise. Up till now there had been no age-limit in this matter in Ireland, and it was thought rather hard that the age should be made at once as high as in England, where for many years this restriction had existed.
  LORD ATKINSONsaid it seemed to him that the subsection was inserted not to further the objects of the Bill, but to benefit the pawnbrokers of Ireland at the expense of Irish children.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREassociated himself with the noble Earl who moved the Amendment. He was, he said, connected with several clothing and similar organisations, and his experience was that it was almost impossible to keep children warm during

  1185
  winter if they were allowed on any occasion to pawn their clothes for the purpose, possibly, of a bet on a horse or buying cigarettes. He thought there should be no differentiation in the matter of age.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREthen moved the Amendment which he had previously moved to Clause 11, but had withdrawn on the suggestion of Earl Beauchamp.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 79, line 8, after subsection (16), to insert, as a new subsection, the words, 'The provisions relating to exemptions from Part 1 of this Act shall include any religious or charitable society which shall pay any person for keeping an infant, or to the person so employed, provided that such society shall have obtained from the Local Government Board a certificate that it is a fit and proper institution to be exempted from the provisions of that part of this Act.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 133:
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to substitute the 1st day of April, for the 1st day of January, 1909, as the day when, save as otherwise expressly provided, the Act should come into operation.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 82, line 24, to leave out the word 'January,' and to insert the word 'April.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedules agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived; the report of Amendments to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 220.]
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.