Sitting of 28 July 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions far Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Limerick Harbour Commissioners Bill [Lords].
Alexandra Park and Palace Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Southgate Urban District Council Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Arundell Estate (Closing of Arundell Street and Panton Square) Bill [Lords],
Central London Railway Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Conyngham Heirlooms Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Edinburgh Corporation Bill [Lords].
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Gomm Heirlooms Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Grays and Tilbury Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Great Eastern Railway Bill [Lords],
Verbal Amendments made; King's consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Kent Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Lord Wimborne's Estate Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Worthing Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Bradford Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Ebbw Vale Water Bill [Lords],
Huddersfield Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Leith Harbour and Docks Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
Ascot Authority Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That, in the case of the Ascot Authority Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill on Wednesday next.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Watney, Combe, Reid, and Company Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That in the case of the Watney, Combe, Reid, and Company Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill on Wednesday next.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No 3) Bill [Lord],
Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Pilotage Provisional Order Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Airdrie Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Airdrie Corporation Gas." Presented by Mr. MCKINNON WOOD; and ordered, under Section 7 of the Act, to be considered To-morrow.
Message from the Lords,—
That they have agreed to:—
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 20) Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
North-Eastern Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
East Ham Corporation (re-committed) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A) [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL.
Copy presented of Report on Inquiry by the Industrial Council into Industrial Agreements [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Industrial Council in connection with their Inquiry into Industrial Agreements [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

RAILWAY RETURNS.
Copy presented of Returns of the Capital, Traffic Receipts, and Working Expenditure of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1912, with a General Report thereon and Summary Tables for a, series of years [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COST OF LIVING OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
Copy presented of Report of an Inquiry by the Board of Trade into Working-class Rents and Retail Prices, together with the Rates of Wages in certain occupations in Industrial Towns of the United Kingdom in 1912 (in continuation of a similar Inquiry in 1905) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5172 and 5173 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

COMPENSATION FOR INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire and report-whether the following diseases can properly be added to those enumerated in the Third Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, namely: (1) Cow-pox, (2) Depuytren's Contraction, (3) Clonic Spasm of the Eyelids, apart from Nystagmus, (4) Writer's Cramp. Report

5
and Minutes of Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
Copy presented of Thirty-seventh Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives for the year 1912 [by Command] to lie upon the Table.
PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of Licence granted to a Convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (HALF-YEARLY STATEMENTS).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 6th May; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 233.]
UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 15th July; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 234.]
UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA.
Copy presented of Correspondence relating to recent disorders on the Witwatersrand and the Employment of Regular troops [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
Account presented of Receipts and Expenditure of the Paymaster-General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in respect of the Funds of Suitors of the Court in the year ended 28th February, 1913, and of Account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of Funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 235.]
BOY LABOUR IN THE POST OFFICE.
Copy presented of third Report of the Standing Committee on Boy Labour in the Post Office [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF DEVON).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
Further Return relative thereto [ordered 26th July, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  War in Balkans.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Bulgarian forces previously to the Treaty of London occupied a position of great strength opposite the Chatalja lines; and whether it was due to the pressure of the Powers that the Allies were obliged to accept the Enos-Midia line and withdraw from a position which could be held against the Turkish Army?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): It is true that His Majesty's representative at Sofia was instructed to point out to the Bulgarian Government the advisability of withdrawing behind the Enos-Midia line as soon as his colleagues received similar instructions, but I am not aware that any such withdrawal was effected, nor am I competent to pronounce on the technical values of the positions in question.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Could my hon. Friend state what reply has been received from the Turkish Government concerning the representations made to them?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: Is it not a fact in regard to the Treaty of London that pressure was put upon the Allies to withdraw to a permanent frontier behind a line opposite Chatalja which they then held?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, Sir, of course, there was a desire that the Treaty should be carried out.

  Tuberculous Cows.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a discussion at the recent congress of the Royal Sanitary Institute held at Exeter

  7
  at the beginning of this month, in which the opinion was expressed by a leading veterinary expert, and sympathetically received by the congress, to the effect that the consumption of milk containing bovine tubercle bacilli has the effect of immunising young children and others against human tuberculosis, and that measures for exterminating tuberculosis in cattle may actually result in a spread of the human disease; and, if so, whether he is prepared to reconsider the possible effects of the Tuberculosis Order of 1913 in the light of modern scientific knowledge or, alternatively, to defer the enforcement of its provisions pending further scientific research? In putting this question, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the main virtue of it lay in the word "drastic" which appeared before the word "enforcement," and that that word has been cut out.
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS (Parliamentary Secretary to Local Government Board): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. His attention has been called to the expression of opinion quoted by the hon. Member, but in view of the far more generally expressed opinion that a great number of young children every year contract tuberculosis with fatal results through the consumption of milk from tuberculous cows, he is not disposed to relax the efforts which he is making to check the disease by the operation of the Tuberculosis Order of 1913.

  Stafford House.
  Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can state what accommodation will be available in Stafford House for the entertainment of distinguished foreign visitors; and whether a date has (been fixed for the use of the apartments destined for this purpose?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner regrets that he is not able, at present, to state what accommodation will be available, nor is it possible at this stage to name a date when the apartments for entertainment purposes will be ready for use.

  Thames Embankment Gardens.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the Embankment garden adjoining the House of
  8
  Lords will eventually be thrown into one open space along with the new gardens on the Embankment which are being laid out under the London County Council; and, if a single sweep of garden is not at present contemplated, whether such development will be considered?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The plans now under consideration contemplate a single sweep of garden throughout the area available.

  Load Line.
  Mr. M'GHEEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Committee appointed to inquire into the subject of the load line, which was presided over by Sir Edward Reed, and which reported in 1885, recommended that it would only tend to failure to entrust the task of assigning compulsory load lines which we describe to any purely official administration, but stated that it should be entrusted to some body of a more representative character which should consist not only of officials but also of gentlemen who, as shipowners, naval architects, seamen, and perhaps underwriters, would bring to bear on work great knowledge and experience; and why he has ignored the recommendation, when setting up the Committee which he has recently appointed, in not selecting a representative seaman to a place on the Committee?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The Report and recommendations of the Load Line Committee of 1885, to which my hon. Friend refers, were carefully considered when the Act of 1890 was before Parliament, and, so far as was then thought expedient, were given effect to by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1890. The provisions of that Act, reproduced in the Consolidation Act of 1894, are still in force, and put certain statutory obligations on the Board of Trade. I may point out that the Committee which is now sitting is not an assigning body but an advisory body, and was not intended to be representative of particular interests. But, as I have already stated, every facility is being, and will be, given for representatives of seamen and others interested to place their views before the Committee.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I ask whether, in view of all the reports and statements which have been made in regard to this question, he would not consider the advisability of appointing a

  9
  Committee of this House to inquire into those statements?
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not know to what statements my hon. Friend refers. I can only say, in addition to the answer given, that the matter was very carefully considered by a very strong Committee.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: The statements I allude to were in connection with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when President of the Board of Trade, and the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and the right hon. Gentleman himself and his colleague beside him.
  Mr. BUXTON: That is a different matter as to whether the load line of 1906, after six years, should not be examined into, in order to see how far it has been effective and how far deficient. The question we are dealing with is quite different from that which the hon. Member suggests.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the clerks employed at the Walham Green, Clapham Junction, Canning Town, Leyton, Holloway, Woolwich, Kingston, Shepherd's Bush, Tottenham, Borough High Street, and Brentford Labour Exchanges have worked, on an' average, about 350 hours each overtime from the 1st February last to the 30th June without any extra remuneration; whether it is proposed to give them any extra remuneration; and, if so, why there is so much delay?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I am aware that a considerable amount of overtime has been worked in many of the Labour Exchanges during this period, though the average for the Exchanges specified is much below the figure stated in the question. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave in reply to the hon. Member for Hammersmith on 17th July.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the 18th and 19th instant men were being engaged-within the precincts of the Gravesend Labour Exchange for work at Leith docks,-where a dispute is in progress; that a man who applied at the Exchange was informed that there was nothing for him, but that a man
  10
  in the porch was engaging men for Leith; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter and give instructions that the porch or any other part of an Exchange must not be used for such a purpose?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have caused inquiry to be made into the matter, and understand that there is no foundation for the statement that an applicant was informed by an officer of the Gravesend Labour Exchange that a man in the porch of that Exchange was engaging men for Leith, nor was any such person seen or known to be there by the officers of the Exchange on the days in question. No member of the public is permitted to use the precincts of any Exchange in the manner described, and I therefore see no reason to issue special intructions on this point.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    WAR STAFF.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the distribution of business has been altered at the Admiralty in so far as the War Staff is now placed under the control and orders of the First Lord and removed from the control and orders of the First Sea Lord?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): No change has been made in regard to the relations of the War Staff to the Board of Admiralty as laid down in the table of distribution of business. By that table the superintendence of the War Staff is assigned to the First Sea Lord. There is therefore no foundation for the Noble Lord's suggestion.

    OIL FUEL.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state to the House the specification of oil as to flash-point when oil fuel was first introduced into the Navy, and the specification now; whether he will state to the House if the flash-point has been altered considerably during the last twelve months; and, if so, whether he will state to the House to what extent?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The flash-point was fixed at 250 degrees Fahrenheit in 1902, but was reduced to 200 degrees Fahrenheit in 1903. In 1912–13, as a result of expert advice and experiment, it was decided to reduce the flash-point to 175 degrees Fahrenheit except in the case of light shale and distillate oils—for which a flash-point of

    11
    200 degrees Fahrenheit is still retained. I may mention that Lloyd's standard is 150 degrees Fahrenheit (close test), and, under certain precautions, an even lower flash is permitted to be used in merchant ships.
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the contracts to be made for the supply of oil will be made only with companies registered in England or with firms established in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In the great majority of cases the large producing companies, if not themselves registered in the United Kingdom, either have branch offices here or British firms acting as their agents. The Admiralty is in no way precluded, however, from making a contract direct with a foreign producing company whenever such a course is advantageous.
    Mr. FELL: Would not great difficulties arise in the event of war if we had contracts with firms or companies in foreign countries?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Strange as it may seem, those aspects are borne in mind by the Admiralty.
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is the intention of the Admiralty in purchasing or acquiring interests in oil fields to confine such purchases to the Colonies or to parts of the British Empire?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already stated to the House the general lines of Admiralty policy in regard to oil fuel supplies, and it is not in the public interest that the possible intentions of the Admiralty and its ultimate policy should be more precisely stated at the present time.

    "HAELEQUIN," "INSOLENT" AND "ANT" (LANDING VESSELS).
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the vessels "Harlequin," "Insolent," and "Ant," used for landing liberty men from the Fleet at Spithead, are obsolete and unsuitable for the duty, and that the "Harlequin" cannot steer with accuracy; whether he is aware that these vessels have sometimes to visit six or seven ships in order to get the men on board; and, seeing that owing to this sometimes the men do not get ashore until five o'clock in the afternoon, although their leave is supposed to commence at 1.30,
    12
    whether the Board can see their way to supply vessels suitable for this work?
    Mr. LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): The "Ant" and "Insolent" are no longer in use for this service. A vessel large enough to replace them both has already been purchased and is expected to be delivered in September. The "Harlequin" was acquired in 1908, and is reported to be a suitable vessel in regard to accommodation and speed. I am not prepared to accept the Noble Lord's suggestion that she cannot steer with accuracy. She is, however, reported to be unhandy, and arrangements are being made to effect certain improvements in her. In regard to the last part of the question I have received no report indicating that the time occupied in getting the men ashore is as great as is suggested by the Noble Lord.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: What is the difference between steering badly and being unhandy?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The Noble Lord will be able to appreciate that point better than I.
    Mr. FALLE: Is it the fact that the paddle wheels are locked, or can they be worked separately?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I have no information except what I have given in my reply.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACT (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firm of J. W. Blake and Son, Gosport, Admiralty contractors, have been employing a hammerman at a rate of 2½d. per hour, the proper rate being 5¾d. per hour; that when the men's union made representations to the firm the reply was given that they had taken him to be younger than he actually was, and that he had not been employed upon skilled work, and the man was subsequently discharged; and whether, in view of the fact that there is a difference of opinion as to the work the man was engaged upon, he will have inquiries made in order to ensure that the system of this firm is not in contravention of the Fair-Wages Clause?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Inquiry will be made into the circumstances referred to in the question.
    Mr. HUDSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) if his attention has been called by the Newcastle dis

    13
    trict secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers to the fact that Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company, are not observing the Fair-Wages Clause of the House of Commons in the payment of skilled mechanics (engineers) doing Government work; and what decision, if any, has been arrived at by his Department on the matter; and (2) whether his attention has been called by the Newcastle district secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers to the fact that the Parsons Marine Turbine Company, Wallsend-on-Tyne, have not observed the Fair-Wages Clause of the House of Commons in paying skilled mechanics (engineers) employed on Government work; and what action, if any, he has taken in the matter?
    Mr. LAMBERT: This matter has been reported to the Admiralty and is being investigated.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Messrs. Morrison and Mason have agreed to observe the wages and working conditions for all classes of workmen, including navvies and labourers, as laid down in the agreement signed between the trades union and the Portsmouth Master Builders' Association?
    Mr. LAMBERT: It is understood that Messrs. Morrison and Mason have entered into no agreement, but that, so far as they are applicable, they are observing the wages conditions for all classes of workmen, including navvies and labourers, as laid down in the agreement mentioned.

    SHIPS ON CHINESE STATIONS.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty in view of the present condition of affairs in China, how many of His Majesty's ships are at present on the Yangtse between Hankow and Shanghai; how many are at Shanghai itself; whether there is any reserve of gunboats at Hong Kong available for river work; and when will the two river gunboats promised last year be ready for service?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: By latest advices there are twelve of His Majesty's ships between Hankow and Shanghai, three at Shanghai itself. Two more large ships are proceeding to Wusung and two destroyers to Shanghai. There are no gunboats in reserve at Hong Kong, but there are torpedo craft which can be employed on river work if necessary. The date for the delivery of the two new river
    14
    gunboats of the present year's programme is not yet settled, but on present information it is estimated that the vessels will be completed in the early part of 1915.

    NAVAL MANŒUVRES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION).
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is customary during the naval manœuvres for the wireless operators on certain ships to be engaged in deliberately interfering with the wireless communication of the opposing Fleet; whether the problem of jamming messages is a simple one and easily applied to the Imperial service; and will he say whether there are any known means of preventing this?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that it is not the universal custom during manœuvres to attempt to interfere with the opposing Fleet's messages, though it may at times have been attempted for short periods. It is not worth the trouble involved and the delay caused to the communications of one's own Fleet, and has in practice often been found abortive. The problem is not a simple one, even when the installations are of the same type, and would be more difficult when the details of the opponent's system are not well known, and very difficult in the ease of stations well separated from each other. The answer to the last part of the question is generally in the affirmative.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Is it not possible to tap messages sent across?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

    OFFICERS INTERESTED IN CONTRACTING FIRMS OR COMPANIES.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if there is any Navy regulation or rule of the Service prohibiting naval officers while serving His Majesty from entering into relations with, or holding interests in, the business of contractors to the Admiralty, or from holding shares or other interests in companies entering into contracts with the Admiralty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: By Article 14 of the King's Regulations, officers are forbidden to have any pecuniary interests or personal advantage in the purchase of or in contracts for the supply of provisions or stores of any kind for the use of His Majesty's ships or the naval service generally, or in contracts made for the execution of any naval works on shore.

  Ewell Charities.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will inquire of the trustees of the charities of Ewell, Surrey, how many meetings of the trustees have been held and on what dates during the last three years; whether the representative trustees were consulted before the requests and communications put forward as the wishes and views of all the trustees were presented to the Board; and whether all due formalities will be observed and properly certified before the money of these charities is allowed to be paid over for the building of a Church of England school at Ewell?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I see no ground for making the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member. I have no information to show that all the trustees were not consulted on any proposals made to the Board. I have no reason to suppose that the trustees will not observe all due formalities in dealing with the funds of the charities.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that allegations are being made which render this transaction, at any rate, suspicious and liable to be upset later on by decisions of the Courts of Law, and will he therefore make inquiry?
  Mr. PEASE: If a primâ facie case is made out, of course I will make further inquiries, but I have no information which would justify me at the present moment in making inquiries.
  Mr. KING: Would a newspaper report be considered primâ facie?
  Mr. PEASE: It depends upon what the newspaper report contains.

  Ratepayer's Right to Inspect Documents.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, previous to the Act of 1902, any ratepayer had the right to inspect documents in the office of his local school board; that this right was appreciated by ratepayers, especially those desirous of knowing the reports of His Majesty's inspectors; whether he is aware that the ratepayers in different localities are now prevented, under the Education Act of 1902, from knowing whether the reports of the schools to which their children are sent are satisfactory, and that suspicion
  16
  and friction have thereby arisen; and whether the right of ratepayers to know how their money is spent will be restored by the Education Bill of next Session?
  Mr. PEASE: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. Section 87 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, which conferred the right which he mentions, was repealed by the Education Act, 1902. Article 23 of the Code directs that any report on a school sent by the Board to the local education authority or to the managers must be entered in the log book. The managing bodies of public elementary schools in county areas now include representatives appointed by minor local authorities, to whom, in practice, the inspectors' reports are communicated. I am not aware of the existence of such suspicion and friction as the hon. Member suggests. I will consider the point raised in the last part of the question.

  Education (No. 2) Bill.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether it is intended to proceed this Session with the Education (No. 2) Bill; and, if not, how the Supplementary Estimate, Class IV., Sub-head 2r Vote DD, can be distributed?
  Mr. PEASE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I should add that unless the Bill becomes law we shall not feel authorised to distribute the proposed Grant of £100,000 to local education authorities.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND RAILWAY.
    Mr. WARDLEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, although a certificate of exception from the provisions of the Insurance Act was issued to the Great North of Scotland Railway in October last, the regulations providing for the issue of a notice of certificate of exception and schedule of terms to the staff concerned have not yet been complied with; and whether he will make inquiries as to the cause of the delay and request the company to issue a notice at once?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: My right hon. Friend is informed that the Commissioners are in communication with the company in the matter with a view to notice in the prescribed form being given at an early date.

    INSURED PERSONS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked what is the total number of insured persons in Scotland, distinguishing between compulsorily insured, voluntarily insured, and deposit contributors, as ascertained from the latest figures?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The estimated numbers at the present time are 1,441,629, 1,963, and 36,014, respectively.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES' FUNDS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked what is the amount of money at present held by the Scottish Insurance or National Debt Commissioners on behalf of approved societies in Scotland; in what securities have the available moneys been invested, and by whom; what is the rate of interest earned on such invested moneys; what appreciation or depreciation has taken place in such securities; and, if there has been depreciation, who bears the loss on securities invested by the National Debt Commissioners?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The amount at present standing to the credit of the Scottish National Health Insurance Fund is £1,551,124, of which £1,425,000, has been issued to the National Debt Commissioners for investment. With regard to the second part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the annual Return issued by the National Debt Commissioners under Section 54 (6) of the Act. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the last Return from which he will observe that about one-half of the investments are in short-dated securities. The liability of the National Health Insurance Fund to societies in respect of moneys standing to their credit in that fund is a cash liability. The Treasury regulations of 12th August, 1912 (S.R. and O. 1201, of 1912), by which the National Debt Commissioners are governed in their management of the sums issued to them for investment, provide means for protecting that fund against loss through the depreciation of investments so made. The average Tate of interest earned on the capital sums invested (excluding moneys awaiting investment) is about £3 8s, 6d. per cent.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: If in Scotland the original basis was 9d. for 4d. and there is all this enormous surplus, may I ask if the people have been getting 9d. for 4d.?
    Mr. W. BENN: Perhaps the Noble Lord will put a question down on that point.

    TUBERCULOSIS OFFICERS.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Local Government Board in how many cases medical officers of health have been appointed to perform the duties of tuberculosis officer in addition to their other existing duties?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): In seven cases the Local Government Board, with: the concurrence of the Insurance Commissioners, have approved of the arrangement referred to.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these seventy people come up to the qualifications for efficiency laid down by the Local Government Board?
    Mr. BURNS: If my hon. Friend will look at the answer I am giving to Question No. 68, he will be fully answered.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in giving approval to or withholding it from tuberculosis schemes submitted by local authorities, the Board have taken into consideration the staffing of dispensaries and sanatoria, including the tenure and other conditions of appointment of the staff and the qualifications and experience of tuberculosis officers?
    Mr. BURNS: In reviewing the schemes put before them by local authorities, the Local Government Board have regard to all relevant considerations, including such as those referred to in the question.

    RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS (IRELAND).
    Mr. MEAGHERasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the amount received from employers, employés, and the State in Ireland, respectively, for National Health Insurance during the year ending 14th July instant; the amount paid, respectively, for sickness benefit, maternity benefit, sanatorium benefit, during the six months and for administration expenses during the twelve months that the same have been in operation; the amount received from employers, employés, and the State, respectively, for unemployment insurance in Ireland during the twelve months ending 14th July instant; and the amount paid in unemployment benefit to

    19
    unemployed persons directly and to associations, respectively, during the six months during which benefits have been payable?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The receipts into the Irish National Health Insurance Fund up to the 13th instant were £824,883, including £130,687 State Grant. There is no means of distinguishing between the-contributions of employers and employed. £112,565 was issued to approved societies for administration expenses, and £193,601 14s. 1d. for sickness and maternity benefits in the same period. £15,994 19s. 10d. was issued to insurance committees for sanatorium benefit and administration. For an answer to the second part of the question, perhaps my hon. Friend will address the President of the Board of Trade.

  House of Commons (Procedure).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he could arrange in future to give notice of all Money Resolutions on Bills by having the same printed on the Order Paper in sufficient time to allow of Amendments being put down to them?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I see no sufficient reason to depart from the usual practice of the House in regard to this matter, but the question will no doubt be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does the Prime Minister not realise the difficulty which, as a matter of fact, occurred only last week when Members were suggesting Amendments to a Resolution they could not possibly have seen?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We have gone a great deal further than our predecessors by putting these Resolutions on the Paper. I very much deprecate the practice which has grown up of discussing details twice—both on the Resolution and on the Bill.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Eleven o'clock Rule is now suspended, and that Members are also being asked to sit on Committees after 2.45 when the House is sitting; and "whether he will consider the possibility of changing an arrangement which leaves so much of the Session without Committee work, and crowds the bulk of it into the last few
  20
  weeks, when sufficient time cannot be given to a considered discussion of useful measures?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This is also a matter which might, I think, well be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration this suggestion: that next Session he provide an early day in order that the Second Readings of the Scottish Bills may be taken, so that the Bills may be sent up to Committee at the beginning of the Session and not crowded into the last three weeks?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid if I were to promise that, a similar request would be preferred by England, Ireland, and Wales.
  Mr. GRETTON: Have the Committee on Procedure any influence on the arrangement of Government business?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is appointed for that purpose.
  Sir W. BYLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed how empty the benches are during Question Time? Is he aware that several large Committees are seated upstairs at the present moment, that Ministers who ought to be there are here, and that Ministers who ought to be here are there?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter which the Select Committee on Procedure may well consider.
  Sir W. BYLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer this particular question of procedure to the Committee?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It comes, I believe, within the scope of their inquiry.

  Financial Relations (Scotland).
  Mr. COWANasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to facilitate the early establishment of a domestic legislature in Scotland, he will appoint a Commission to investigate during the Recess the relations at present obtaining between Scotland and Great Britain in the matter of public income and expenditure, with a view to fixing the appropriate contribution to Imperial revenue which Scotland under Home Rule should make and the most convenient form of levying such contribution?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared at present to promise to appoint such a Commission.

  Financial Relations (Wales).
  Mr. JOHNasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to facilitate the early establishment of a domestic Legislature in Wales, he will appoint a Commission to investigate, during the Recess, the relations at present existing between the Principality, including Monmouthshire, and Great Britain in the matter of public income and expenditure, so as to fix the appropriate contribution of the Principality to Imperial revenues, the fittest method of levying the same, and the probable amount of the cost of the domestic services assuming that none are reserved to Imperial Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared at present to promise and appoint such a Commission.

  Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1912.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction that has been caused amongst traders by the manner in which the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1912, is being carried out; and whether he will appoint a Special Committee to inquire into the working of this Act?
  Mr. BUXTON: The effect of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1913, is to lay down the conditions under which a rise in the cost of labour shall be deemed by the Railway and Canal Commission to justify an increase of railway rates if challenged under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1894. As no case in which it has been sought to justify an increase of rates under the Act of 1913 has as yet been heard by the Commissioners, any inquiry into the working of the Act would be in any case altogether premature.
  Mr. MORRELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to the dissatisfaction which has arisen in connection with this matter in many commercial centres?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have received certain resolutions on the point, but I may point out that the Act has not yet really begun to work, and, therefore, it would be of no use at the present moment to inquire into its operation.

  Education Grants (Scotland).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked what equivalent Grants, if any, will be given to Scotland consequent upon the proposals in the Education (No. 2) Bill?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): There are cases in which the principle of equivalent Grants is appropriate, but there are other cases in which it is not appropriate. This is one of the latter cases. Education Grants for Scotland are based upon consideration of the needs of Scotland, which in many respects are different from those of England, but care is taken to ensure that the aid given from the Imperial Exchequer to Education in Scotland as a whole is not less than what is given to England. At the present moment Scotland is certainly not suffering any disadvantage.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that the fact that at present Scotland is not suffering is due to this: that in Scotland education is in receipt of Grants which are applied to other purposes in England?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is so, but it does not entirely account for the difference in the state of affairs.
  Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that a few weeks ago he kindly gave me figures which showed that Scotland is getting a great deal more per head of population for education than England?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, but that answer is subject to certain qualifications.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the equivalent Grant in this case is £13,750? How can he view with equanimity this sum of money going out of Scotland?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I view, not only with equanimity but with pleasure, the fact that we are getting £42,000 for which England is not demanding an equivalent. If the Education Grants are based on the necessities of Scotland they must also be based on the necessities of England. In this case England has a special necessity which Scotland does not suffer from.

  Public Health.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been

  23
  called to the suggestion of Sir Thomas Barlow and other distinguished medical men, and endorsed by a unanimous resolution of the British Medical Association, now meeting at Brighton, that a Royal Commission should be appointed in order to investigate the public health aspect of venereal disease; and whether he intends to act upon this suggestion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I stated in reply to a question on Friday last, the suggestion is receiving careful consideration. I can say nothing more at present.

  Provisional Collection of Taxes Act.
  Mr. CASSELasked if Mr. T. Gibson Bowles, who in the action Bowles v. the Bank of England, recovered the Income Tax unlawfully deducted by the Bank from a dividend due to him, has now been called upon by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to pay to them that same Income Tax; has this been done by the direction of the Treasury and of the Prime Minister as First Lord thereof, or by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of their own motion without such direction; and, seeing that the action in question, which established an important public principle, cost Mr. Bowles £3,084, including £137 of his law costs which the Treasury refused to pay, though it paid the whole costs of the Bank, and that Mr. Attorney-General undertook that the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act would not have the effect either of robbing Mr. Bowles of the fruits of his action or of laying him open to some sort of counter claim, is it proposed to persist in the claim now made?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The assessment has been made by the District Commissioners of Taxes, the proper authorities for dealing with such a matter, under the provisions of the Income Tax Acts. The observation referred to in the last part of the question was directed to any action which might have been taken by the Bank of England, and could not bind the District Commissioners in the exercise of their statutory functions. The Attorney-General on the same occasion, in reply to the hon. and learned Member himself, made it quite clear that Mr. Gibson Bowles could not escape having to pay his Income Tax by having caused to
  24
  be set aside the practice of deduction without statutory authority.
  Mr. CASSEL: Is that an assurance that the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act itself will not be used against Mr. Bowles?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not quite know that I can say that. He has simply to pay Income Tax like anybody else.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: And he has had a very good run for his money.
  Mr. CASSELasked why the undertaking given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Government, of which the Prime Minister has been reminded from time to time, to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act has not been carried out; and whether it will be carried out next Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government will take steps to set up a Committee forthwith, unless, owing to the late date of the Session, it is agreed through the usual channels to postpone its appointment till next Session.

  Railway Rates.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether and, if so, when it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Select Committee of the two Houses of Parliament to inquire into the whole question of railway rates, with a view to reclassification and general revision?
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not think a Committee of the kind suggested, with the object mentioned, would lead to useful results. The Government have the question of an inquiry into the railway position under consideration, but I cannot yet make any announcement on the question.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the Government have abandoned their intention of introducing this Session a one-Clause Bill to meet the grievances of farmers and traders in respect of owners' risk rates charged upon produce and merchandise consigned by rail to balance to some extent the benefits conferred upon the railway companies by the Railways Act of last Session?
  Mr. BUXTON: I regret that it has not been found possible to arrive at such an agreement in regard to the question of owner's risk rates as to enable me to

  25
  introduce a Bill on the subject this Session.
  Mr. BARNSTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government did not practically give a pledge that they would introduced the Bill this Session?
  Mr. BUXTON: On the contrary; I said particularly that if I could arrive at an agreement such as would make it a more or less non-contentious measure, it would be introduced, but it was quite evident that otherwise it could not be introduced this Session.

  Excessive Sickness (Scotland).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked whether approved societies in Scotland are finding that the average expectation of cost of sickness benefit is being exceeded, and, in particular, if the societies mainly composed of women are finding much excess of expenditure; whether there has been any excess in any particular district or with regard to any society or group of societies; to what the excess has been due; and what steps the Commissioners propose to take with regard to this important question?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to the hon. Member for Salisbury, on the 12th ultimo, it is too early to make any generalisation as to the actual claims for sickness benefit in comparison with the actuaries' estimates. The Commissioners are, however, taking steps to obtain information from approved societies on the points raised by my hon. Friend, and the whole subject, as he is aware, will be the matter of an inquiry by a Departmental Committee.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he has received any representations from boards of guardians asking for an Amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act by which pensions may be given to persons admitted to the workhouse for medical care, and such pensions or some part of them be recoverable, by the guardians in payment for the treatment; and if he can hold out any hope of legislation on the subject?
  Mr. W. BENN: Representations have been received of the nature referred to; but I am afraid that I cannot hold out hope of legislation on the subject.

  National Gallery.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can explain the need for a Supplementary Estimate, Class IV., Sub-head 2, being an additional £1,200 for police at the National Gallery?
  Mr. W. BENN: This Supplementary Estimate has been presented because since the date at which the original Estimate was framed it has been found necessary to increase the staff of police at the National Gallery and the National Gallery of British Art.
  Mr. GRETTON: Is the increase necessitated by the recent outrages?
  Mr. W. BENN: I think that is so.

  Vivisection Inspectors.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to ensure that the vivisection inspectors to be appointed are in sympathy with the Act they are called on to enforce?
  The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): My right hon. Friend will satisfy himself before making the appointment that the persons to be appointed are qualified for the post in this as in other respects.

  Poor Rate (Prosecution at Burnham, Bucks).
  Mr. RADFORDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether William Allan Macdonald was, on Monday last, arrested by the police, without warrant shown, and sentenced by the justices at Burnham, Bucks, to four weeks' imprisonment for non-payment of poor rate in respect of a house called Conewood, Farnham Royal, Bucks, and forthwith committed to Reading Gaol; whether he is aware that Macdonald is not the owner or tenant of Conewood, or otherwise liable for the rates on the same; and whether he will make inquiry and, if the above facts are established, order his immediate release?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: My right hon. Friend is making inquiry with regard to this case, but in any event he has no power to interfere with a term of imprisonment imposed in default of payment of poor rates.

  Motor Omnibus Collision (Whitechapel Road).
  Mr. CASSELasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to a collision which took place between two motor omnibuses in Whitechapel Road on 6th July, whereby the two vehicles became locked together and were badly damaged; if so, whether he is aware that the vehicles were removed by the breakdown gang of the motor omnibus company without any inspection or interference on the part of the police; and whether he can explain why the practice usually adopted in the case of tramcars in a similar condition was not followed, namely, that of holding up the vehicles pending the arrival of an official from Scotland Yard?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The detention in situ of motor public carriages concerned in a street accident, whatever the type of vehicle, necessarily depends on the circumstances of the individual case, and must, therefore, be a matter for the discretion of the police. The directions to send for an expert official to make an examination on the spot apply only to cases of serious accident. The accident referred to was of an ordinary character.

  Suffragist Disturbances.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any information as to the disturbances in St. Stephen's Hall on Thursday evening last and, in particular, whether Miss Margaret Macmillan was thrown down by the police; and, if so, why this was done?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The police have no knowledge of any woman having been thrown down in St. Stephen's Hall. Mrs. Pethick Lawrence with several other ladies had been permitted to accompany Sir Edward Busk to St. Stephen's Hall as a deputation, and while there she began to make a speech. She was requested to refrain and on refusal was removed from the hall. Owing to the resistance offered some measure of force had to be used.
  Mr. KING: Have the persons who were convicted as a result of this disturbance been let out already by order of the Home Secretary?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Has any report been made to the Home Office as to the injuries to Miss Margaret Macmillan and Mrs. Lawrence?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The question was asked with regard to whether anybody had been thrown down in St. Stephen's Hall, but the police say they have no information of that kind.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it not a fact that this happened at the top of Westminster Hall, which is below St. Stephen's Hall?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I understand that this occurrence, so far as the police know, did not occur anywhere.

  Lagos.
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information as to the closing of the port of Lagos, on the West Coast of Africa; if so, whether such closing is likely to be prolonged; how many cases of yellow fever have been reported; and whether the medical officer apprehends any serious condition of affairs consequent on the cases reported?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Two cases of yellow fever have occurred in Lagos within the last ten days, and the port has in consequence been declared infected; but I have no reason to suppose that it has been closed to shipping. The port will probably not be declared free from infection until eighteen days have elapsed from the isolation, death or recovery of the last suspected case. No case has been notified to me since the 21st instant, and judging from the information that I have received there is no reason whatever to anticipate a serious outbreak.
  Mr. HIGHAM: Have either of the cases been those of Europeans?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am not sure. Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of the question.

  South Africa (Strike of Miners).
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of Imperial troops now stationed on the Witwatersrand, and the number on the 15th July?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The number remains, I believe, the same as when the troops were originally sent up. The maximum I now understand to have been 2,910.
  Sir W. BYLES: When are you going to take them all away?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will there be any increase in the number of troops on the Rand without the Home Government being informed and their approval being obtained?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Oh, yes, Sir, if necessary.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Are we to take it that the cables saying that there are 8,000 or 9,000 troops on the Band are false, and that there has been no increase in recent days?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I can only inform the hon. Gentleman that my own figures are correct.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Have any special instructions been given to the commanding officers with regard to the interference in labour disputes by these troops?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir, only that they must obey the law.

  Laud Valuation.
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to have the land valuation suspended so far as it applies to the land, and interests in land, and site values affected by the Revenue Bill, 1913?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative.

  Civil Servants (Deduction of Income Tax).
  Mr. DENNISSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reason the Paymaster-General had for deducting more Income Tax than he was warranted in doing when paying the quarterly balances of salary due to certain Civil servants on the 30th June last; and what reason he had when he made such deductions for disregarding the declarations made by such Civil servants in the previous month that their pay formed their sole sources of income?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Member will be good enough to furnish me with particulars of the cases referred to, I will cause inquiry to be made upon the subject.

  Superannuation Act (Amending Bill).
  Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Bill to amend
  30
  the Superannuation Act, introduced last Session, has not been reintroduced as promised by him; and whether it is proposed to reintroduce it next Session?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware of any such promise. I understand that last Session's Bill met with opposition, and I cannot undertake to introduce any controversial measure on this subject.
  Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he made a promise himself to introduce the Bill this year, quite early in the Session?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: All I did was to express a hope. I have the actual answer here.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why John Duff, who was evicted from his holding on the estate of Caroline Buxton and others, Coolnacarte, Queen's County, was not reinstated in his holding when the estate was acquired by the Estates Commissioners; why the Estates Commissioners allotted his holding amongst other tenants on the estate instead of reinstating him; and if he will say whether the Estates Commissioners intend providing John Duff with a holding elsewhere or purpose to otherwise compensate him?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Duff's case was fully considered by the Estates Commissioners when dealing with the Buxton estate, on which his former holding is situate, and they decided to take no action in the matter of his reinstatement, nor will they provide him with a holding elsewhere. The lands formerly occupied by Duff have been, allotted by the Commissioners in the exercise of their discretion to three tenant purchasers who have signed undertakings to purchase same, and have been put in possession thereof.

  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in the event of any rural district council obtaining a loan in the open market for the purpose of proceeding with a scheme for the erection of cottages under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts at a rate of interest exceeding land purchase terms, the financial provisions of the new Land Bill will entitle such council, when the Bill becomes law, to apply for and receive on land purchase

  31
  terms, out of the million pounds provided for the purposes of the Labourers Act, an amount sufficient to redeem the loan necessarily borrowed in the open market for the completion of a scheme?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It would not be possible to make the financial provisions of the Bill retrospective in the case of labourers' cottages, as the hon. Member suggests.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHAN: In cases where the district councils in future borrow money for the purpose of completing a scheme, will the Financial Clauses in those cases allow them to repay it out of the money provided under the Bill?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In the future, if they borrow money, they will not borrow at the higher rate if they think they can get it at the lower rate under the financial provisions of the new Bill.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Mr. H. Blake-Knox has yet accepted the offer issued to him by the Congested Districts Board on 19th November, 1912, for the purchase of Iris property in the parishes of Kildacamogue and Straid, county Mayo, or what stage the negotiations for sale have reached?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Negotiations for the purchase of this property by the Congested Districts. Board are still proceeding.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the negotiations between the Congested Districts Board and the owners of the estate of the late Mr. W. E. Kelly, situate in the parishes of Aglish and Ballyheane, county Mayo, have resulted in a sale of the estate, or when the Board hope to acquire the property?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Negotiations are proceeding between the Congested Districts Board and the owners of this estate, and they are not in a position to give any further information at present.
  Mr. DORISasked whether Mr. Patrick O'Dowd, J.P., Fallduff, county Mayo, has lodged maps and other necessary papers with the Congested Districts Board with a view to a sale of his estate through the Board; and, if so, when the Board will have an inspection made and an offer issued?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Mr. O'Dowd has lodged the maps and certain documents necessary for a preliminary inspection of this estate, but some further information asked for by the Congested Districts Board is awaited.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board have approached Mr. John Durcan, Turlough, relative to the sale of his estate in Cloontubrid, county Mayo; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have communicated with Mr. Durkin regarding the sale of the property, but it has not so far been offered for sale through them.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet issued offers for the estates of the following, situate in the parishes of Turlough and Kildacomogue, county Mayo: Mr. D. G. FitzGerald, the Misses Hunter, Mr. B. Gibbons, Phibbs Irwin (in lunacy), James Foy, Mark Foy, and P. Foy; and, if so, whether the offers or any of them have been accepted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have not yet issued offers for the purchase of the estates of D. J. FitzGerald, E. Gibbons, and J. Phibbs Irwin. Offers for the purchase of the estates of the Misses Hunter, Mark Foy, James Foy, and Patrick Foy have been issued, and the Board's offer has been accepted in the case of Mr. Patrick Foy's estate.

  Bromley and Beckenham Joint Hospital.
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has made any inquiries into the allegations made in connection with the administration of the Bromley and Beckenham Joint Hospital; and whether, in view of the complaints that have been made, and of the fact that patients suffering from infectious diseases have been discharged before being cured, he will have a full and public inquiry into the matter?
  Mr. BURNS: I have caused inquiries to be made by my inspectors into the allegations referred to, and their reports do not indicate any marked failure in the administration of the hospital. The Local Government Board are writing to the Joint Hospital Board on the subject generally. At present, I hardly think a public inquiry is necessary.

  Poor Law Relief (Oxford Union).
  Mr. HAMERSLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, since the Oxford Local Poor Act of 1854 came into force, the Local Government Board has in the course of its administration treated the overseers in the eleven parishes comprising the union of Oxford as having the same powers of giving relief in kind, orders for medical relief, and orders for the workhouse in eases of sudden and urgent necessity as the overseers of other unions have been treated since that date by the Local Government Board; and, if the overseers of the said eleven parishes are not treated by the Local Government Board as having the same powers as overseers in other parishes, to whom should the poor in the union of Oxford apply for medical or other relief in cases of sudden or other urgent necessity if the only relieving officer of the union is distributing or supervising out relief or otherwise engaged in his duties away from his home and office?
  Mr. BURNS: I do not find that the Local Government Board have had occasion in recent years to consider the legal position arising out of the local Act of 1854, or that any difficulty has arisen in connection with the giving of relief in cases of the kind referred to. If, however, my attention is drawn to any such difficulty I shall be happy to give it my consideration.

  Lambeth Infirmary (Nurses).
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the report of the matron of the Lambeth Infirmary to the guardians regarding the impossibility of obtaining nurses; and whether, in view of the fact that this scarcity of nurses is general and increasing, he will consider how far the disinclination of young women to enter the nursing profession is due to the abuse of nurses' uniforms, the exploitation for gain of undertrained nurses, and other evils connected with the nursing profession and its relation to the sick, that could be remedied by State registration of trained nurses?
  Mr. BURNS: I understand that in May last the medical officer reported to the Lambeth Infirmary committee that the matron was finding increasing difficulty in obtaining probationers; that temporary
  34
  nurses who had to be engaged were expensive, and that the arrangement on the whole was unsatisfactory. Since that date I have sanctioned a substantial increase in the permanent nursing staff. With regard to the general questions raised as to the nursing profession, I may refer to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 8th May.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Is it not the case that this difficulty is very general and that it is an increasing difficulty; and is it not time something should be done to protect the sick from the scarcity of nurses in general?
  Mr. BURNS: I am not sure that the plan suggested by my hon. Friend would have that result.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to receive some evidence upon that point?
  Mr. BURNS: I shall be happy to receive any evidence.

  Post Office (Dismissal of Clerk).
  Mr. GRETTONasked the Postmaster-General if he satisfied himself by definite and conclusive evidence, before discharging Mr. Cardew from the Post Office, of that gentleman's inability to perform the duty proper to a first-grade clerk; if he was a well-conducted public servant of thirty years' service, who had passed all the prescribed tests and had been certified efficient for many years; if any misconduct was alleged; if Mr. Cardew was given any warning or opportunity of defence; and, if not, as Mr. Cardew's discharge means disgrace and ruin to that gentleman, if he will institute an inquiry into all the circumstances of his case?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Before I agreed to proceed with Mr. Cardew's superannuation, I not only considered very fully the documentary evidence bearing on his case, but consulted personally all the heads of branches in the office of the secretary to the Post Office who had had experience of his work, and found an absolute unanimity of opinion to the effect that Mr. Cardew was unequal to the duties of his position. I did not, moreover, come to a final decision on the matter until Mr. Cardew had received ample opportunities, of which he fully availed himself, for appealing against compulsory superannuation. All the circumstances of Mr. Cardew's

  35
  case have been most carefully investigated, and there is no room for further inquiry. Mr. Cardew, though he had been repeatedly passed over for promotion and was still in the bottom class of higher division clerks with men twenty years and more younger than himself, had been allowed to proceed to and remain at the maximum pay on that grade. His work had, however, as I informed the hon. Member for Dulwich on the 10th instant, attracted unfavourable notice as far back as 1893, and for some period previous to his discharge his services had been of little if any value to my Department. No charge of misconduct has been brought against Mr. Cardew, whose length of service at the date of his retirement was as stated in the question.

  Sub-Postmasters (Sale of Insurance Stamps).
  Captain MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the scale of remuneration to sub-postmasters in Scotland for selling health insurance stamps?
  Mr. GLAZEBROOKasked the Postmaster-General whether he is yet in a position to give a definite decision with regard to the rate of remuneration of sub-postmasters for additional work under the National Insurance Act; and, if not, whether he can promise to do so by some definite date in the near future?
  Sir FREDERICK CAWLEYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists in regard to the provisional payment to sub-postmasters for their new work in connection with the Insurance Act; what is the reason of the delay in regard to giving a definite decision in this matter; whether the provisional rate is one unit in the scale payment for each £1 of insurance stamps sold, whereas the actual rate in force for postage stamps is eight units for each £1 sold; and whether the rate proposed therefore for selling insurance stamps is only one-eighth of the rate in force for selling postage stamps?
  Mr. LEACHasked when the delay in dealing with the question of extra remuneration to sub-postmasters for increased work caused by the National Insurance Act will end?
  Mr. HUDSONasked the Postmaster-General if he can now say whether any
  36
  remuneration has been fixed by his Department to sub-postmasters for the sale of national insurance stamps; and, if so, what are the conditions?
  Mr. DENNISSasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now, or when he will be, in a position to state what conclusion has been arrived at as to the remuneration of sub-postmasters for work in connection with the National Insurance Act, and particularly with regard to their remuneration in respect of the sale of insurance stamps?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Treasury arc not prepared to sanction any payment in addition to that already made on account pending the Report of the Select Committee on Post Office servants. That Report, will, I understand, be issued before the end of the Session, and steps will be taken to deal at once with the Committee's recommendation on this particular subject.

  Bailiffs' Wages.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a bailiff who has been employed at the Runcorn County Court for five years is in receipt of a wage of one guinea a week only; whether he is aware that in this particular case the wage now paid is less than it was many years ago; and whether he will take steps to have the whole scale of bailiffs' wages reviewed and made more in keeping with the present cost of living?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I am not aware of any bailiff employed at a wage of one guinea a week by the registrar performing the duties of high bailiff of the County Court of Runcorn. The registrar receives what is believed to be an ample allowance for the service and execution of process within his district, but the number of bailiffs employed and the distribution of the allowance are within his discretion. Some two years ago the allowance was substantially increased. As similar allowances have been revised from time to time on the application of the respective registrars and high bailiffs, I am not aware that there is any case requiring the steps to be taken suggested in the question.

  War Office Motor Cars.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the excessive

  37
  speed of the War Office motor cars upon public highways; if his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the police at the Atherstone Police Court on Tuesday that in some cases the War Office motor cars travel at 50 to 60 miles per hour; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I have seen a report in the Press, but I understand that the statements made were not proved. Instructions as to careful and considerate driving have been issued to all drivers of Army motor vehicles.

  Imperial Wireless Chain.
  Mr. STEWARTasked whether, in the event of the establishment of an Imperial wireless chain station at Hong Kong, messages transmitted from the United States, viâ either Honolulu or Manila, by either a private or American Government undertaking, would under our Government monopoly be received and handled; whether His Majesty's postal authorities would arrange to transmit wireless messages to stations under American control; and whether there will be a wireless station at Weihaiwei?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The question of erecting a long-range wireless station at Hong Kong has not yet been decided, and no conclusion has been reached as to the area of communication should such a station be established. So far as I am aware, the establishment of a commercial station at Weihaiwei has not been considered.
  Mr. BARNSTONasked the Postmaster-General whether, as it is always a matter of difficulty to take away from a contractor his lights under a contract, he will consider the desirability of making the first contract for the erection and equipment of stations for the Imperial wireless service one for three stations only, thus ensuring perfect liberty of action for the Government in regard to succeeding stations; and what is the nature of the conditions under which he proposes to transfer the erection of the second three wireless stations for the Imperial service from the original contractors to any others whose systems may be proved to be more efficient or more economical?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: By arranging a contract covering six stations in-
  38
  stead of three, it has been possible to negotiate the terms under more favourable conditions than if a smaller number were included. In addition, much delay would be avoided in the erection of the second three stations if it is finally decided to proceed with them on the same lines as the first three. The second part of the question can only be adequately answered by reference to the terms of the contract itself.
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked whether it is possible for any foreign country, desiring to do so, to deliberately interfere with the working of the Imperial wireless service by the continuous emission of powerful signals of the same wave length as that employed by the Imperial service; whether this destroys the strategic value of such service; and whether it is impossible to avoid such undesirable interference so long as a spark system is employed?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am informed that deliberate interference is possible; but it can be overcome to such an extent—whether a spark system or some other system is employed—that the strategic value of the service remains practically intact.
  Sir H. VERNEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has any statement to make relating to the Marconi Contract?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I anticipated it would have been possible to lay Papers in the beginning or in the middle of last week, but a number of minor points remained for settlement, and one point of very considerable importance has been, the subject of further negotiations with the company. Perhaps I may be allowed, by leave, to explain to the House the alteration which it is proposed to make in the terms of the contract, as I explained them to the House some days ago. As hon. Members who are interested in the matter may be aware, the royalty payable to the Marconi Company under the new contract was to be in respect of each station in the chain of wireless stations in which Marconi patents are still being used and not in respect of the chain as a whole, as was proposed in the original contract. To that the company agreed, and I made the announcement some time ago to the House, but the company found on further inquiry that in respect to the British East Africa Protectorate their inventions were

  39
  not protected by patents. In East Africa it is proposed to erect the largest of all the stations, capable of communicating and receiving messages to and from Egypt, South Africa, and India, with a vast installation which-will have no fewer than six separate aerials. The company represented that they could not be expected to erect this station for the sum. payable and receive no royalty whatever in respect of the use of their inventions there, and that they were not prepared to do so, but they asked that they should receive such payment as was originally contemplated. I replied that I was not prepared to make this concession to the company unless they were willing to meet my wishes, which I had formerly expressed, with respect to the royalty payments themselves, not only in East Africa but throughout the chain. As hon. Members may be aware, it was proposed that if another system was employed other than the Marconi system, which was free of the Marconi patents, the Marconi system should be discarded completely and no royalty payment would remain, or if the essential Marconi patents expired no royalty would be payable. But it has been represented that it might be desirable to use still some Marconi patents in one portion of the installation while discarding the use of the Marconi system in other portions, and I have made proposals to the company repeatedly with a view to assessing the royalty payments on that basis.
  It is not practicable, for reasons on which this is not the occasion to enter, to schedule each patent separately and attach a payment to it, if only for the reason that the contract gives us, not the obligation but the right to use not only all existing patents, but any future patent which may be taken out by Mr. Marconi or which the Marconi Company may have a right to use, without any additional royalty payment whatever—a very favourable clause in the contract. But I have proposed to the company that the royalty, instead of being in respect of the stations as a whole, should be divisible, and that portions of it should be payable in respect to different portions of the installation. I pressed that three times upon the company, and three times the company declined to accede. I only proceeded with the contract after that refusal because of the great difficulty, expense, and delay of the only alternative which was
  40
  open, the creation of an inexperienced and new staff of Government engineers to carry out this most difficult task. I am glad, however, to be able now to say that in consideration of the concession with regard to East Africa for which the company have pressed, they have now agreed to my proposal with respect to the division of the royalties. The contract will provide that, instead of a 10 per cent. royalty being payable in respect of a station as a single unit, 4 per cent. will be payable in respect of the internal transmitting apparatus—the most important part—2 per cent. in respect of the internal receiving apparatus, 2 per cent. in respect of the external transmitting apparatus, and 2 per cent. in respect of the external receiving apparatus, so that there will be full liberty to discard the Marconi apparatus in respect of one part of a station while retaining it in others, and securing a proportionate reduction of the royalty by so doing. This, of course, is an alteration very favourable indeed to the Government, and I hope that Papers may now be laid in the course of a day or two. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has authorised me to say that, as the Papers are not available to the House, it will be obviously impossible to take the Debate on Friday of this week as was intended. It is intended that on an early day the Government will make a Motion for the ratification of the contract in its amended form.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I presume that I am correct that the royalty will still be on the gross receipts, irrespective of whether any profits arc made?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, the royalty will be on gross receipts.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give any good reason for driving such a hard bargain on the part of the Government with a company which has given such good value to the nation?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I confess that I have done my best to drive a hard bargain, and I think I have succeeded.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Are we to understand that the royalty will go out pari passu with the dropping out of patents, or will the royalty be payable, even although only one patent remains?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I thought I made it plain that the stations will be

  41
  divided into four parts, and if any Marconi patent was used in one of these parts, then the royalty will be payable in respect of that part. But if the patent was unimportant and not essential then it would be discarded rather than pay a large royalty, and some other apparatus would be used in place of it. If, on the other hand, the patent was essential to the station, and that portion of the installation could not be worked without it, then the company claim, and I think in the circumstances not unreasonably, that they are entitled to their royalty.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business will be taken tonight, and also whether he can give an indication when the question of the Marconi Contract will be proceeded with?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We hope, if time permits after the Mental Deficiency Bill, to take the adjourned Debate on the Second Beading of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill and the Committee Stage of the Children (Employment Abroad) Bill tonight. In regard to the other question of the right hon. Gentleman, we no longer propose to take the Marconi Contract discussion next Friday, but I hope we may take it, subject to exigencies which may arise, by the middle of next week. [An HON. MEMBER: 'What day?"] I would rather say that to-morrow.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Abolition of Sentence of Death in Case of Defective Prisoner.)
  "(1) Sentence of death shall not be pronounced on or recorded against any person with respect to whom the Court before which he is convicted is satisfied upon medical evidence that he is a defective; but in lieu thereof the Court shall sentence him to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure, and, if so sentenced, he shall be liable to be detained in such place and under such conditions as the Secretary of State may direct, and whilst so detained shall be deemed to be in legal custody.
  (2) The Court may act either upon the evidence given during the trial or may call for further medical or other evidence.
  (3) Without prejudice and in addition to the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, where sentence of death is pronounced on or recorded against any person, it shall be lawful for that person (with the leave of the Court of Criminal Appeal or upon the certificate of the judge who tried him that it is a fit case for appeal under this Sub-section) to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against the sentence on the ground that he is a defective, and upon such an appeal the Court of Criminal Appeal, if satisfied upon medical
  62
  evidence that he is a defective, shall substitute for the sentence of death a sentence of detention during His Majesty's pleasure, and the appellant shall then be liable to be dealt with as though he had been originally sentenced by the Court before which he was convicted under Subsection (1) of this Section.
  (4) Nothing in this Section shall affect His Majesty's prerogative of mercy.
  (5) This Section shall apply notwithstanding that the crime was committed or that the proceedings were instituted before the commencement of this Act.
  (6) Section two of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, is hereby repealed, so far as that Section is inconsistent with this Section."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. HIGHAM: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  There is no doubt that this Bill was brought forward to relieve from the ordinary penalties of the law many persons who are not responsible for their actions. The people to whom I refer are really like children, and the object of the new Clause is to bring them within the scope of the Bill. Clause 8 of the Bill deals with the procedure in cases of persons guilty of offences punishable with imprisonment and penal servitude. If these persons, when brought before the Courts and found guilty, are found to be defectives, they could not be sentenced to penal servitude, to which they would be sentenced if not defectives. That reason itself is sufficient for extending the provisions of the Bill to those cases where murders have been committed and the death sentence may have been pronounced. There are other parts of the Bill which for the first time bring defectives under the same category, irrespective of age, as children and young persons. It may be urged that Clauses 2, 4, and 5 of this Bill might become operative in the cases I am appealing for, but these Clauses will work slowly. In the first place, Clause 2 provides that a person who is defective may be dealt with; Clause 4 gives power to deal with a defective otherwise than at the instance of the parent or guardian; and Clause 5 tells how orders made by a judicial authority are to be enforced. A petition has to be presented, two medical certificates have to be obtained, and a statutory declaration has to be made. I submit to the House that that is the

  63
  process to be followed in a case where sentence of death has been pronounced. Taking that into consideration, and bearing in mind the fact that defectives are not more responsible for their actions than children, we ought to extend the powers conferred by the Bill to the most serious offence of all.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's concluding words, that if the Bill proposed to treat defective persons exactly as children, it would seem to point to the conclusion that this new Clause ought to be accepted. But I would point out to my hon. Friend that there is on the present occasion, a reason for departing from the analogy of the Children Act. I quite agree with him that, in the case of a defective person, the death penalty ought not to be applied, but the question which we have to consider is: which is the proper authority for deciding whether the death penalty in the case under discussion is or is not applicable. There are obviously three authorities whose decision might be final. There is, first of all, the jury; there is then the judge; and then there is, last of all, the Home Secretary on recommendation to His Majesty. With regard to leaving to the jury the option of giving a verdict of "guilty but defective," the Royal Commissioners and the whole body of the judges have recommended that no such verdict ought to be allowed. There is, as my hon. Friends know, at the present time a verdict which may be given by a jury of "guilty, but insane." That is a question which is properly left to the jury, but all the authorities have agreed that we ought not to leave it to the jury to decide whether a prisoner is or is not defective. Therefore, in drawing up this Bill we have not proposed that the jury should have any such power. The next question is: should we proceed upon the line suggested by my hon. Friend and give to the judge a power which we would refuse to the jury? It is obviously, I think, undesirable, to give to the judge a power which we withdraw from the jury on a question of fact. It is true that in other parts of the Bill, where the issue is not so important we do allow the judicial authority to decide whether a prisoner is or is not defective. But when we come to a trial for murder, the whole body of the evidence will be directed to the question whether the prisoner is or is not guilty. The question
  64
  of defectiveness will only come up as a second issue. I recognise, and the whole Bill recognises, that a judicial authority if competent to decide the question, but I am dealing now with the question whether it is more prudent to leave the decision of the question in the hands of the judge, or, as it would be now, in the hands of the Home Secretary.
  When the case comes up before the Home Secretary he will have an opportunity which in Court it is impossible to give. He will be able to inquire into the circumstances of the case, quite apart from, the question of guilty or not guilty. He will be able to call evidence as to the whole life history of the prisoner, and he will be able to obtain lengthened medical evidence as to the state of the man's mind, which is not open to the judge. If the judge has the power and does not exercise it, but comes to the conclusion on such evidence as is before him that the prisoner is not defective, it is bound to have an influence upon the Home Secretary when he comes to consider the same question, whereas if the Home Secretary can consider the whole question of defectiveness or non-defectiveness, de novo, ab origine, he is in a better position to form a definite conclusion. In the interests of the defective prisoner, I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he would be better advised to leave the decision of the point in the hands of the Home Secretary, as it is now, instead of in the hands of the judge, and it is solely on that ground that I ask him not to go on with this Amendment. It may be said, and my hon. Friend has said in fact, that in other parts of the Bill we do leave the decision of this very point to the judicial authority. But look at the difference in the two sets of cases. Should the judicial authority make a mistake in the first instance under the Bill and decide that a person is or is not defective, that decision is always open to review; but if, in the case where the prisoner is found guilty of murder, the judge's decision is final, and if the judge wrongly declares the prisoner defective, that prisoner cannot suffer the death penalty for his crime. If the judge, on the other hand, determines that a prisoner is not defective, though it would not be conclusive on the Home Secretary, it would go a very long way with him, and he would be most reluctant to overrule the decision of a judicial authority who had come to the conclusion, after hearing the evidence, that the prisoner is not defective. For these reasons I would

  65
  suggest to my hon. Friend that he would be better advised not to interfere with the present practice upon this point, but to leave the decision in the hands of the Secretary of State.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has I think come to the right conclusion, though I think he has come to it by arguments and reasons which go against the Bill as a whole. However, as I am opposed to the Bill, as a whole, I think that the arguments of the Home Secretary on this Amendment show one of the difficulties which are sure to arise if the Bill becomes law. We really do not know, and nobody ever will be able to ascertain whether a person is really defective or not. The case which the hon. Gentleman has brought forward in this new Clause is that in which a person kills someone else and there is medical evidence— on which I, personally, place very little reliance in a subject of this sort, for it means to say that one or two doctors can be induced to say that in their opinion the person who is accused is mentally deficient—and then the question arises, what is to happen? The murderer is to be kept alive at the expense of the community because these two doctors say that he is mentally deficient. What security have we that in a very short time, if he really is mentally deficient, he will not go and commit another crime of a similar sort; and if he is not mentally deficient, then there can be no doubt whatever that he ought to suffer the penalty of his crime. Now, we have a tribunal in last resort: that is the Home Secretary. Whether that tribunal is always satisfactory or not depends of course upon who occupies the position for the time being. I think that we must not discuss that point, but we must take it that, as a general rule, the decisions of the Home Secretary have been more or less satisfactory. In those circumstances I think that the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to withdraw this Amendment. I do not know whether he is a supporter of the Bill or not. If he is a supporter, I think that the best thing that he can do is to withdraw the Amendment, and if he is an opponent, I congratulate him on having brought forward this Clause which shows how very absurd the Bill itself is and what difficulties will arise if it becomes an Act of Parliament.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Higham) for bringing forward this Amendment, which seems to me to dot the
  66
  i's and cross the t's of this Bill. There are certain definitions in this Bill of mentally defective persons which are of a wide and embracing character, and after the Bill is passed numbers of people in this country will try to avoid coming within the four corners of those definitions. But on one solitary occasion people might like to come within the definition of what constitutes a defective person. If they have committed a murder they might try to escape the death penalty by getting inside the definition. The Home Secretary knows that those definitions are not only wide definitions, but that every murderer can perfectly well prove to be a defective under paragraphs (c) and (d), as that would be a means of upsetting the criminal law he refuses this Amendment. Just reverse the process and consider the position of the unfortunate person who is trying to avoid coming within the definition and who is classed as a defective and to be kept a prisoner for life. The definitions show him no mercy, while the murderer is not allowed to have the advantages which it would give him to be able to prove himself to be a defective. It seems to me that the proper thing to do is to make those definitions water-tight, so that neither the innocent man can be proved to be defective nor the murderer to prove himself to be defective. By doing so you get rid of the difficulty and at the same time of the scandal of passing the sentence of death on a man who is not fully responsible for his actions owing to defective intellect.
  I do think defectives should have the advantages just as much as the penalties, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division and that we shall secure for the defectives privileges as well as the liabilities and dangers which this Bill brings for the whole community. One other thing strikes me, and that is the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Here you are bringing in Amendments so that persons who are defective may avoid having the death penalty with the judge assuming the black cap and all the rest of it. You are very tender to prevent that being done, but it might be well for this House to consider whether a sentence of perpetual imprisonment such as this Bill provides is not even worse than the death sentence.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is dealing with the main principles of the Bill and getting rather away from the Clause now under discussion.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: For myself, I would rather have the death penalty than perpetual imprisonment under this Bill.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not quite satisfied with the objections which have been raised against the new Clause by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I think that in the interests both of the defectives and of the judge who presides that the death penalty in cases like this ought to be abolished. Any person who has been present in Court knows how gruesome it is and how very much judges dislike in cases such as infanticide to pass the death sentence when they know full well that the sentence will never take effect. The Home Secretary based his opposition to this Clause on two points. First of all, he said it would be wrong to make the judge the judge of facts in this case. I do not want to refer to any person in the Home Office, past or present, but with all respect, I say that the judge is a much better judge of the facts, having heard all the evidence, than a Home Secretary could possibly be. The judge has got the jury behind him and hears learned doctors on one side or the other, and he has also got his own common sense, which one always finds, especially in murder trials, present to the minds of the judges in English Courts. The Home Secretary went on to say that so far as the medical evidence was concerned he could have traced in the Home Office the history of the defective. As a matter of fact, what actually does happen in a case of this sort is that doctors are produced on both sides, and the judge is in a position to hear the evidence given by the medical men, and if with the assistance of the jury, he does come to the conclusion that the man is defective, I think he ought not to be asked by this House to pass the death sentence upon the defective in question. I would like to hear this new Clause discussed at greater length, but so far as I am concerned at the present time I am inclined to take the view of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Higham), and to say that in a case of this kind no English judge should be forced to pass what is the most terrible of all sentences upon any defective.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I should not have risen to make any observation on this new Clause were it not for what fell from the Home Secretary. His statement was of a sufficiently startling character to cause me to interpose one or two observations. At the
  68
  present time the law is that a man cannot excuse himself for killing any person unless at the time he did not know the nature of the act which he committed. That is the law of England. The Home Secretary said, and it was a very startling statement, that if on inquiry he discovered that the person was mentally defective he would exercise, or advise the exercise, of the prerogative of the Crown of commuting the sentence. I should like to know more explicitly from the right hon. Gentleman whether that is what he means, because in that case all that is necessary henceforth in a murder case is to satisfy the Home Secretary afterwards that the person is mentally defective. That is an extraordinary defence to the crime of murder, because when we came to examine the definition of a mentally defective person we find it is not an idiot or an imbecile, but a person "in whose case their exists from birth or from early age mental defectiveness not amounting to idiocy, yet so pronounced that they are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs." Does the Home Secretary really mean that the prerogative of the Crown is to be exercised in the case of persons who are mentally defective? In that case, the law of murder is abrogated, because in the vast majority of cases, I think, it would be possible to demonstrate, ad nauseam, that the person against whom the murder charge lies is, under this definition, mentally defective. That is the first absurdity in which we are landed in respect of the provisions of this Bill, but it does not end there.
  There is the further absurdity in the case of a man charged with manslaughter, rape, burglary with violence, grievous bodily harm, the intention to commit grievous bodily harm, and attempted murder. In all those offences it is open to the prisoner under Section 2 to raise the defence that he is mentally defective, and if he is mentally defective, then the judge at the trial has full power to investigate any evidence which he can call in order to ascertain whether or not the person is mentally defective. If he is, having committed attempted murder, the judge orders him to be detained in an institution. On the other hand, in the reverse case, if the Home Secretary is satisfied that the person is mentally defective then he absolutely revolutionises the law of England, and the person, although he knew the nature of the act, is decided to be mentally defective and is sent to an institution to be maintained at the expense of the State. I really think

  69
  the Home Secretary ought to throw more light on this interesting problem. It seems to me, if his statement is to be accepted, that we are entirely changing the law of England with regard to homicide. If that is so, the sooner we know it the better.
  Mr. MUNRO: I do not desire in the least to interpose in the controversy between the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken and the Home Secretary. I desire to recall the attention of the Committee to the precise terms of the new Clause with which alone we are concerned. The new Clause assumes that a verdict of guilty of murder has been returned against a person who is mentally defective by the jury, and on that assumption it is based. In the first place, it is highly improbable that any such contingency will occur. It is well known, I think, to any of us whose lot it has been to prosecute in a Criminal Court, that juries are notoriously timid nowadays in bringing in a verdict of guilty on the capital charge. That is an increasing tendency, and I think I am right in saying that juries, if they can find any excuse at all in order to avoid doing so, readily seize upon it. That is the first reason why I say that it is highly unlikely that this contingency will ever occur. There is another reason why it is very improbable, and it is this: All the evidence with regard to the alleged mental state of the person who is on his trial will be as fully before the jury as it is before the judge. They will be able to appreciate on a question of fact, just as fully as the judge can do, the value and the effect which ought to be given to that evidence. Coupling those two considerations together, the shrinking which the jury feel from, bringing in a verdict on the capital charge and the exceeding improbability of their doing so in a case where there is evidence that the person who is charged is mentally deficient, I submit to the House it is extremely improbable that the contingency will arise. If it should arise, then I suggest to the House that the proposal embodied in the Amendment is a highly undesirable proposal. What does it involve? It involves this, that the judge who presides at the trial may not only differ from, but disregard and defy the verdict that the jury has returned upon the evidence.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Only in one direction.
  Mr. MUNRO: Yes, only in one direction; but I think it is a most invidious proposal that when judge and jury differ upon a question of fact the judge should have the right to override the view which the jury take, whether it be on the side of mercy or not on the side of mercy. I think that is a most invidious proposal, and one which the House should not sanction, especially in view of the fact that the Home Secretary will have the fullest opportunity of coming to a right decision. I do not really appreciate the argument of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty when he says that a judge will be in a better position than the Home Secretary to deal with a matter of this kind. The judge may be asked to decide on the spot without full information or advice, and without full opportunity of considering all the factors of the case; on the other hand, the Home Secretary has an opportunity to consider the whole life history of the man concerned.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not wish to interrupt; but would it not be sufficient, supposing the defence was raised that the prisoner was defective, for the defective or his solicitor to produce in the Court medical evidence to prove that fact, and for the Crown to produce rebutting evidence?
  Mr. MUNRO: I quite agree. That does not in the least interfere with the argument I was endeavouring to present to the House, namely, that the Home Secretary was in a better position to deal with the matter than the judge. I assume that, as the hon. Member has stated, there may be evidence on both sides presented to the Court. The judge has to consider and decide upon that evidence while he sits on the bench, without time for mature and careful consideration, a very momentous matter; while the Home Secretary will have an opportunity of fuller consideration and investigation than would be possible if the Amendment were carried. Therefore his decision would be more likely to be the proper one than that which a judge could be expected to give under the different circumstances to which I have referred. I do not think the judiciary of the United Kingdom would thank the House if we imposed upon them the duty which this Amendment seeks to place upon them. I respectfully urge my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw it.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I should like to point out to the House what would be the real effect of this Clause. A man who had committed a murder could escape the death penalty if he proved that he was defective within the meaning of this Act. I must trouble the House to look at the definition. It deals with idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, and moral imbeciles, and it defines the last as "persons who from an early age display some permanent mental defect coupled with strong vicious or criminal propensities on which punishment has little or no deterrent effect." That is to say, that the person is mentally abnormal, that punishment has never had any effect upon him, and that therefore the penalty should not be inflicted upon him. It would reduce the Bill to absolute absurdity if we adopted a Clause of this sort. The definitions are not by any means clear. No one can distinguish between the different classes of defectives. I hope we will not add another absurdity to the Bill, which is already full of a large number of absurdities.
  Sir FREDERICK LOW: I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down with regard to the undesirability of adopting such a Clause as this. I should like to call the attention of the House to definition (d) which the hon. Member also has just called attention to. Of course, it is impossible to consider a Clause of the sort which is before us without considering these definitions. It is quite impossible to deal with this matter unless we get an idea as to what is to be a defective person. The House will see that among these definitions of defective persons is—
  "Moral imbeciles, that is to say, persons who from an early age display some permanent mental defect coupled with strong vicious or criminal propensities on which punishment has little or no deterrent effect."
  It would puzzle anyone who was going to define the ordinary kind of habitual criminal to define it very much better than in those terms. I speak on this matter with no little experience of the Criminal Court, and I consider these words are most apt words to describe the habitual criminal of the ordinary type. It seems to me that if this Clause is adopted what you will practically do is to grant a charter to the habitual criminal to go about murdering with impunity. That is a very grave matter. We are not at the moment
  72
  considering the Definition Clause, but I do agree with the hon. and learned Member for one of the Divisions of Durham who said we are trying to bring about a revolution, or little short of a revolution, in the criminal law by coupling such a Clause as this with such definition. I certainly hope that the hon. Member who has proposed this Clause will see the expediency of withdrawing it; and, if it is in order for me to express an opinion on it at this moment, I do hope that when we come to Secton (d) of the Definition Clause we shall hear from the Government some very considerable modification of it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: My hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down has opposed this new Clause because he is dissatisfied with the definition in Section 2. That seems to be an insufficient reason for objecting to the Clause. The definitions, it seems to me, should stand on their own feet. If the definitions are absurd that is a reason for removing them from the Bill, but no reason for giving protection under this Clause to defectives who have committed crime. The real question which the House has to decide is not the frequency of the contingency arising, which seemed the dominating idea in the mind of my hon. Friend for a Division of Durham, but the question which is the best authority to exercise the discretion. The Home Secretary has admitted that the discretion should be exercised with regard to those who come within the definition contained in Section 2. He says that the discretion should be used by the Home Secretary; the new Clause proposes that the discretion, should be in the hands of the judge. I prefer the latter alternative, and for the following reasons: It is in accordance with the scheme of the Bill. The Bill provides that in the case of every crime or offence short of murder it shall be the duty of the judge to ascertain whether the criminal or offender is a defective within the meaning of the Act, and that he shall be entitled to make an order accordingly. It seems, therefore, only in accordance with the principles of the Bill itself that no exception should be made in the case of murder. It is regarded as a judicial matter in respect of all other offences, why then should it be treated as an administrative question in relation to murder alone? But that is not the sole consideration. At the present time, with regard to murder, two questions only are tried, whether in fact the prisoner is found guilty of the murder, and whether he knew

  73
  the nature of his guilt. If this Clause is included in the Bill, then a further question will also have to be considered, namely, as to whether he is defective within the meaning of this Act. In these circumstances notice will be given to the defence that the question whether or not the prisoner is mentally defective will also be considered and determined by the judge. Under these circumstances it will be the duty of those who have the defence laid upon them to bring evidence as to whether he is defective or not, and having that evidence before him, I hold that the judge will be in the very best position to determine whether he is mentally defective. I think it will certainly be more satisfactory from the point of view of the jury and of the prisoner himself that it should be done in open Court, rather than behind the closed doors of the Home Office. I do not think it is always satisfactory to refer matters such as this to the Home Office. When the Home Office exercises on behalf of the Crown the prerogative of mercy we are always told that it is contrary to practice to state the reasons upon which that is done. It may be because a man is defective that sentence is commuted; it may be because in the opinion of the Home Office the evidence is not satisfactory; but whatever be the reason for the exercise of the prerogative no reason is given if inquiry is made at the Home Office. On the other hand, we are told that juries do not convict in capital cases; that the reason is that they are afraid that conviction by them will mean with absolute certainty that the prisoner will suffer the capital penalty; and that therefore juries make verdicts contrary to the evidence because of the penalty that will be incurred. If juries know that the question whether or not the prisoner is defective will subsequently be taken into consideration by the judge, then they will give their verdict honestly and in accordance with the evidence that is put before them. The meaning of this Clause is not that habitual offenders will be able to commit murder with impunity. The procedure of this Clause is better than that which the Home Secretary approves, and I hope that his appreciation for his own Department will not lead him to resist this Clause. I am going to vote for the adoption of the Clause.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The main question at issue is whether, in addition to lunacy, we are to require the fact that a man
  74
  committing a crime was, at the time, a defective. It seems to me that there is another question, and that is this: Whether this House is justified in passing this Bill at all. As one of those who supported—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that question is one which arises on the Third Reading.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I was only going to say—and I suggest that it was quite relevant—that it having been said in justification for this Bill that these people, having been confined for the reason that they were either dangerous to themselves or to the community—for the reason and in view of the fact that they were not answerable for their own action—that that justification for giving powers to confine them is the very reason why we should go further and ask whether the acts committed by these people are or are not such as to bring them within the criminal law? Is there not justification when the Home Office incarcerates them as defectives for not treating these people as ordinary criminals; because, after all, the assumption underlying the whole of our criminal law is that not only has a man knowingly to commit an act, but also wilfully? In the case of a lunatic it is not suggested in Court that he has committed the offence wilfully, for the simple reason that he is taken to be insane. We are legislating with the purpose, practically, of putting another class outside the pale of the law. In any event we are going to deprive them in their own interests or in the interests of the community of that freedom which they have hitherto enjoyed. I do submit that if we are justified in depriving them of their freedom we are certainly not justified on the evidence in saying that when they commit crimes they are equally liable with other persons whom we deem to be sane. The other issue that arises is this: We are bound to place discretion either in the Home Office or the Court which deals with the case. I say, quite frankly, I prefer to leave it to the judge and jury—not that I reflect upon or have any disrespect for the decision of the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessors. But it is perfectly well known that whilst the authority for advising the exercise of the clemency of the Crown does devolve upon the Home Secretary personally, there is no doubt the greater part of the work and the actual decision in a good many cases devolves upon one of his subordinates. For that reason I shall support the Clause.
  Mr. MARTIN: The fate of this Clause will depend upon the question of what a defective is, as defined by the Bill. I should be in. favour of deleting the Clause, of voting against it, but I do not understand that there is any hope in that direction. The hon. and learned Member for Norwich suggested that possibly the Government would modify on Report the definitions which are at the bottom of this Bill. I see no proposed Amendment from the Home Secretary, and I am fully convinced, having served on the Committee upstairs, that the Government intend to push this Bill through in the very raw condition in which it now is, and that the definitions will not in any way be modified. Assuming, therefore, that the definitions will remain as they are, I cannot base my vote upon that question at all. I cannot vote with those hon. Members who have suggested that the definitions are so wide that if you pass this Clause you practically suggest to murderers generally that they can escape under this definition of defectives. That being out of the discussion, I must say that I am in favour of this Clause. The arguments put forward by the Home Secretary did not seem to me to be in any way strong enough to induce any Member to vote against this Clause. Those arguments were two. In the first place, the Home Secretary thought that the judge was not the proper person to decide the question as to whether the person found guilty was a defective and should not be hung. He suggested that the evidence on which the judge would have to act might not be sufficient for the purpose of saying as to whether the person was or was not a defective, and would be brought in incidentally.
  I do not understand the Clause in that way. I understand that if the judge, during the course of a trial, has an idea from the evidence that the prisoner who is being tried is a defective that he is not bound to confine himself, in considering that question, under the terms of this Amendment, to the evidence which has been produced by the time the jury has found the prisoner guilty, but that he can himself afterwards, quite independently of the evidence which has been produced at the trial, call medical evidence to satisfy himself as to whether or not the prisoner is a defective. I quite agree that on the issue of whether a murder has or has not been committed by the prisoner that the evidence in regard to his being found a defective might be very slight—in fact, it might only arise incidentally.
  76
  Once it has arisen in the mind of the judge, according to the terms of this Amendment, it will, I say, be open to him to go into that question exhaustively, and to have evidence before him on that issue quite apart from the jury. Under these circumstances, does the Home Secretary suggest that the inquiry held, as suggested a moment ago, behind closed doors, and probably by subordinates, is satisfactory? Because the Home Secretary surely cannot and does not conduct all inquiries of this kind; he must be aided by subordinates of his Department, and an inquiry of that kind is unsatisfactory when we are introducing practically a new principle into our criminal law, and when we come to examine prisoners, not because they are lunatics, but because they are defectives and come within the limit of the rather wide Definition Clauses of this Bill?
  Can it be said that such an investigation would be more satisfactory to the public at large than an inquiry held by a judge in open Court, where everybody that is interested in the matter can go and hear the question fought out and considered on its merits—as to whether the person guilty is such a defective within the meaning of this Bill as entitles him to have the capital punishment dispensed with? The Home Secretary's first reason was entirely based upon that, that the judge was not anything like as good an authority on a. very important question of this kind as was the right hon. Gentleman himself in his official capacity, or his successor. I cannot agree with him. I suggest to the House that if we are to have this question arising at all—I am very sorry indeed that we must have it—but if this Bill goes through—and I fear it will—it will be much better if the judge at the trial settled this important question. Before I deal with the other reason put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, I would like to say that it is a most remarkable fact that though this important Amendment is put forward on behalf of six hon. Members of this House, only one of those is here so far as I can see. The only hon. Member here who is responsible for this Amendment is the hon. Member who moved the Motion. I do not find the name on the list of the hon. Member who-seconded the Motion. I must, if I get the opportunity, vote in favour of this proposed new Clause. The second reason given by the right hon. Gentleman for refusing to support this Clause seems to me a very much weaker one than his

  77
  first reason. He suggests that if you give the judge the power to inquire into this matter, and decide upon it, that if he should decide against the prisoner, and the matter came up before the Home Secretary—as it will have a right to do under the terms of the Amendment—that that would influence the Home Secretary. Where could you find a weaker argument than that? The judge, of course, would have his evidence before him to decide, and he would decide as he saw fit upon the evidence. How can that be conclusive or influence in any way, or take away from the responsibility of the Home Secretary in deciding a question over again, not necessarily on the same evidence at all, but under a different responsibility altogether? These are the two arguments, and the only two arguments, which have been put forward by the Government as to why this new Clause should not be adopted. If the Government had put forward the argument which has been put forward by several hon. Members that the definitions are so wide that it would not be safe at all to allow defectives coming within those definitions to be excused in the case of murder, I should have understood it, and I should have felt inclined to join with the right hon. Gentleman in opposing the Clause itself. As a matter of fact, he could not do that. The moment
  he does that, he impugns the propriety of the definition which he has introduced into this Bill. We have then only these two arguments, the first, that the judge is not a fit tribunal, or as good as the Home Secretary himself, with which I have endeavoured to deal; and, the second, that if the judge be given a power and his decision is against the prisoner, that he would influence unfavourably the Home Secretary with regard to his consideration of the question when it came before him. I ask the House to consider whether these two arguments, and the only two put forward by the hon. Gentleman to exclude this very beneficial and reasonable Clause from the Bill are sufficient! So far as I am concerned, they are not sufficient. I hope my hon. Friend will press the matter to a Division, and although I am opposed to the Bill, very strongly opposed to it—and did all I could in Committee, and am prepared to do what I can here against it—assuming that we must have it, it is desirable to make it as good as we can under the circumstances. For that purpose I shall vote for this Amendment.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 257.

  Division No. 208.]

  AYES.

  [4.45 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Radford, G. H.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

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

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Alden, Percy

  Higham, John Sharp

  Sutherland, John E.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Barnes, George N

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Thomas, J. H.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Bowerman, Charles W

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Martin, Joseph

  Wardle, George J.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Morrell, Philip

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Cassel, Felix

  Neilson, Francis

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Newman, John R. P.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Clynes, John R.

  O'Grady, James

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Pringle and Mr. J. M. Hogge.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Pointer, Joseph

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Arnold, Sydney

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Boland, John Plus

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Clough, William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Barnston, Harry

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Barton, William

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Cullinan, John

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardiganshire)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Delany, William

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, Michael

  Devlin, Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Kelly, Edward

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Doris, William

  King, Joseph

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Rowlands, James

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Leach, Charles

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Sanders, Rocert Arthur

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Falconer, James

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Lundon, Thomas

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lynch, A. A.

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Sheehy, David

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  McGhee, Richard

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Maclean, Donald

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Field, William

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Fitzgibbon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Stanier, Beville

  Forster, Henry William

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Meagher, Michael

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Gladstone, W. G. C

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Molloy, Michael

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Tennant, Harold John

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Morison, Hector

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hackett, John

  Muldoon, John

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Munro, Robert

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Webb, H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Hayward, Evan

  Nuttall, Harry

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Hills, John Waller

  O'Malley, William

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

  Hinds, John

  O'Shanghnessy, P. J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Shee, James John

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Hodge, John

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Younger, Sir George

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Misstatements.)
  "(1) Any person who makes a wilful misstatement of any material fact in any petition or statement of particulars under this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.
  (2) Any person who makes a wilful misstatement of fact in any medical or other certificate, or in any statement or report
  80
  of bodily or mental condition, under this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.
  (3) A prosecution for a misdemeanour under this Section shall not take place except by order of the Board, or by direction of the Attorney-General, or the Director of Public Prosecutions."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I only propose to formally move this new Clause, because I am informed by the Home Secretary it is unnecessary, and if he will just explain to the House why it is unnecessary, I think it will be satisfactory. The Clause is intended to make it punishable for any person to make a wilful misstatement. Of course the House will understand that under this Bill a great deal is allowed to doctors and medical practitioners. They draw up certificates of various kinds, and it seems to me and my hon. Friends it is very important that the danger they incur by making misstatements should be brought before the eyes of medical practitioners who sign these certificates. The Home Secretary says this provision is already in the Perjury Act. But even if it is already in the Perjury Act I suggest that it would be advisable to put it into, this Bill, because you are giving such wide powers to medical practitioners. Then, again, you have got to remember that every year to begin with, and then every five years, fresh certificates are to be signed by the medical officers in institutions as to the health of individual patients, and there, in case of misstatements being made, you consign a person to another long period of imprisonment, and it may be to imprisonment for life. I think it is very important that the medical officers of institutions who will have this Bill before them, and who will know it inside and outside, should also have this Clause before them. They will not know anything about this Clause in the Perjury Act, and this Clause in this Bill would be a definite reminder that what they set their hands to should be the truth, the whole, truth and nothing but the truth. Therefore, I think, although this Clause exists in the Perjury Act, it would be well to insert it in this Bill also.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I beg to second the Motion.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): As my right hon. Friend has said, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of this Clause are covered by the previous enactment of 1911, Section 5, which says:—
  "If any person knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than an oath) a statement false in a material particular and the statement is made in a statutory declaration.……or any oral
  82
  declaration or oral answer, which he is required to make by, under, or in pursuance of any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable on conviction thereof, on indictment, to imprisonment with or without hard labour, to any term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both such imprisonment and fine."
  I think my hon. Friend will agree that these two Sub-sections are covered by that Section. As to Sub-section (3) of the Clause, as my hon. Friend is anxious to get this declaration as quickly as possible, I hardly think he will be anxious to press it.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: In that case, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, although I have not had an answer about my desire to repeat these Perjury Clauses in this Bill.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: It is not necessary.
  Proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Part I.—POWER AND MANNER OF DEALING WITH DEFECTIVES
  Powers of Dealing with Defectives.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Definition of Defectives.)
  "The following classes of persons who are mentally defective shall be deemed to be defectives within the meaning of this Act:—

  (a) Idiots; that is to say, persons so deeply defective in mind from birth or from an early age as to be unable to guard themselves against common physical dangers;

  (b) Imbeciles; that is to say, persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness not amounting to idiocy, yet so pronounced that they are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, or, in the case of children, of being taught to do so;

  (c) Feeble-minded persons; that is to say, persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness not amounting to imbecility, yet so pronounced that they require care, supervision, and control for their own protection or for the protection of others, or, in the case of children, are incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools;

  83

  (d) Moral imbeciles; that is to say, persons who from an early age display some permanent mental defect coupled with strong vicious or criminal propensities on which punishment has little or no deterrent effect."

  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (c). We are not asking to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) because they deal with imbeciles who are pretty easily distinguishable. There is not much difficulty in discovering whether a person is an idiot or an imbecile. It is only when we come to the definition of what constitutes feebleminded persons that we come to the real difficulty so far as definition is concerned. We want the House to understand what feeble-minded persons are; that is to say, persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age, defective-ness not amounting to imbecility. If it does not amount to imbecility, you have to refer to the previous definition of what constitutes an imbecile. These are persons in whose case there exists from birth or early age mental defectiveness not amounting to idiocy, which renders them incapable of managing themselves or their affairs; but feeble-minded persons are people who are not so defective that they are incapable of managing themselves or their own affairs, or in other words, they are persons who are capable of managing themselves and their own affairs. Does this House really mean to say that they want to have the power given to the Home Secretary or the Courts of Justice to lock up for life people who are capable of managing themselves or their own affairs? You are really, under this definition, giving power to a Police Court magistrate or stipendiary, or any untrained justice of the peace, approved by the Home Secretary, to pass a sentence on some miserable offender who has committed some trifling crime against some local by-laws, and to lock him up for life simply on the ground that although he is able to manage himself and his own affairs, yet his defectiveness is so pronounced that he requires care, supervision, and control for his own protection or for the protection of others. It is the wording of that sentence I want to call attention to in particular. Whereas the care, control, and supervision for their own protection is a reasonable sort of definition, when once you put in that they
  84
  require care, supervision, or control in the interests of other persons, you immediately introduce the thin edge of that wedge which the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple) is always so anxious to drive home, the thin edge of the wedge of the Eugenic theory. What is, or what is not, for the protection of others? According to the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, it is for the protection of other people, that people who are bad breeders should not be allowed to breed, that they should have operations performed on them so that they should not be able to breed.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I never in any of my arguments used that argument at all in favour of this Bill. I have justified the Bill in the interests of those whom it is designed to protect, and those alone.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: It is difficult to know exactly what the hon. Member's arguments are. I have read all his speeches, and he undoubtedly represents in this House that school of thought whose object it is to protect the interests of the future of the race by sterilising and segregating the mentally defective, and it is in the interests of that sort of person that you have got this particular wording of Sub-clause (c), "for the protection of others." That means for the protection of others against the breeding of persons undesirable in the interests of the race. I do urge upon this House to cut out this definition of feeble-minded persons altogether. That will leave in the Bill idiots and imbeciles, the two classes of persons who are already able to be put in institutions; but it will leave out this definition, whose very vagueness, as has been shown in the previous debate, is such that the Home Secretary would not tolerate it as a protection for the defective prisoner, if he had to prove himself to be a feeble-minded person. It is so vague that it cannot be used as a plea against justice, and in that case it should not be left in its present vague position. It is possible for any police magistrate, and for any justice of the peace, approved by the Home Secretary, who may happen to share, and many of them do share, the views of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, and of the Eugenic Council—that these should be able to consign people who are capable of managing themselves and their own affairs to prison for life under this Bill. It would be impossible to get the House voluntarily to cut out the whole

  85
  definition of feeble-minded persons, but I trust that we shall have very radical Amendments to this Sub-section, and that we shall have a definition ultimately evolved which does, give some safeguard to the ordinary citizens of this country. We all know very well when we were at school the number of backward children there were in the school who afterwards proved themselves to be admirable citizens, and who very often preferred games and the open air and looking at birds and trees to doing their lessons. Are we going to say that all such children should be segregated for life because they are a danger to society?
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Not at all.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Then I will finish the definition for the hon. Member for Stirlingshire. The last part of the definition is this: "or in the case of children are incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools." Those who are incapable of receiving instruction in the ordinary elementary schools are children who, at the present time, are sent to special schools. You have only to ask the teachers, and you will find that a large number of these children who are regarded by educational authorities and the teachers as being incapable of receiving benefit from their instruction in the ordinary schools are merely children who are backward, who are dull at lessons, and who prefer life in the open streets to sitting at a desk and saying the "ABC" after a teacher. All these children are regarded, at the present time, as being incapable of receiving instruction in the ordinary schools. Are you content that all those children should be severed from their families and sent to these special schools during their school age, and thereafter sent to the feeble-minded institutions? Let hon. Members think what these feeble-minded institutions are. They are full of people who are horrible to see, mentally defective persons, idiots, and imbeciles, people it would be the severest possible penalty to have to live in company with, and to these institutions you are condemning children in this country who are normal in all respects except in so far as their work is concerned, children who are merely a little bit lazy and backward, and they are to be sent to these hells upon earth, to these institutions from which they will never emerge! I ask the House to see if they cannot amend this definition of what con-
  86
  stitutes feeble-minded persons, and in particular the definition of feeble-minded children, before they pass this Bill into an Act of Parliament; otherwise they will be not benefiting feeble-minded persons, but committing a crime which the people of this country will hold them answerable for. Do you think the parents of these children will take it kindly from you if you pass an Act to deprive them of their children and send them to these places? When you argue, with the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, that it is in the interests, of the race that the inefficient workers should be segregated and stamped out from the race, I think they will have a plain, straightforward answer to make to hon. Members who vote for a crime like this, and I trust that they will see that those people who support this Bill are not sent back here to support similar Bills.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Though I am seconding the Amendment, it is not because I want the whole of the Sub-section deleted. I am not opposed to this Sub-section at all down to a certain point, and that is feebleminded persons, in whose case there exists from birth or an early age mental defect not amounting to imbecility, yet so pronounced that they require care, supervision, and control for their own protection or for the protection of others. I agree down to that point, but I am bound to say that there is a very considerable amount of force in the statement of the hon. Member for Newcastle in regard to-the other words, because it looks as if it were only necessary for a child to be backward and incapable of taking the average benefit from instruction given in school for it to be segregated with feeble-minded persons and dealt with on that basis. This is really legislation for the working-class children, and let us make no error about that. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire shakes his head, but there is no doubt about it. A person who is fairly well off has a governess at home and instructs his children at home, and up to a certain point of their age they do not come under the cognisance of regulations of this description. They might be absolutely incapable of taking the instruction given them, but no one outside the family circle would be any the wiser where they happened to be able to provide a governess, so that there is not the slightest doubt that these words apply merely to the children of the poor that go to elementary schools, and then the teacher is obliged to report that it does not matter what they do, this child does

  87
  not seem to be able to get on, is at the bottom of the form though it has been there three or four years, and so on. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire suggests that they shall be dealt with as feebleminded persons. This is how it appears to me, who am a supporter of the Bill and not opposed to the Bill at all, but really this is too much of a good thing, and unless there is some explanation or some saving Clause somewhere else, I would almost see the Bill wrecked before I would allow this to be applied to the ordinary child of working people who happened to be backward. For that reason, I must have some explanation, or I shall be obliged to vote as suggested by the hon. Member for Newcastle.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Mr. Speaker, I wish—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. I wish the hon. Gentleman would not be so impatient. I think we should get on better.
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is really, notwithstanding two years' debates, still under a complete misapprehension as to the nature of this Bill. He said that a magistrate who was passing sentence on some person for some miserable offence, would have power to lock up that offender for life; but there is no such provision in the Bill. There is no such provision, or such power, or anything like it in the Bill. Then he said the reason he would be able to do so was because, under the definitions, a feeble-minded person, although he was able to manage his own affairs, was a person who required supervision for the protection of others. I quite admit that the hon. Membear, reading these words superficially without considering them, might naturally fall into the error which he has made, but I beg him to remember that he has had these words before him now for over a year. He has taken a great interest in the Bill and written about it to the Press, and ho has had it for over a year before him. He has had it again and again explained to him that these words do not bear the construction which he has put upon them. When it is said in paragraph (b) that "imbeciles are persons who are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs," and in paragraph (c) that "feeble-minded persons are persons who, not being imbeciles, yet require care, supervision, and control for their own protection or for the
  88
  protection of others," it does not mean that because they are not imbeciles they are therefore capable of managing their own affairs.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: They are not incapable.
  Mr. McKENNA: There is all the difference in the world. The hon. Member must not even construe it in that way. Although not imbeciles, they may still be incapable of managing their own affairs. The words in the first definition—
  "Imbeciles; that is to say persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness not amounting to idiocy, yet so pronounced that they are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs"—
  mean that they are completely incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and the words have been so construed, and, when in the next paragraph we say, "not being imbeciles," we mean persons who are not completely incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and yet persons who are so mentally defective that they cannot look after themselves. They are still persons who in the ordinary sense are not capable of managing themselves or their affairs, but they are not completely incapable.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The word "completely" is not in the definition.
  Mr. McKENNA: No; but the word "completely" is the interpretation put upon these words in another Act of Parliament. My hon. Friend proposes to leave out paragraph (c), leaving it to apply only to idiots or imbeciles. Knowing the facts as he does, he ought to have reminded the House that this Bill repeals the Idiots Act, 1886, and that, therefore, to leave out paragraph (c) would be to destroy the whole Bill. My hon. Friend knows that as well as I do, and he is really not entitled at this late stage to bring up again as a fresh argument this kind of argument, which he produced last year, without informing the House at the same time that his Amendment destroys the Bill. Then my hon. Friend went on to deal with the question of children, and there I think his statements were even more amazing. He said that this Bill gave power to lock up children who were a little backward or lazy. He said, "You lock them up for life in very hells upon earth." All that, he said, was done by paragraph (c). His remarks

  89
  went so far as to deceive my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward). What are the real facts about paragraph (c) in relation to children? In the first place, in order to remove any misconception on the point, my hon. Friend might have said, as I think he is also well aware, that I have placed upon the Paper an Amendment to leave out the word "are" ["or in the case of children are"], and to insert the words "that they, by reason of such defectiveness, are permanently." That would exclude any motion of mere temporary defectiveness.
  Mr. DENNISS: Why permanent?
  Mr. McKENNA: Because feeble-mindedness is a permanent defect, and we have inserted it throughout. A person to be treated as feeble-minded must be somebody who from birth or from an early age has been mentally defective. Therefore, in the definition of children who might come under the operation of the Bill, we are quite willing to insert words providing that the mental defectiveness shall be permanent and not merely casual. This is only a definition Clause, and it says:—
  "The following classes of persons who are mentally defective shall be deemed to be defectives within the meaning of this Act."
  It then deals with certain classes of children who shall be deemed to be defectives, but you have to turn to the later Clauses to see how children who come within the definition of this Act can toe dealt with. The only children who can be dealt with under this Act will be found to be those under Clause 2, Sub-Section (1), paragraph (b) (i.) who are found to be neglected, abandoned, or without visible means of support or cruelly treated; under paragraphs (ii.) and (iii.) who have been guilty of a criminal offence or are undergoing imprisonment, or under paragraph (v.) in whose case notice has been given by the local education authority as is hereinafter mentioned. Now I turn to the class of children in respect of whom this notice may be; given, and I find it is only these classes of children:
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Not only.
  Mr. McKENNA: Clause 2, Sub-Section (2) paragraph (a), says,
  "Children over the age of seven who have been ascertained to be incapable by reason of mental defect of receiving
  90
  benefits or further benefit in special schools or classes, or who cannot be instructed in a special school or class without detriment to the interests of the other children or for whom the Board, of Education, certify that no suitable special school or class is available."
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Go on, please.
  Mr. McKENNA:
  "(b) who on or before attaining the age of sixteen are about to be withdrawn or discharged from a special school or class."
  The whole point of my argument is that the only class of child who can be dealt with is the child who either is in a special school or class and is incapable by reason of mental defect of receiving benefit or further benefit from the instruction, or who has been discharged from a special school or class because he is so defective that he cannot receive further benefit from the special school or class. It follows from this that the child who is merely lazy or backward, the ordinary child in the ordinary elementary school who does not come up to the level of the other children, is absolutely excluded from the operation of the Bill. Then I have to consider how they can be dealt with under the Bill, and not one of those children, children who must be proved to be mentally defective or who must be in a special school or be discharged from a special school, can be dealt with except under an order made by a judicial authority on a petition and with medical evidence, and yet my hon. Friend has the courage to get up and say that upon the mere judgment of this, that, or the other magistrate, children who are merely lazy or backward may be sent to "hells" for life. I think that I have given sufficient explanation to show that my hon. Friend's alarms are entirely unfounded, and I will only conclude by saying that to exclude this paragraph would be to render the Bill nugatory and throw us back on the existing law.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I quite agree that this paragraph is necessary. It is true that if we are to pass the Bill at all, it would be folly to leave out such an important provision. It is most true that you cannot follow the importance of this Sub-section without having regard to the later Clauses of the Bill. It is necessary to bear in mind when discussing these provisions that we have to deal with a body of opinion which, it seems to me, is not a very reasonable body of

  91
  opinion when you come to the administration of these laws. You have philanthropists and you have scientific people, and both those two classes of persons are apt to get fancies—you really can hardly all them by a more respectable name—and to press those fancies with a total disregard to the feelings of individuals, and with the most ruthless indifference to the sufferings they cause, provided that they are clear in their own minds that they are doing what is in the interests of this or that person. Therefore, you must watch with most jealous care the language of Statutes of this kind. Philanthropists, in the language of symbolical physiology, are very abnormal persons. They have swelled heads and no bowels, and they proceed, therefore, with a total disregard for the liberty of the subject. The Home Secretary probably knows that neglect has received a very artificial interpretation at the hands of some magistrates. It has been held that merely to refuse to have a child operated upon when medical advice thinks that it ought to be operated upon is wilful neglect. I do not believe that the High Courts of Justice would take that view, but it has been taken by some magistrates.
  Supposing the doctor said, "Here is a child which ought to go through a certain course for epileptic children," it is possible that magistrates might take the view, if the parents refused, that they were neglecting their child. It would then come within a class included in Clause 2, Sub-section (1), and would fall under the operation of this Bill. Those are the sort of dangers you have to guard against, and I think that the language of this paragraph will have to be most carefully considered. There is one expression "proper benefit," which misled the hon. Member, not altogether unnaturally, into his exaggerated account of the Bill. The words "proper benefit" would seem to suggest the advantage a schoolmaster might think a child ought to get from his teaching. I rather agree with the Home Secretary. If you read the whole Clause, it has to be mental defectiveness not amounting to imbecility, yet so pronounced that they require care, supervision, and control. All that has to be read before you come to consider the proper benefit. At any rate, it is permanent defectiveness. If the Home Secretary could find some better adjective which would really suggest that it was more than a backward
  92
  or stupid child, and if the proper benefit could be qualified in some way, it would remove the sort of case which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has in his mind, and I think that the Clause would be made better. But I really think that it is in the later parts of the Bill we must look for safeguards in giving parents proper control over their children and in protecting them against compulsion.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I agree with the Home Secretary that if this paragraph were deleted the whole Bill would be destroyed. I also agree that backward children could not possibly come under this Clause. I take it that only special school children would come under this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme had had these definitions before him for two years, and that, therefore, he ought not to raise new points, but the right hon. Gentleman has himself had them before him for two years, and yet to-day he is proposing to make a very important and far-reaching change. It is proposed to insert the word "permanently," but I do not think the House has at all realised what the insertion of that word would really mean.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot speak to an Amendment which is to be moved later.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGE: If the Home Secretary will look at page 3 of the Bill, lines 3 and 4, he will see that the words are, "or for whom the Board of Education certify that no suitable special school or class is available." Does not that provision seem to give a loophole to the local education authorities, which probably could not afford the erection of special schools, to throw the care of these children oh those other authorities, and therefore those children would not get the benefit of the education which they would receive in the special schools, and they might be all the more quickly thrown into the hands of the other authorities?
  Mr. McKENNA: I propose to deal with those words when we come to them in a way which I think will be satisfactory.
  Mr. MARTIN: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment is proceeding on entirely humanitarian grounds, and I support him on those grounds, because it seems to me we have made a very strong case, in spite of what the Home Secretary says. I have spent the last six weeks or two

  93
  months in considering this measure, and while I must say that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme holds strong views in regard to this Bill, yet, with regard to this definition, I do not think he is inaccurate at all. It appears to me that, under this Bill, all that has to be done is to get the consent of any justice of the peace—and all justices of the peace are not capable jurists—and, so far as the Bill is concerned, when that consent is given a child can be practically imprisoned for life. It is provided that its case may be reconsidered; that is true, but after all, to all intents and purposes, that child will be imprisoned for life. No doubt some alteration is required, but our principal objection is to this part of the Bill, and it is clear that those children are to be a separate class altogether from those who are mentally defective. Even with the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman it seems to me that this class will be a very large one, and will be incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in the ordinary schools. I submit that in a large number of cases the children who do not receive proper benefit are not incapable of receiving instruction, and that it is due to the incapability of the teacher. The teacher fails to understand some of the children. I have an instance in my own mind of a person who was sent to school, but he received no teaching whatever. He was pronounced to be perfectly incapable of receiving instruction, and he was sent away from the school unable to read or write. He remained incapable of reading or writing until the age of forty years, without any change being observable in his condition since he was sent from the school. After he was forty years of age he went to a tutor, under whom he was educated, and under whom he showed great aptitude indeed. The reason of his incapacity at school was that he had a physical defect, and in reality the teacher was incapable of understanding the child. But all these cases are within the Bill.
  No matter how capable a teacher may be, whether man or woman, in regard to everything else, he or she may be incapable of understanding the physical or even the slight mental defects of pupils who enter his or her school. Under this Clause the words are "a child who is incapable of receiving benefit from instruction in the ordinary school"; but we must remember that unless a person comes within the definition of Clause 1, he cannot be proceeded with under the Act itself. Evidence is to be produced before the magistrates
  94
  whether a person is defective under (a), (b), (c), or (d). That is most important. The Home Secretary says, "After all, it does not matter very much, and the definitions on that part of the Bill come later on." I dispute that. I submit that this is the important part of the Bill. These four definitions, and especially definition (c), are an important part of the Bill. It has been pointed out that it does not even mean, under the present Bill, that those children who cannot be dealt with under Sub-section (c) shall be children who have to go to a special school. The Home Secretary has told us that he proposes to move an Amendment with regard to that. It is very remarkable that we are only to get this Amendment now. This Bill was fought in Committee all last Session, and has been fought this Session, and all our Amendments have been refused. The attitude of the Government has been, "This is our Bill, every word of it." [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] That is substantially true. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I was not even allowed to move my Amendments.
  Mr. MARTIN: Every person likely to make suggestions of Amendments in Committee upstairs—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting off the line now, and he must come back to it.
  Mr. MARTIN: I say it is very remarkable that an Amendment should now come from the Home Secretary to alter the Clause providing that the Board of Education are to specify the children. I do not know what the alteration is. We are now going to have two Amendments with regard to this Clause which the Government have refused to discuss up to date. Sub-section (c) was not discussed, and with regard to other provisions of the Bill no change could be obtained. I rather welcome the proposal to make Amendments now, for I think it is encouraging to those of us who have persistently endeavoured to get fundamental changes in this Bill, that they should be obtained even at this late hour.
  Mr. DICKINSON: The hon. Member said that he opposed the Bill on humanitarian grounds, but I understand those grounds to be in favour of the Bill and not opposed to it. The object of these Clauses is not to imprison persons for life, but to protect them. There are

  95
  thousands of persons from whom the imprisonment will be a real and beneficial protection, and every care will be taken that the persons who are put into these institutions are persons who will be there for their benefit. The wider you make these Clauses and definitions the better it will be; and it is because there is a very large number of persons mentally defective that these Clauses for their protection must be introduced into the Bill.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member for St. Pancras, who said that the definitions could not be too wide, and that the wider they are the better. That is a perfectly justifiable point of view compared with the point of view of an absolute autocracy —a body of people who know instinctively what people ought to be in prison and what people ought to be at liberty. We have got to remember that we are dealing with ordinary human beings and not with men like Mr. Sydney Webb or the Member for St. Pancras. It is in order to protect the ordinary individual of this country that you have got to make the definitions clear, and get them as hard and as fast as it is possible, and not to trust merely to the goodness of heart and intentions of people like the hon. Member for St. Pancras. I am sorry that the Home Secretary has left the House, because I am afraid that the warmth with which he replied to my recent Amendment portends a somewhat stormy and electrical time later on in the day. If he is so very angry with my Amendments at six o'clock, I do not know what he will be at twelve o'clock at night. He says that I spoke of feeble minded persons who were quite capable of managing their own affairs. I was not the first to say that. Mr. G. K. Chesterton said it in the first place, and it has been said in every Liberal newspaper in the last year and a half. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to get up now and say "incapable of" will mean in future "completely incapable of." The wording of this Bill is what we have to go by. Under the wording of this Bill people who are not incapable of managing their own affairs are liable to long, life confinement. There is no getting away from that; they may not be "completely incapable." You must take the words in the Bill as they are. If the right hon. Gentleman likes to put in an Amendment and insert the word "completely" before "incapable," well and
  96
  good. But, as he does not suggest doing that, we must assume that all the wisdom is embodied in the plutocrats of the Home Office and in those who will be called upon to decide whether or not these individuals shall be confined for life. I am sorry the Home Secretary has left the House because, having denounced me with great force, he gave an entirely fancy account to the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University of how children are to be dealt with in this Bill. Where you have special schools or classes the children will continue to be weeded out from the ordinary elementary schools to the special schools or classes by the teachers. That is the present system, and it is the system which is to be continued in the future. When they have been weeded out from the ordinary schools into the special schools, the process of weeding out will continue under Clause 2, Section (2), Sub-section (a). If a child goes into the special school he may be weeded out to an institution between the ages of seven and sixteen. So far there is no difference between myself and the Home Secretary. But the right hon. Gentleman tried to leave it at that; he tried to suggest that that was the only way in which the children would be dealt with. If, however, you read the next Subsection, Sub-section (b), you will see that children who remain in the special school after the weeding out process has been continued, between the ages of seven and sixteen, are then to be dealt with in the following manner. I had better read the exact words of the Sub-section. They are,
  "who on or before attaining the age of sixteen are about to be withdrawn or discharged from a special school or class, and in whose case the local education authority are of opinion that it would be to their benefit that they should be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship."
  Thus the education authority, again, is the body that will give notice to the local authority under this Act, and children who have not been weeded out prior to the age of sixteen can be dealt with at or near the age of sixteen. The local education authority, without any doctor's certificate, can give notice that certain children require to be looked after. I think we must all recognise that there are some teachers in our schools who would be thankful to see children in ordinary schools looked after as well as those in special schools, and is it unlikely that they will say that

  97
  the children in special schools will be better off by being looked after? It comes to this: When once a child goes into a special school or class the fate of that child is sealed. Notice will be given either before it reaches the age of sixteen if it is mentally defective, or at that age, by the teacher that it had better be looked after after leaving school. What happens then? Notice is given to the local authority under this Act, and the officer of that authority brings a petition before the justices of the peace which states that the child, a mentally defective child, belonging to a particular class, requires to be looked after. That petition has to be backed by the certificates of two medical practitioners. It would be quite easy to get such certificates in the case of any child who has been in a special school under the very vague definition contained in this Bill. After all, the medical practitioner will not have to say that such-and-such a person is insane or incapable of managing his or her affairs; he will be merely asked to say that such a person would be better if looked after, and that it would be better either for his own protection or for the protection of other persons.
  I submit that that is much too big a risk to allow the people of this country to run. At the present time, as this Bill stands, any child who goes to a special school or class runs very grave risk of being incarcerated for life. In a large part of the country where there are no special schools or classes I am afraid you have an even wider area of danger for the children of the working classes. Where there is no special school or class there will only be one weeding-out process. If a child is weeded out from an ordinary school between the ages of seven and fourteen, it will go, not to a special school or class, because there is none under the local authority, but it will go straight away to one of these institutions, and I am inclined to think it will be not protection, but an added danger, for these slow children that there should be no special school or class that will take them in. In the absence of such special school or class, any child who the teacher finds to be backward or incapable of reaping proper benefit from the instruction of the school is sent straight away from the ordinary elementary school to one of these institutions without any second weeding-out process. That is a very grave danger. That is why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham (Mr. J. A. Pease) has brought in an
  98
  Education Bill to deal with this particular difficulty. The Bill has not passed its Second Reading, and whether it will ever do so, I cannot say, but I am confident that the dangers in front of parents of feeble-minded children in this country are growing, and that this Bill places the very serious risk on parents that if a child is sent to a special school, and if this Definition Clause is left as it stands, once a child is withdrawn from an ordinary elementary school no parent can be sure of getting it back.
  The Home Secretary said that if this Clause were deleted there would be nothing left in the Bill. I do not agree with him. There will be a great deal left; there will be the money provisions left, and they constitute the most important part of the Bill, because they provide institutions to which these people can go voluntarily. We are only discussing now the need for compulsion; we are discussing whether we ought to compel people who come under a certain definition to take advantage of these benefits. If they are real benefits they will be taken advantage of voluntarily by everyone who needs them. All we are discussing is whether we shall compel a certain narrow class of persons who come within the scope of this definition to go to these institutions. This Clause merely deals with one corner of the question. I hope we shall fight against it. If we could have some promise of an Amendment in the definition of feeble-minded, it might assist us, but I do not suppose that the Under-Secretary is allowed to give any promises in regard to an important Clause. But what we do want is a serious Amendment of this definition. May I repeat my points? First, if this definition comes out, it will not destroy the Bill, because it only deals with the compulsory part of the measure. So far as the Bill is concerned, the providing of money and the weeding out of these feeble-minded persons will still be retained in the Bill. I further want to point out what will be the normal course under this Bill if it becomes an Act. The children will be weeded out first from the ordinary to the special school, and then from the special school to the institution, while those who remain in the special school after weeding out pass automatically under the action of the local authority, to the institution. The normal course will be that when a child has gone to a special school—when it has been removed from an ordinary school—it will go to one of these

  99
  institutions permanently, without any weeding-out process taking place. It will be done on the initiative of the teacher and without any medical certificate. Now we have to protect these children from being weeded out by making the definition as narrow as possible. It is not the case we are dealing with only a few children. Every child who goes to a special school, whether it has reached the age of sixteen or not, will pass automatically into the institution, provided the local education authority gives notice to that effect. That is the class for whom I am pleading. I think they ought to have protection against the danger of incarceration for life. They are children who have been weeded out very often simply because they are slow and do not get proper benefit from the education given in the ordinary school. I do not say it is necessary to cut out the whole Clause. But I do think the House is justified in asserting that the greatest care should betaken in all these cases, so that there may be no possible risk of a child being improperly incarcerated for life under this Bill.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. ACLAND ALLEN: I speak with a certain amount of knowledge on this subject as I am associated with the largest educational authority in the country and am chairman of its special schools committee. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) has spoken as though it was entirely at the option of the teacher in the ordinary school whether or not a child was weeded out and sent to a special school. That certainly is not the case in London, where the education authority has more special schools than all the rest of the country put together. In no case in London is a child admitted to a special school unless it has been certified by one of the doctors of the education authority as being a proper child to go into such a school. Then the hon. Member's account of the attitude of the teachers in the special schools is equally incorrect. He spoke as if they were anxious always to weed out the children from the special schools and have them sent to an institution. The exact reverse is the case. I speak with infinite knowledge of the work which the teachers are doing in these schools. I know what is their ambition, an ambition which is frequently fulfilled. It is to so educate the children under their charge that they are able once more to take their place in the ordinary school. That occurs over and over again, and it is
  100
  certainly the desire of the teachers of the special schools to effect that rather than that the children should pass on to an institution. It will be quite impossible, under any reasonable local education, authority, for such children to be passed on from special schools to institutions without the authority of the school medical officers. In every case the school medical officer is called upon to give his authority before any such transfer is made. I know these schools, and that in many cases the children educated in them are turned out able to take their place and earn their living as reasonable, respectable citizens. I know, also, too well, that there is in these schools a certain proportion—not a very large proportion, but a not inconsiderable proportion—who, unless they get after they leave these schools decent guardianship and decent care in some such institution as that in the North of England and others scattered about the country, which I hope will be increased when this Bill is passed, they will infallibly go the downward course and live a life which can only be a curse to themselves and to others. I should regret it extremely if this Amendment were carried, because I believe it would destroy one of the most important portions of the Bill.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I desire to draw attention to the fact that it is not necessary under the Bill that the child should have been to a special school before he can be confined to a home. I notice that an Amendment has been made to Clause 2 by the Committee, by which a child may be taken if the Board of Education certify that no special school or class is available. As the definition now stands, it means that children incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools can be removed to a home if the Board of Education certify that no suitable special school or class is available. I opposed this proposal in Committee, because I thought it was going very far indeed to say that because a child is incapable of benefiting from the ordinary education given in the ordinary school he should be liable to be imprisoned for life, because it practically means that. My hon. Friend behind me and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme seem to think that it was intended that before a child could be so removed he must be removed in the first instance to a special school. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether the Govern-

  101
  ment intend to insist upon the words of Clause 2, which provides that a child may, notwithstanding the fact that he has had no opportunity of being tested in a special school, be removed from the ordinary school to a home, provided it can be proved that he is incapable of benefiting by the instruction in an ordinary school. I can understand there is a good deal to be said for the view that a child who has failed to benefit by the ordinary instruction given in a special school should be treated as a defective, but it is contrary to what the Committee and a large number of Members intended to say if we say that a person should be liable to removal if he is merely incapable of benefiting from the ordinary instruction.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I had put down in my own name an Amendment similar to that now being discussed. On consideration, however, I decided not to move it, mainly because I came to the conclusion that if the Bill was to be a reality at all, some definition of feeble-mindedness would require to appear in it. I was unable to discover a definition which was a real improvement upon that in the Bill. There have been two points of view in regard to this matter—first of all, that expressed by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), who desires to make the definition as wide as possible, and, on the other hand, there is the point of view represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), who, on the whole, prefer a restricted view of the class which comes within the definition. The question is how we are to secure this end. From the point of view of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras, it is well that the Clause should be as wide as possible. He believes that the treatment is going to be an unmitigated benefit to those afflicted by it, and that it is for their protection, training, and cure. It may be so. Were the institutions in which these people are going to be treated voluntary institutions I could well believe all those things would be true, and that they would be an unmixed benefit for them; but, at the same time, we must remember that the powers which are being taken for the cure and protection of these people are also powers which involve their compulsory detention. As they involve compulsory detention, we should look upon them with great care and caution.
  No matter how beneficial an institution may be, nobody who is compelled to remain
  102
  in it is necessarily to believe that it is simply for his benefit. For example, the Ritz Hotel and Devonshire House are both very desirable places, but no Member of this House would care to be detained in either for the rest of his natural life, and if the hon. Member for North St. Pancras got up and said in connection with such a proposal that it would be for the benefit of the individual for whom it was suggested a great many people would, disagree with him and probably vote against him. That feature of the proposals in this Bill should always be borne, in mind. We may all agree that it is beneficial, curative, and protective, but it is, at the same time, a very serious restriction of liberty. I can only speak for myself in this matter, but I think we who desire to restrict the definition should adopt the method of securing additional safeguards and precautions in reference to the people who may be dealt with under the Bill. Certain precautions have been included which were introduced in Committee. The Home Secreary has indicated that additional precautions and safeguards will be adopted during the course of the present stage of the Bill. In view of the changes which have already been made and the other changes which have been promised, there is really no case for opposing the insertion of this paragraph in the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member press his Amendment?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: No, Sir.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "not amounting to imbecility, yet so pronounced," and to insert instead thereof the words "so pronounced that, while capable of managing themselves or their affairs, or in the case of children of being taught to do so, yet."
  This is really a drafting Amendment. Each of these definitions goes on the principle of saying that it is not so bad as the previous one—that the imbeciles are not idiots, and that the feeble-minded persons are not imbeciles. I think it would be better, in defining feeble-minded persons, that you should say what they are and not what they are not. The paragraph says that feeble-minded persons are
  "persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness not amounting to imbecility."

  103
  I want to embody in the definition of feeble-minded persons the definition of imbeciles in the previous paragraph, and instead of saying, "Not amounting to imbecility," to say "so pronounced that— then comes the definition which is taken from the imbecility paragraph—while capable of managing themselves or their affairs, or in the case of children being taught to do so—both these things are what imbeciles are not—and then go on with the definition as before. It is very important that we should make each of these paragraphs clear in itself, and that they should not be definitions by reference. Here you have again introduced that vice against which every Member of the House has protested at some time or other, the vice of legislating by reference. Here we have definitions by reference. It would be better to take the words from the previous definition and embody them in this definition, which would then read:
  "Feeble-minded persons; that is to say, persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness so pronounced that while capable of managing themselves or their affairs, or in the case of children are being taught to do so, yet that they require care, supervision, and control for their own protection or for the protection of others."
  That seems to cross the "t's" and dot the "i's" of the previous definition. It does not strengthen, widen, or stiffen it, but only makes perfectly clear to the House and to the country what we are doing, and does not try to conceal it in this vague reference to
  "not amounting to imbecility."
  I hope it will be treated as being a drafting Amendment and incorporated in the Bill. I am all in favour of making these definitions of what constitutes a new crime as clear as possible, and leaving as little as possible to the imagination or idea of the people who will administer the Bill. This Amendment is only one of a series which I have put down to this paragraph. It elucidates the matter. The other Amendments have been suggested by Dr. Bernard Hollander, the great specialist, and I think the Government might accept some of them.
  Mr. MARTIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I think the hon. Member, in the course of his speech, has made the very answer I should have given to this Amendment. He wants to embody in this paragraph the definition of imbecility which appears in paragraph (b). That is the substance of the Amendment. Before I deal with this matter, may I remind the hon. Member that in the Committee of 1912, we spent six days upon this very definition.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Nothing like it.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: There were twenty-seven Divisions upon the definition of defectives. In the Committee of 1913, from which the hon. Member was unfortunately absent—
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Excluded.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Unfortunately absent—I know he has been busy in other haunts of life—there were three days spent and six Divisions taken upon this question. I think I am entitled to say that for nine days in two years we have really gone into this matter very carefully. These definitions are very difficult matters. We all know that any definition is difficult, but a definition of different states of mind is very difficult indeed to get watertight. We know that in the long run it will have to be a matter of inspection and observation by the skilled men who will have to deal with these cases. In regard to the substance of this Amendment, it is really to substitute in (c) the definition given in (b) of imbecility. There can only be one reason for this, and that is that the ordinary reader of the Bill will have forgotten, when he comes to line twenty, what was in line fifteen. There are some who would forget, but it is only six lines back. It is not as if it were twenty Clauses back. When a man comes to Sub-section (c) and sees the word "imbecility," he only has to look six lines back to see the definition. The hon. Member is very anxious not to have prolixity in Acts of Parliament. Would not this be carrying prolixity too far, to redefine the word in line twenty? I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the word "require" ["that they require care"], and to insert instead

  105
  thereof the words "required throughout their life's history."
  This is one of the Amendments which was suggested by Dr. Bernard Hollander and I hope it will receive careful attention at the hands of the Government. It is based upon the idea that mental deficiency begins at an early age and lasts throughout life and that it is not an accidental occurrence which occurs at a certain age, but is part of the growth and history of the development of the child, and that it is most important in making these definitions that we should have it clearly laid down that the deficiency has to be a permanent matter and not one which is purely temporary. The Home, Secretary himself, in framing an Amendment of which he gave notice to-day, has recognised this later on in the Clause. The Amendment is that in the case of children they, by reason of such defectiveness, are permanently incapable of taking advantage of their education in the schools. He recognises, just as I think every doctor who has studied the question realises, that mental deficiency is a permanent state of affairs, and that what you have to judge by is not what the child or the adult is at the present moment, but what he has been like at all previous dates in his history so far as those who know him remember, and that is what Dr. Hollander means when he talks of their life history. He says it is of the utmost importance that a medical practitioner who is giving a certificate should not base his certificate simply on what he sees of the patient at that moment, but should also have information as to the previous life history of the patient, and in order that we may make it necessary that the medical practitioner should give such evidence we want it stated that the definition of feeble-mindedness requires not merely the state at that moment, but the condition of the patient during his or her whole life. I will read what Dr. Hollander says on the matter:—
  "The definition as it stands will be applicable to a great many persons who are leading normal and useful lives. It is true of many men, and still more so of a great many women, that they are mentally defective—of course, not amounting to imbecility yet sufficiently pronounced that some care, supervision and control should be given for their protection or for the protection of others. We are all feeble-minded in some respects or when taken out of our accustomed environment. For the law to interfere with the border-line feeble-minded it should be proved in any given case that a person is always in need of supervision and not merely at a particular time, and in the case of children it is not sufficient to say that they are incapable of receiving proper benefits from the instruction in ordinary schools,
  106
  which may apply to a great many children who do well in after life, but it should be stilted that they have failed to acquire rudimentary knowledge."
  I do not know whether the Government want to meet me on any of these Amendments or to steam-roller the whole of them, but this is an occasion when they might possibly take a recommendation, not from the Member for Newcastle, who is such a nuisance to them, but from a leading specialist in questions of insanity whose opinion presumably is of some weight.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  So far as I understand the scope of the Bill, there is no intention of including anybody who has not been feeble-minded from birth or from an early age. If you take the Bill strictly as it stands, a person who has been slightly feeble-minded, but not in such a state that you would require to take any steps in respect to him under this Bill, and lives to the age of forty or fifty and then brings himself within the definition of the Bill, requires care, supervision, and control, and that would be introducing a very dangerous state of affairs. The object of the Amendment is that the only people to be dealt with by the Bill are those who have been feeble-minded from their birth or from an early age. If it were not so, that would be opening the door to all the dangers which have been pointed out under other definitions in other Bills, cases of people who were inclined to be feeble-minded and who would be dealt with for very objectionable reasons when they arrived at that time of life—disputes as regards property, disputes between husband and wife, and other reasons which would mar the advantages and objects of the Bill. As it stands now, it is sufficient for a person to be feeble-minded from birth or from an early age, to be perfectly quiescent until the age of forty and then get so pronounced that he requires care, supervision, and control for his protection. That is a possible construction of the Bill as it stands. I gather that is not the intention of the Government, and that if a person has not brought himself within the purview of the Bill at the age of forty, they do not intend him to come under it then. If that is so, there can be no harm in inserting these words They will come in perfectly simply. It is, after all, merely a drafting Amendment which will carry out the intention of the Government better than the present Bill.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that these words are not at all necessary. "That there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness not amounting to so and so." Someone must be satisfied with that fact before the patient can come in this Clause: Of course, these definitions are very difficult. We had a definition from the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) of himself, that he was a nuisance. No one will agree with that definition. So there is really difficulty about it. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that no one is a feeble-minded person unless from birth or from an early age there exists mental defectiveness. That is the same thing in other words as "required throughout their life history. "Suppose there was a case where no one knew the previous history. Is it to be said that because we could not trace the life history of the patient from year to year, he is to be excluded from the provisions of the Bill, however much he requires it? I really do not think there is very much in the substance. The hon. Member asked whether we are going to steam-roller his Amendments. There are some Amendments which only deserve the steam roller, and I do not think this is one of the most useful Amendments he has moved.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am sorry the Government cannot accept the Amendment. Their arguments against it are arguments which cut their own throats. First of all, the Under-Secretary says it is quite unnecessary to state that they have required care throughout their life history, because mental defectiveness must have occurred at an early age. No doctor could sign the certificate unless he knew this defectiveness had occurred in early age or was a permanent affair. Then he says, "How can we possibly know their life history when we may not know what was their previous history at all?" He may just have come across the case casually after he has grown up. He is unable to find the life history and is also unable to state when the mental defectiveness began. So that if he was unable to give a certificate on account of the fact that he did not know whether the infant was feebleminded, exactly the same argument applies to the inability to supply the life history. There is no argument to be drawn from that whatever, but there is a very substantial need for this Amendment. The Under-Secretary has omitted to notice
  108
  that the definition of the feeble-minded person is that he or she shall need care, control, and supervision. What would be the definition of a feeble-minded person who did not require care, control, or supervision? Obviously he contemplates bringing under this Act a person who has been mentally deficient from birth, but who in early years may not have needed care, supervision, or control. It is extremely important that the definition of what is a mentally defective person should be the same when he is forty years of age as when he is an infant. You want the same definition of feeble-mindedness throughout, and whether a person be that from middle age or from a baby, in either case the feeblemindedness shall depend upon the need for care, supervision, or control. Therefore this Amendment, which makes it quite clear that the definition of mental deficiency must in all cases and at all ages be the same, should, stand in the Bill.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the words "for their protection or."
  I want to leave out these, which are purely drafting words, because it seems to me that they give a false idea of what the Bill is intended to be. It is primarily a Bill for the protection of others. These are the compulsory Clauses in the Bill. Anyone who is a feeble-minded person under this definition ought to have not only a clear statement as to why he is regarded as mentally deficient, but also he should be safe from having in the definition the somewhat hypocritical statement that he needs care for his own protection. That makes it quite clear what is the intention of the Bill—that is, that it is passed for the protection of society and not for the protection of the individual. The individual is able, under this Bill, to get assistance if he wants it. A feeble-minded person could get a home which he would be free to enter or to leave without these penal Clauses in the Bill at all, but it is only hypocritical to say to a person, "We are not content that we should take advantage of this Bill that you should get a real home, but we will take care that the real home shall be a real prison and that you shall not be allowed to leave it if you once go into it." When you are saying that, I think it is just as well to make clear in the definition that you are guilty of hypocrisy

  109
  by saying that it is for their protection alone, that this Bill is being passed. If the words "for their own protection" were left out, the Clause would still give sufficient protection for the cases you have to deal with. Why shove in the words "for their own protection"? Some persons have the old-fashioned idea that all women require protection. If you had gone to Whitehall on Sunday afternoon, you might have been able to form some opinion on that subject. Some of us have the old-fashioned idea that women require protection, but if you put this in an Act of Parliament you are widening enormously the scope of the term "protection." You are saying that if any woman, for example, requires protection, some person should make an order for that purpose. The Clause would read just as well without these words, and the definition would then read quite straightforwardly.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member in the next Amendment proposes to leave out the words "of others" also. Could not the two Amendments be put together?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: No, they are on different points.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member proposes to leave out both the words "for their own protection or" and the words "of others."
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The second is an alternative. If I cannot get this Amendment accepted, I will move the other one.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I would be justified in dividing an Amendment like this.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: On the point of Order. I think it is very usual to put down an Amendment which, if carried, would wipe out part of a Clause, and at the same time to put down Amendments to that part of the Clause which would be wiped out. That is what I have done in this case. If this Amendment is made, the subsequent Amendment would be unnecessary, but, if it is not made, then it becomes necessary to move the subsequent Amendment. I submit that is the usual practice.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot see the connection between the two at all. If it has been the custom, it is quite a novelty to me.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I will withdraw this Amendment, and move the second one, to leave out the words "for the protection of
  110
  others." I regard these as the most dangerous words in the Bill. Who is to decide as to the protection of others? The hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple) thinks that certain things are for the advantage of the race. Hon. Members opposite think that compulsory service is for the advantage of the race. Others think that compulsory segregation or compulsory education is for the advantage of the race. But what they think is not evidence, and I wish to have in this Clause a form of words which would not enable a magistrate or any other person to say that somebody requires protection. I think it is undesirable to leave in the Bill a form of words so absolutely vague and liable to be interpreted a hundred different ways by people of different temperaments. The ordinary way to interpret "protection of others" is to say that it is protection against absolute physical violence. If that could be made clear by the addition of these words, I would be satisfied, but I know that such an Amendment as that would not be accepted.
  What the supporters of the Bill mean is not protection of people from violence, but the segregation of people so that they shall not have children. They mean to protect future generations who might be deteriorated in stamina or brain by having feeble-minded people for parents or grandparents. That is the kind of protection the hon. Member for Stirlingshire has in view, and it is also the kind of protection which the Home Office are after. If it is not so, would they be willing to insert the words "against physical danger." They will not accept these words, nor will they agree to the excision of the words I propose to omit. I am bound to believe, and I am fortified in the belief, that the object is not what appears on the surface, namely, the protection of these unfortunate people for their own benefit, or the protection of others from the danger of these mentally defective persons. What they wish is protection of the race and the building up of a finer type of people to be better wealth producers in the country. If the Government will accept words to provide against physical danger, I would withdraw my Amendment. In that case, I think the majority of hon. Members who have studied the question will agree that the Bill would be improved from the point of view of the mentally defective, whatever it might be from the point of view of Eugenics.
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend has fallen into error with regard to this Clause. He stated in his first speech that it was a compulsory Clause. I assure him he is mistaken. It is a Definition Clause, and the words he proposes to omit are really a useful guide in the definition of a defective person. They are not operative in any sense themselves. The omission of these words would neither assist nor be detrimental to a mentally defective person. They would enable a doctor when certifying to have some light as to what was intended by the Legislature by this definition. I hope my hon. Friend who has misapprehended the purpose of the Clause will not press the Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the Legislature does mean by the words? Do the Government mean to protect other people from physical danger, or to protect the community from the production of an inferior race?
  Mr. McKENNA: If what my hon. Friend describes as powers of a Eugenic character underlie the Bill, there would be some point in his request, but he has to give us the powers which the Bill gives to deal with defectives. In order to ascertain what is meant by the protection of defectives for their own advantage or for the protection of others, I would have to go through the whole Bill to see how these words should be interpreted.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has totally disregarded the question. I wish to know what ordinary interpretation he would put on the words, "for the protection of others." He says the Clause is not a compulsory, but a Definition Clause. That is the merest quibble. People who come within the scope of the Clause are to be compulsorily segregated. People can go into these institutions voluntarily without being inside the definition at all. I am sorry, as the Home Secretary will not accept this Amendment, or any similar Amendment, I shall be compelled to divide the House upon it.
  Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the word "are" ["are incapable of receiving proper benefit"], and to insert instead therof the
  112
  words "that they by reason of such defectiveness appear to be permanently."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple) has pointed out to me that to make the Amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper, in which the words are "defectiveness are permanently," would be to compel a doctor to take upon himself the character of a prophet, and therefore I have substituted for the word "are" the words "appear to be." The word "permanent" has a meaning which would apply to the future as well as the past. A doctor could form his opinion as to the past and come to a definite conclusion as to the future, but he would not like to say that any person would be permanently incapable. Therefore, in view of my hon. Friend's criticism, I have moved the Amendment to insert the words "that they by reason of such defectiveness appear to be permanently."
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I have given notice of an Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has made another change in the wording of the Clause, and he was very careful to state that it does not affect the meaning.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Member be in order if he moves to leave out the word "permanently," and would I be justified in opposing the Amendment?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The word "are" is not material to the question.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am opposed to the Amendment to the Amendment, because it would take away the force of the Amendment as it appeared on the Paper. I thought we were going to get something. I thought the Government were going to make a proposal which would make the Clause watertight.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman move an Amendment to an Amendment which has not yet been moved?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not criticising your Amendment. He is criticising the Amendment of the Government.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The word "are," which I am talking about, is the one that comes before the word "permanently."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The word "are," which the Home Secretary proposes to leave out, is the one in paragraph (c) ["are incapable of receiving proper benefits from the instruction in ordinary schools"].
  Question, "That the word 'are' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the words, 'that they, by reason of such defectiveness, appear to be permanently,' be there inserted."
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "appear to be," and to insert instead thereof the word "are," which appears on the Paper before the Amendment was altered, at the instigation of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire.
  I think that once you put in such a vague phrase as "appear to be" you might as well leave out the Amendment altogether. It is too ridiculously vague to be the slightest guide to a medical practitioner. There are certain types of disease which are permanent types of disease, which are recognised by drooping hands and the conformation of the skull, and various other physical signs. But if you are going to put in the words "appear to be permanent" any sort of disease can be brought within the scope of the definition. I would be in favour of the Government, as advised by their own permanent officials, rather than as advised by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire. The hon. Member is a doctor himself, and therefore a person who should be regarded with peculiar hesitation and suspicion before Amendments brought in are accepted in this off-hand way. The Government put down their Amendment after a consultation with their advisers in order to meet the very difficulties about which we have been talking, and they should stick to that Amendment.
  Mr. MARTIN: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I join the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme in protesting against such words as "appear to be" in a definition. They mean nothing at all. The one thing which physicians can do surely is to prophesy with regard to things of which they have evidence. Everyone can see that certain ailments, like a cut in the hand, are merely temporary, but there are other ailments, physical and mental, which are entirely different in their nature, and have definite signs, which a doctor can see, and if he cannot see them, then the person should not be locked up. This is the very idea of the Government in introducing the Amendment, and I hope that they will not snatch away with one hand what they promise to us with the other. I would very
  114
  much prefer that the Home Secretary should withdraw the Amendment altogether, rather than make it worse by putting in these words.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: The hon. Member for East St. Pancras, in his last speech but one, reminded us that the Home Secretary, in Committee, told us that these definitions had been so carefully discussed last year, that it was really not worth our while wasting time on them this year. The Under-Secretary this afternoon said that we had devoted six days to the discussion of this particular definition. It is absurd then that the Home Secretary should now, at the eleventh hour, put down this Amendment, and this afternoon put down an Amendment to that Amendment. At the same time, he has told us that the Amendment to the Amendment would not affect the meaning of the Clause. Of course, it affects the meaning of the Clause. It makes his former Amendment absolutely meaningless. I object strongly both to this Amendment and to the former Amendment, because, in its former Amendment the Clause would read:—
  "Children who by reason of such defectness are permanently incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools."
  How is it possible to say that a child at the age of seven will never be able to benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools? The right hon. Gentleman told us a short time ago that all special school children came under this heading, anyhow came under the heading "feeble-minded persons" under this Bill. Tie knows perfectly well that a very large proportion of the children in special schools do pass into the ordinary schools after a certain time. I am not going to argue now whether it is right that these special schools should be continued, or remain under the Board of Education or not. But I maintain that in certain cases it would be absolutely impossible to set up special day schools. The Bill provides for that. On the top of page 3 provision is made that where the Board of Education can certify that no suitable special school or class is available, the special school children, that is to say, the children who in ordinary circumstances would go to a special school, are sent to an institution under the Board of Control. How can you say that those children will never be able to benefit from instruction in an ordinary school? It is quite possible that, after some time, even those children who are under the Board of Control, will be

  115
  able to benefit in an ordinary school, and we ought to have power to send those children back to an ordinary elementary school. Therefore, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not make these Amendments in the Bill at the last moment, but that he should stick to the definitions which were passed by the Committee upstairs. I hope that we shall accept neither his Amendment nor the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: This Bill contemplates the improvement of many of those who come under its provisions. Improvement may be expected in many cases where feeble-mindedness is not due to arrested development of the brain. There may be many oases of feeble-mindedness where the origin of the condition is not known. You may have feeble-mindedness due to malnutrition, and there may be recovery after a child has been properly fed for some time. Or it may be due to special circumstances such as convulsions. It is impossible for a doctor to say of a child of seven, "This child is feeble-minded and can never improve." You could say that of an idiot or of an imbecile, or of a feeble-minded person whose feeble-minded-ness is obviously due to arrested development of the brain. But you could not say it of those exceptional cases due to other causes. Consequently, if you are going to make this test no doctor could sign a certificate, no doctor could say, "This child of seven or eight is feeble-minded now and shall remain for ever so." Doctors would not put their signatures to a certificate of that kind. The Bill contemplates the gradual improvement of many children. Some children may get in who really are not feeble-minded, but who are backward, children whose brains are normal, but who through some other reasons may manifest conditions of feeblemindedness. Unless you have these words "appear to be," it would be better not to have the Amendment at all. If the right hon. Gentleman withdraws the whole Amendment as suggested by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that would be a solution of the question. If he does not withdraw the Amendment, those words "appear to be" ought to go in.
  Mr. DENNISS: I think that some Amendment is absolutely necessary, because the words are too wide, and are open to all the objections which have been mentioned
  116
  by the hon. Member. The words as they stand are:—
  "In the case of children, are incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools."
  There is not a word there about mental deficiency in any of those children, so that any child whether mentally deficient or not is liable to come under the Bill. The first part of the Clause referring to the permanent deficiency is not incorporated in the last part which stands by itself. The Home Secretary says that it does not. Those of us who are accustomed to construing Acts of Parliament for many years will agree that if a judge were construing that portion of the Clause itself he would take this view. It reads:—
  "Persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness not amounting to imbecility, yet so pronounced that they require care, supervision and control for their own protection or for the protection of others …"
  It then goes on to say:—
  "or in the case of children are incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools."
  That stands absolutely by itself.
  Mr. McKENNA: What is the nominative to the word "are"?
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. DENNISS: I do not wish to undergo a cross-examination in grammar, because once you begin to criticise the grammar of this Bill it would never pass. The grammar is the weakest point in the Bill in many respects. The right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for the grammar. The draftsman is, and the Committee altered it, and some parts of it are exceedingly difficult to construe. Some Amendment is, therefore, necessary, if I am right that those words stand by themselves. The Home Secretary's words that he put in seem to me to meet the situation, but with one exception. The insertion of the word "permanently" has caused the whole difficulty here. If he had left his Amendment to read in this way in the case of children that "by reason of such defectiveness are incapable," that would be quite sufficient. To decide that they are for ever permanently incapable is impossible. If he says they are for a time and likely to continue so for some time, that is sufficient. The difficulty will be solved, I

  117
  submit, by leaving out the word "permanently" and replacing the word "are."
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I really think that the original form of the Amendment was best, though I do not think it makes very much difference. The hon. Member is somewhat under a misapprehension as to the meaning of the word "permanently." Permanent does not mean lasting for ever. We say a man is a permanent official, but we do not mean that he cannot be dismissed, but simply that he holds by a lasting tenure. Permanent means lasting, and in this connection not a temporary defectiveness, but a defectiveness which is likely to last the greater part of the child's life. I am not sure whether medical men do not use the word "chronic" to express that idea. I would suggest to the Home Secretary to adhere to the original form of the Amendment, and so close the discussion.
  Mr. McKENNA: I think a great deal too much is being made of these words. We wish to make clear in the case of children that the incapacity to take advantage of the schools is by reason of mental defectiveness, and it is in order to get rid of the notion that it is mere backwardness or laziness or any other quality, but that it is because the children are incapable of getting benefit from the schools, and that the reason of that incapacity is because they are mentally defective. As to the word "permanently" the Noble Lord has really given the explanation, and we insert it because we want to distinguish whenever it is necessary mental defectiveness from other kinds of mental illness. Ordinary mental illness may be cured just as physical illness may be cured. There are occasions when physical illness is incurable just as there are occasions when mental illness is incurable. But mental defectiveness is a condition of arrested development which is permanent. It is quite possible that science may discover hereafter a means of effecting even a cure for that, and of developing the brain, but at the present time mental defectiveness is a condition of arrested development which is permanent in its nature.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: Children are sent back from mentally defective schools to the ordinary school.
  Mr. McKENNA: There is nothing whatever in Clause 2 to prevent a child being sent backwards and forwards from the special school to the ordinary school,
  118
  and from the ordinary school to the special school. This definition does not touch that. It is only a guide to the doctor who has to give a certificate. You must get the children under this Clause, and under Clause 2 as well, before you can deal with them under the Bill. This does not mean that anybody included under this will be dealt with under the Bill, but only such persons as are included in this definition and who come under Clause 2 as well will be dealt with under the Bill.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It is a very great pity that the Government, having had this matter two years under consideration, and having had the same definition last year and this, through the Home Secretary, should, two days ago, give notice of such a very important and drastic Amendment. The height of absurdity is reached when, to-day, the Home Secretary tells us that in obedience to the suggestion of a medical man sitting on his own side, he is going to alter the words "to appear to be." Although this seems, at first glance, to be rather trifling, I think it is really an important point, because certain classes of people in future are going to be compulsorily locked up or taken care of, and prevented from associating with their fellow men. It is a very important thing, therefore, when a child is being dealt with by a medical man, and when he is going to give a certificate on which depends whether that child is to be removed from association with others or not. It may be the case of a girl of thirteen or fourteen years of age, and a question arises: Is that girl to be locked up and segregated from the rest of the people? The medival man says, "Let us look at the Act of Parliament." He does not know the astonishing course of events in this House, and he probably signs the certificate. His excuse is probably, "Oh, yes, it appeared to me to be a case of that kind." He was not satisfied that there was permanent incapacity, but there was the appearance. We are asked to alter this Bill at this stage at the instance of the Government by putting in these words about "permanently," and we are asked at the last moment to make a farce of the whole thing and to put it into the hands of the medical profession. Ordinary members of the medical profession will not, we know, give a certificate of this kind, without very grave and very careful consideration, but we know also that forty or fifty years ago people were sent to asylums, and we know of the horrors

  119
  that took place in some of those, and now we are going to start afresh the system of locking people up and segregating them at a moment's notice, and to allow medical men to act upon something that appears to be the case. I think the Home Secretary will be well advised to leave both these Amendments out and certainly to withdraw the second Amendment which is an astonishing one and against which I would vote.
  Captain JESSEL: I wish to ask the Home Secretary not to put himself in a similar difficulty again. We had the whole question of these Amendments threshed out over and over again upstairs, and we thought some permanent settlement had been arrived at about these definitions. We spent many weary days up there and now we are told two days before this stage, that this definition is going to be altered and some further Amendments made. I should prefer the words as they are actually in the Bill, and on behalf of my Friends who supported the Home Secretary through the Committee stage may I say we are somewhat
  astonished that at the instigation of some other Members of the House he has allowed himself to put down an Amendment which in my humble opinion does not advance the cause of the Bill one bit, about which too much time has already been wasted. I shall certainly vote against the word "permanently." I understand that "are" being left out there are difficulties in the way of inserting it back again. I would like to suggest the words "by reason of such defectiveness are incapable," which will get it what it was before and will meet my hon. Friends point that feeble-minded persons had no relation to this provision. By that means we do nothing to disturb the existing definitions which were passed with such care by the Committee. The words will make the matter more explicit. I trust the Home Secretary will consider that suggestion.
  Question put, "That the words 'appear to be,' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 78.

  Division No. 209.]

  AYES.

  [7.10 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Clough, William

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clynes, John R.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Adamson, William

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hackett, John

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hancock, J. G.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Allen, Rt Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cullinan, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barnes, George N.

  Delany, William

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Barton, William

  Devlin, Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Hinds, John

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Dillon, John

  Hodge, John

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Doris, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duffy, William J.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Boland, John Plus

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Duncan. J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Nots, Rushcliffe)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Joyce, Michael

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Keating, Matthew

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Kelly, Edward

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Field, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Glanville, H. J.

  Leach, Charles

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Goldstone, Frank

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lundon, Thomas

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Lynch, A. A.

  O'Shee, James John

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sutherland, John E.

  McGhee, Richard

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Thomas, James Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Radford, G. H.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Meagher, Michael

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wardle, George J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Reddy, Michael

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Molloy, Michael

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Webb, H.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Mooney, John J.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Morison, Hector

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Muldoon, John

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Munro, Robert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

  Nicholson, Sir Charles M. (Doncaster)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Rowlands, James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Winfrey, Richard

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  O'Dowd, John

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  O'Grady, James

  Sheehy, David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  O'Malley, William

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hills, John Waller

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Barnston, Harry

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Stanier, Beville

  Bird, Alfred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boyton, James

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Butcher, John George

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Swift, Rigby

  Cautley, Henry Strothor

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Martin, Joseph

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Morrell, Philip

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Neilson, Francis

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Newman, John R. P.

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Younger, Sir George

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Benniss.

  Gretton, John

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

  Words inserted in the Bill.
  Further Amendment made: In paragraph (c) leave out the word "are" ["children are incapable of receiving"] and insert instead thereof the words "that they by reason of such defectiveness appear to be permanently."—[Mr. McKenna.]
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in paragraph (c) to leave out the word "ordinary" ["instruction in ordinary schools"], and to insert instead thereof the words "special school or class."
  This is a very important Amendment dealing with a point raised in every speech which has criticised the definition of "feeble-minded person." At present the

  123
  definition runs, so far as children are concerned,
  "are incapable of receiving the proper benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools."
  I want to alter that by saying instead of "ordinary schools," "special schools or classes." Everybody is agreed that it is much too wide a definition of feeblemindedness to say that every child too backward to get on in an ordinary elementary school should be classed as a defective person. There is a large measure of agreement for saying that every child not capable of taking proper advantage of special schools or classes should be considered to be mentally defective. The Home Secretary said in his speech just now that the people to be dealt with are those people who are weeded out of the special schools and classes rather than those people who are weeded out of ordinary elementary schools. This alteration will make that quite clear. This alteration is one which I believe will meet his view. No one would class as mentally defective a child too backward to take advantage of the ordinary elementary school education. But we all want to have classed as defective such children as are unable to take full advantage of special schools or classes.
  The scheme is that children in these special schools and classes between the ages of seven and sixteen will gradually be weeded out, and that one-third or one-half of the children between those ages will be found to be not capable of taking advantage of the education provided in special schools, and will, therefore, be weeded out. Those are the people who we all want to have dealt with; and those are the people whom we think this Act will benefit. This is an alteration in the definition which, I believe, will meet with the support of the House. I think, if the Government will give it their careful consideration, they will allow it to be adopted. The only reason, as I understand it, why the words "ordinary school" remain in in place of "special school," is because there are in so many parts of the country no special schools. That is only a temporary state of affairs. In a very few years these special schools will be universal, and as soon as they are universal then your definition will hold water perfectly satisfactorily: A transitional period has to be dealt with. When we are making a law which shall be a permanent part of our jurisprudence and shall for all time dis-
  124
  tinguish the mentally defective person from the normal person, we should take a broad view and not so cut our definition, that it is incapable of dealing with the temporary circumstances of the present day. If the Home Secretary and the House really mean to deal simply with children who cannot be educated in special schools, either because they are too nervous, or because their habits are offensive, or because they cannot take advantage of the special instruction, let them make it clear in the definition and let them not so word the definition as to embrace children incapable of receiving instruction in ordinary schools. You make arrangements in Section 2 to deal with children not in special schools, children weeded out in the nine years between the ages of seven and sixteen, and childen who, when they reach sixteen, are picked out by the education authority as being in need of further care and supervision. Why not make the definition in Section 1 coincide with that? I therefore beg to move.
  Amendment not seconded.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in paragraph (c), after the word "ordinary" ["instruction in ordinary schools"] to insert the words "public elementary."
  The fact that I got no seconder for the other Amendment only indicates the interest which the House takes in this Bill. The reason for this Amendment is that I do not know what an "ordinary school" is; everybody knows what an "ordinary public elementary school" is. The word "ordinary" has been used here so as to try to conceal the fact that this Bill is class legislation, legislation for the poor only. There is no possibility of testing the rich man's child. He may or may not be receiving benefit in these schools. It is only the children of poor people that are being dealt with. I cannot understand why, if this is so, it is not explicitly stated to be so, instead of being left vague, as it is at the present time. I do not know what an "ordinary school" is. I know what an "ordinary public elementary school" is. If that is what is intended it ought to be stated. If, on the other hand, you mean something else by an ordinary school, something that is entirely different from the public elementary school, in that case it would be well that we should have some explanation from the Home Secretary as to what exactly is intended by the words "ordinary school."
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to second the Amendment. I quite agree with the hon. Member that "ordinary school" has no legal meaning whatever. The usual term is "ordinary public elementary school." That is the term used in the Elementary Education Act of 1899. I therefore think the right hon. Gentleman should really accept the Amendment.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The words "ordinary schools" are in contradistinction to the words "special schools." It is a very strange thing that the hon. Member himself should want to introduce words into this Bill that stamps it as clans legislation, of which we want even to avoid the suspicion. The only thing that can be said for the Amendment is that it is a sort of verbal expansion of the Subsection.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The defence of the Bill by the Under-Secretary, though perhaps convenient and plausible, is not quite a satisfactory one. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Definition Clause of the Bill he will see that the special school or class is a special school or class within the meaning of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Acts. Take any middle-class family that send their child to a small privately managed school. We heard some very incisive and scathing descriptions of some of these schools from the President of the Board of Education— and some of them deserve it, for they are scandalous—but it would not do to make the instruction given in that sort of school and the methods of instruction the test as to whether or not the child is mentally deficient. I do not think that you gain very much by the expression "ordinary schools," but the matter is not worth while detaining the House for. I should have thought on the face of it that the Amendment was rather more reasonable than otherwise.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I should like to suggest to the Home Secretary that instead of adhering to the word "ordinary," he should put in the word "special." If he will remember, certain Clauses of an Act which the Under-Secretary seems to have forgotten provides that taking in conjunction with the Elementary Education Act that a boy—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That point has already been raised, and the House has passed from it.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; perhaps I may say this, that a special school is a class or department to which the child is sent if it is found to be incapable of receiving instruction in the ordinary classes—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That argument has already been used, and we have disposed of it.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to move, in paragraph (d), to leave out the words "who from an early age display some permanent mental defect coupled with strong vicious or criminal propensities on which punishment has little or no deterrent effect," and to insert instead thereof the words "who, by reason of arrested development or disease of the brain dating from birth or from early years, display at an early age vicious or criminal propensities which are of an incorrigible or unusual nature and are generally associated with some slight limitation of intellect."
  Nothing in the Sub-section is said as to what is the age at which the punishment has been or is to be inflicted, or whether it has been or is to be done by domestic punishment by parents or guardians, or by criminal punishment under the criminal law, nor how this deterrent effect of punishment is to be in any way decided. The words of the Amendment are very definite; but the words in the Sub-section do not seem to me to have at all any very definite or intelligible meaning. At the same time, I do not wish to press the Amendment. I should like the Government to explain what meaning they attach to these words in the Sub-section, especially the closing-words relating to punishment.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. SPEAKER: What Amendment is the Noble Lord moving?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hogge).
  Mr. McKENNA: I should myself have no objection if we were starting the Bill afresh to take the words put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, instead of the words which stand in the Bill, because they both mean precisely the same thing. The words which stand in the

  127
  Bill were considered by the Committee at considerable length. I think they are good words, precisely emphasising the kind of person with whom we hope to deal. There is probably in the mind of every Member in the House a certain type of person who, like Jane Cakebread, has been convicted some hundreds of times. She is exactly the kind of person whom we hope to deal with under this particular Sub-section. She and persons like her develop at a very early age what we call moral imbecility. It appears that from the very earliest age they suffer from some moral defect without being at all bad persons in the ordinary sense of the term, and even not being criminals in the ordinary sense. You may send them to prison not a hundred or two hundred times, but some hundreds, as in the case of Jane Cakebread, but this kind of punishment has not the slightest effect. She was really a feeble-minded person. It is not a very large class, but it is a class which we hope to deal with under this Section, which must be read in its entirety —that is to say, he or she must be a person who, from a very early age, has displayed some permanent mental defect, and, coupled with that permanent mental defect, must be of some vicious or criminal propensity. We have endeavoured so far as we can to define these vicious propensities. The words we have chosen are words for those persons on which punishment has little or no deterrent effect; but we mean precisely the same thing as in the very excellent words of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh. I hope the House will agree to stand by the Grand Committee in its proposal and to adhere to these words.
  Mr. J. M. HOGGE: I hope the Noble Lord will not press the Amendment. The reason it is down in my name and also various other Amendments, is that while discussing the Definition Clause in the Scottish Grand Committee, we refrained from continuing our criticisms on the ground that the definitions for both Bills ought to be the same, and we were given to understand that if any alterations were made in the English Bill they would also apply to the Scottish Bill. I think everybody will agree that to alter the definitions in the Bills as they stand, we should only be prolonging time before we come to a conclusion, and therefore we thought it better to concentrate upon the administrative Clauses instead of these Amendments.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I will not press it to a Division, but I gathered from the Home Secretary that the acts he contemplated are criminal acts. I think there is a widespread misconception as to what is the meaning of the words "early age." I confess I think it ought to be limited. I understand the hon. Member opposite has another Amendment dealing with this matter, and I shall reserve any further criticisms for that.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: This Clause is not meant to deal particularly or chiefly with Jane Cakebread's. I think it is mean to deal chiefly with prostitutes, and we want to be careful not to widen the Clause to such an extent that people who are puritanical by tendency will be able to lock all prostitutes up. We want to see there is no loophole left in the definition to embrace people whose moral defect is of that sort, and I am afraid the example of Jane Cakebread is not of much value. I do not think the Home Secretary knows what moral or mental state is in early infancy. The definition, it seems to me, might very well exclude Jane Cakebread's, and might also include all those people, such as prostitutes, as feeble-minded persons. I am afraid this definition of moral imbecile as its stands might be twisted to that purpose. Therefore, I think it is just as well that we ought to look into the Amendments proposed to this Clause very carefully and see that we make it sufficiently clear that a mere moral lapse, even of a very bad sort, it is true, but still a lapse of morality, should not be sufficient to result in incarceration in a feebled-minded institution.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I beg to move, in paragraph (d), to leave out the words "from an early age" ["that is to say, persons who from an early age display some permanent mental defect"].
  This is an entirely different matter from that which has just been disposed of. There are moral imbeciles who are not so from an early age. Let me give two examples which I think ought to come under the provisions of this Bill. There was the case of a young man of twenty-five whom I once knew who got a cut on the forehead which separated the tables of

  129
  the skull, and ever afterwards, although previously entirely normal and of a high character, he was a moral imbecile. He had no power of self-control; his will was entirely gone. That is a case that was a fit subject to come under this Bill, yet he was not a moral imbecile from an early age. Not infrequently both men and women get hæmorrhage of the brain and the pressure of the clot will produce a moral and mental defect which will express itself in moral imbecility. There you have a question of moral imbecility which started from injury to the brain, but not from early age, but which produced mental defects. Sunstroke frequently produces moral imbecility which does not manifest itself in any way except in loss of moral power. If we strike out the words "from an early age" we would bring these cases in and we would embrace all cases, whether congenital defects of the brain or whether produced by some disorder such as I have mentioned. Diseases of the brain producing melancholia or insanity come under the Lunacy Act, but where the lesion referred to produces moral defects, I think it ought to be included in the scope of this Act.
  Mr. WHYTE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  A case was put very strongly before me that this Bill ought to deal with recidivists, as there has been a considerable difficulty found in dealing with "ins" and "outs," and the suggestion was made that instead of saying that they should have the ordinary punishment of the criminal law, some special form of treatment under this Bill might be used for these persons on the ground that probably it is advisable to treat such persons as "ins" and "outs" as moral imbeciles.
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret that it is impossible for me to recommend the House to accept this Amendment. The Bill proposes to deal with mental diseases and particular diseases which have manifested themselves from birth or an early age. We cannot, therefore, accept an Amend-which would greatly extend the Bill, and give point to the charge made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Wedgwood) that it would be possible to affect people whom it is not intended to affect. We must adhere to the Bill as it stands with all its safeguards.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: It seems to me you could not have a more magnificent example than this discussion affords of
  130
  how necessary it is that women should have the vote.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in paragraph (d), to leave out the words "an early age," and to insert instead thereof the words "three years of age."
  I am informed that infancy means up to twenty-one years of age, and although that is definite enough it seems to me to be too late. The meaning of an early age, as I understand it, is two or three years of age. Moral imbeciles are those persons who from the age of three or before display some permanent mental defect coupled with strong, vicious, or criminal propensities. I am given to understand that the Home Secretary interprets early age to mean the age of two or three. It is obvious that so long as vague words remain in the Bill you will have it interpreted in different ways by those who have the administration of the Act. We think early age contemplates the ages of two or three or what they call infancy, and therefore I wish the paragraph to read "moral imbeciles, that is to say, persons who from three years of age display some permanent mental defect coupled with strong, vicious, or criminal propensities." [Laughter.] I am sorry hon. Gentlemen opposite do not see the importance of this Amendment. I am quite aware they think it would be a good thing to have as many people as possible locked up. I am one of those who wish to see as few people as possible locked up, and I want the age to be put as early as possible to make quite sure that the people dealt with here are really feeble-minded, and not to have people locked up whom the Home Secretary desires, or whom the Conservative party desires to see locked up. We want mental deficiency to mean mental deficiency from an early age, and I am therefore anxious to make it clear that infancy means three years of age and not to leave the matter to the judgment of cranks.
  Amendment not seconded.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in paragraph (d), to leave out the word "mental" ["display some permanent mental defect"], and to insert instead thereof the word "moral."
  This is a drafting Amendment, but it seems to me important. You are dealing with mentally defective persons and the use of the word "mental" here seems to

  131
  me to be tautological. If they have a mental defect they are mentally defective, and I suggest therefore in the interests of common sense we should strike out the word "mental," and insert the word "moral."
  Amendment not seconded.
  Mr. ACLAND ALLEN: I beg to move in paragraph (d), to leave out the words "on which punishment has little or no deterrent effect."
  I do not think these words add anything to the sense of the Sub-section, and I think they may have a very mischievous meaning. I do not altogether appreciate the examples given by the Home Secretary just now when he referred to the case of Jane Cakebread. I hope this Bill is designed to do away with such cases. Surely, the whole object of this Bill is to take away from those mentally defective from early years such careers as those of Jane Cakebread. We want to take care of those people before they have become vicious in that way. The words of the Sub-section as they stand really remind one of the old days when it was thought that the cure for lunacy was to give a man a good thrashing. I hope we have advanced beyond that, and I should like to have some explanation from the Home Secretary as to what he really does mean.
  8.0 P.M.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I second the Amendment, which I think is one of some importance. It is impossible to see how the Court would interpret the Sub-section. They could not have the defective tortured in order to see whether it did or not produce a deterrent effect, and how will you decide what measure of punishment is to be considered sufficient to prove that the mentally deficient person comes within the terms of the Sub-section?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret that I cannot accept the proposal of my hon. Friend. It would extend the scope of this definition very much if we accepted the Amendment. The case of Jane Cakebread was quoted by me as a case which was recently in the mind of all of us, but there are others now living who would have to be dealt with under this Bill and who have long since passed the school age. I quite agree that thirty years hence we shall hope that all people of this kind will have been brought under the operation of the Bill at a much younger age than Jane Cakebread was,
  132
  but we have to deal with criminals of that kind now. The reason why I think we have to insert these words is because experience must have shown, in the case of these persons, that they are a kind of person on whom ordinary punishment has no deterrent effect. This is a definition Clause, and unless we put in some words of that kind we shall be proposing to treat moral imbeciles in a manner in which we do not treat any other class of defective person under the Bill. It will be found in Clause 2 that except in the case of children nobody can be treated as a defective person under the Bill who has not done something which has brought them in contact with the law. In the case of moral imbeciles, we propose that they shall if by evidence it can be shown that punishment has not had, in fact, a deterrent effect upon them. But omitting the words would be to leave the case of moral imbeciles upon a conjecture. We do not propose, in the case of any defective person under the Bill, that it shall be left merely to conjecture in order to give power to deal with them. There must be a proved case, and we propose in the case of moral imbeciles also that it must have been proved that punishment in their case has had no deterrent effect.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I can quite understand these actual words being open to some objection. I quite agree with the intention of the Government and with the intention of the Bill, but I do think these words are perhaps a little too drastic, and that it would be better if some other words could be substituted for them. I would like to suggest these words: "and who have been found to be incorrigible by ordinary methods." I think that is really all that the Government want, and these words appear to me to be a good deal better. They do not lend themselves to people to blaspheme, and to say that you have got to torture a person to find out whether he is incorrigible or not. Moral influence, persuasion, and so forth might be more effective in reforming these people than punishment, and yet they would come within the definition of incorrigible, so I venture to suggest to the Home Secretary this alternative form of words.
  Mr. J. WARD: It is not the point put by the Noble Lord I am concerned about. It is quite a new form of offence against Society to be a moral imbecile, and looking at these words I was thinking how I myself might get on if they became

  133
  law. I feel certain that I should answer almost everyone of them except the word "vicious," to which I do not plead guilty; but I have done things which some people consider to be criminal, and that no amount of punishment has over prevented me from doing, because I did not think they were criminal. That seems certainly to be a case which one can sympathise with, and which one sees very much in evidence at the present time. Take the case of the man who is fond of poaching. If he were a wealthy man, and could hunt, and could thoroughly enjoy his sport, he would not he a poacher. It is the old propensity of the hunter that makes the poacher as a rule, and he will keep on poaching from the time he is a boy till he is an old man, find you can put him into prison a hundred times, and still he does it. Is he a moral imbecile upon whom punishment has no deterrent effect?
  Mr. McKENNA: Does he suffer from a mental defect?
  Mr. J. WARD: There are plenty of old squires who would think it was a mental defect. Those gentlemen who like foxhunting and pheasants, and who do not like them to be destroyed, do not like a man who cannot see the illegality and the criminality of it, and who, because he has no pheasants of his own, started to shoot other people's. It seems to me that a case of that kind might be included. I venture to suggest that there must be something different to these words. Take the case that is greatly agitating society just now, and that is the case of the Suffragettes. As a matter of fact, I should imagine that you could land everyone of them under these words. I would like some lawyer to point out to me how you could not. Certainly, they are criminal to burn people's places down, without any object at all, apparently, except to destroy the chances of the cause they are supposed to advocate. Surely, that must be imbecile and criminal. It seems to me to meet almost every one of the points, and the Clause seems dangerous just as it stands. Even supporting the Bill as I do, I would like to be sure that you were not passing a law to deal with what you believe to be one phase of mental deficiency, which everybody is agreed ought to be controlled, and then some lawyer comes along—and you never know what lawyers may do—and extends the principle to things which you never contemplated. I think there ought to be some saving words in this Clause.
  Captain JESSEL: I hope the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment. It is very difficult, once we get an involved discussion about the particular form of words, to know when to finish. We have spent weeks upon these definitions, and these are the best that we can arrive at. It is extremely easy to criticise and to make these definitions. The hon. Member who spoke last need not be under any alarm, because these are only definition Clauses. He ought to read Clause 2, where he may see the persons to whom these cases are applicable. He should read the definitions in conjunction with Clause 2, and he will see that the Bill is not nearly so alarming as it appears from the definition Clauses. All the suggestions he made are strictly met by Clause 2. As I said at the beginning, I hope the Home Secretary will not make any alterations to this Clause. I do not think any practical good is likely to come out of it, because it is a matter which has been very carefully considered.
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Helmsley) has suggested a form of words which meets all the Amendments on the. Paper, and which I think would apply satisfactorily. He proposes to substitute for these words the words, "and who have been found to be incorrigible by ordinary methods." It is the same meaning but avoids some of the pitfalls in the existing words, and if that were in accordance with the general wishes of the House, I would be quite prepared to leave out these words and to accept the Amendment of the Noble Lord, if he will move it.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I regret very much that the Home Secretary has accepted any change in these words. I quite realise the difficulties, but this definition was one arrived at by the Royal Commission in these exact words, and it was arrived at after consultation with a great number of mental experts, and also after consultation with the Royal College of Physicians. It is a very difficult thing to define a moral imbecile, and this definition in the Bill was proposed by those who knew all the facts and whose object it was to put the facts of life in regard to these moral imbeciles into a definition which will meet the case. That was discussed not only by the witnesses before the Royal Commission, but also at considerable length by the Royal Commission itself, by the Committee upstairs last year and by the Committee upstairs this year, and we have not been able

  135
  to find any better words. At this last moment the words suggested by the Noble Lord I do not think would be any improvement. If we are going to bring into this class persons who must have been punished in one way or another, I think you may be making a mistake. There is, first of all, the permanent mental defect at an early age—that is congenital imbecility of a kind. Secondly, it must be coupled with a strong vicious propensity, on which propensity punishment has little or no deterrent effect, and that is the whole question, whether the person has sufficient intellect to connect the punishment with the crime. Punishment has no effect on the moral imbecile, because he is unable to connect the punishment with the crime, and that is what is meant by these words, "on whom punishment has little or no deterrent effect." It always has been a difficulty to find the right words, and I doubt very much whether the words suggested at the last moment by the Noble Lord and accepted by the Home Secretary are really an improvement on the Clause.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I hope the Home Secretary does not intend to accept this suggestion. Let me point out in a few words what the operation of this Section will be. In the first place, anybody who is found to be, in the opinion of a doctor, obsessed by a mental defect, and to have vicious or criminal propensities, may be sent to a place of confinement as a mentally defective, in the first place on a petition; secondly, if he happens to be in an industrial school, on a mere letter of cachet of the Home Secretary, with absolutely no protection beyond the medical certificates given by the officers of the industrial school or reformatory or prison in which the person is confined; and thirdly, he may be sent under an order. Surely the Home Secretary must, on reflection, agree that there should be proof that the person has strong vicious or criminal propensities! How are you going to get that proof? The only effective proof you can get is that proof which we lawyers are accustomed to receive as proof, namely, that the person has been convicted twice, or more times, and that the punishment has proved to be no deterrent. To leave it entirely in the discretion of the Home Secretary, or to a magistrate on petition, to send a young person who is detained in an industrial school because his parent or his guardian or his schoolmaster, or possibly a stranger, states that
  136
  he is a person incorrigible, is, to my mind, one of the most ridiculous travesties in law one could conceive. There is absolutely no protection for the liberty of the subject, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to adhere to the Clause as it stands, subject, I hope, to the acceptance of an Amendment which I propose to move. I think that it is a reasonable one. It is really that the punishment shall be punishment by law, i.e., by a Court of Criminal Jurisdiction. I would, therefore, venture most strongly to urge that to make this extraordinary departure from the elementary principles of criminal jurisprudence requires; something more than the advice of medical men. I need hardly comment upon this Section, because it is full of words which to lawyers have no meaning. What is a moral imbecile? In the very next paragraph we are told that a moral imbecile is a mentally defective. They are not necessarily the same. Thirdly, we are told that he has vicious propensities. The logic is almost as bad as the grammar. The grammar goes on to say "on which punishment." I have considered this Clause very carefully, and I do really most urgently press upon the-Home Secretary to revert to the Clause as it was originally drawn.
  Mr. McKENNA: The speech of the hon. Member and of others leads me to conclude that there is not the smallest chance of the Amendment of the Noble Lord being accepted, and, therefore, I have no-alternative except to adhere to the Clause as it stands.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to say why I ask the Home Secretary to adhere to his words. I quite appreciate the object of the Noble Lord, but, if the Home Secretary will look at the words that are suggested, he will find that he is getting on very dangerous ground. He is using the word "incorrigible," which may mean something quite different from that which the Noble Lord means. I remember those two lines very well in Committee. We worked on them some time and discussed them very fully, and I both recollect and confirm all that has been said by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Captain Jessel). We endeavoured to find some definition of a moral imbecile, and we got so far as the words "coupled with strong vicious or criminal propensities." It was then said by somebody, "you have not taken any steps to cure these propensities by punish-

  137
  ment, and, before deciding that they are mentally defective, you ought to proceed by some of the ordinary methods." Very well, here are the words, "But which punishment has little or no deterrent effect." If you accept the words of the Noble Lord you introduce words well known in Police Courts. If a person is found to be incorrigible by ordinary methods, what does that mean? It means that, after having been treated by the criminal law, he is found to be incorrigible. That is not what the Committee mean, and it is not what they want. They would be startled if they found that they were introducing as a qualification to what we hope will be the humane treatment under this Bill that the poor defective must go through a number of attendances and sentences at the Police Court until it has been found by Police Court methods that he is incorrigible. That is not the object of the Bill, and I am quite certain that it is not the intention of this House. They do not want all that unfortunate treatment meted out to the poor defective; they want to deal with him in a much kinder way than that. I, therefore, think that the words of the Noble Lord fail of their object, and I hope that the Homo Secretary will adhere to the words that have been adopted after very careful consideration by two Committees and by the doctors.
  Mr. MARTIN: When the hon. Gentleman refers to the consideration in Committee he must be referring to last year and not to this year.
  Mr. POLLOCK: November and December.
  Mr. MARTIN: Yes, not this Session. There was no consideration of this particular Sub-section this Session so far as I have been able to remember, and I wish to protest very vigorously against the two speeches made by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Captain Jessel), in which he led the House to understand that there was free discussion upstairs, and that it was only after careful labour and thought that the Committee passed this Clause. That is not my recollection at all. There was, so far as I am aware, no discussion upstairs at all on this particular Sub-section.
  Captain JESSEL: The hon. Member was not on the Committee last year.
  Mr. MARTIN: No, I am talking of this year.
  Captain JESSEL: I am talking of both Committees.
  Mr. MARTIN: I do not know what occurred last year. I am speaking of this year.
  Captain JESSEL: I adhere to what I said.
  Mr. MARTIN: That may be so, but I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that it was this year there was a long and careful consideration of this Sub-clause. Surely we have got nothing to do with what occurred last year. That is all dead and gone. We are going on this year's proceedings. In Committee upstairs there was no discussion on any point or principle of importance in this Bill. Small points of drafting and unimportant provisions were discussed and Amendments made, but when it came to a Clause like this we got the answer, which has been given this afternoon, that it was a Clause drawn up by the Royal Commission, and we must not touch a word of it. That was the whole point of the discussion upstairs in regard to any point of importance or of real principle. We could get a change in regard to drafting, but on anything like the question now before us the hon. Member for North St. Pancras came with the statement that those were the words the Royal Commission had advised, and that they, being experts, were far better able to legislate than many Members of the House of Commons. I protest against this House thinking for a moment that they should pass this Bill through as it is because there has been such a careful and prolonged discussion upstairs. As a matter of fact, there was no discussion whatever. I quite agree that if the Clause is not to be modified as the Amendment proposes, the wording as it is would be very much better than the wording proposed by the Noble Lord.
  I appeal to the Government to go further, and not only refuse the suggestion, but also to strike out those words. They will have a definition which will be quite sufficient for the purpose of the Bill without those words, and if they do that they will at any rate show that they are not, after all, bound down to the very words given, with the i's dotted by the Royal Commission. I object to that kind of legislation. I am aware that a number of Gentlemen have devoted their time for months to this one question, but that is

  139
  not the point; the House of Commons, after all, is surely the final judge. I do think, after the pertinent arguments we have had, and after the very strong arguments advanced by the Mover of the Amendment, who is one of the most faithful supporters of the Bill, that the Government ought to be willing to give us a chance to modify the extreme rigour of this Bill. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to say that it is not a rigorous Bill, and that it does not send people to gaol. We read it and we find these things in it, and when we seek to modify some particular Sub-section, the answer is, "You will destroy the whole Bill if you change the wording." It surely cannot, be that, if you leave out these words, the Bill will be in any respect weaker than at present. The only difference it will make will be the giving way to those of us who, while not objecting to the principle of the Bill, do object to the very harsh and rigorous way in which the defectives are taken hold of and sent to gaol for all their lives. I do appeal to the Home Secretary to accept this Amendment, supported as it is by persons who, like myself, are opposed to the Bill, and also by hon. Members who, like the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment, are in favour of it.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I protest against the idea that the Committee last year considered this question. After all, if these definitions are inspired and come down from on high, we did last year alter definition (c), and now we are told by the hon. Member for St. Pancras that definition (d) is morally inspired. When we got to definition (c), the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) and I retired, satisfied that the Committee and that the Government had dropped the Bill. They
  have now said that this definition is sacrosanct. As the Home Secretary has ventured to suggest that there might possibly be found another form of words, I want to know whether my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, who represents the opposite school, could not agree to this Amendment, which is precisely what was suggested by Dr. Vemon Hollander, and which might on that account secure respect. The words of my Amendment are "corrective measures applied during their education and training," etc. That gets away from the idea of flogging and imprisonment. The House must recognise that the definition of imbeciles is meant to deal primarily with children. The question of dealing with adults is purely a temporary one. After all, mentally defective persons will be sifted out and prevented from going into the world in their school days, and, therefore, there will be scarcely any mentally defective adults. When we talk of punishment it means punishment in the ordinary elementary schools; it does not mean punishment by imprisonment or anything of that sort, it means punishment in the ordinary years of school. You want a very different definition when you are going to deal with children, and one suitable to children during school years. That was the suggestion of Dr. Vernon Hollander, and that it what I have adopted in the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name, for the application of corrective measures during school years. I do not know whether it is possible for the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment, but I do hope he will not regard every Amendment from this quarter as one to be objected to at once.
  Question put, "That the words 'on which punishment,' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes. 249; Noes, 37.

  Division No. 210.]

  AYES

  [8.34 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Adamson, William

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Butcher, John George

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bird, Alfred

  Cassel, Felix

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Boland, John Pius

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Arnold, Sydney

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Boyton, James

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Brace, William

  Clough, William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Clynes, John R.

  Barnes, George N.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Barnston, Harry

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Barton, William

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Cullinan, John

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Jones, William S. Glyn-(Stepney)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Delany, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Keating, Matthew

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kelly, Edward

  Radford, G. H.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Dillon, John

  Kerry, Earl of

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reddy, Michael

  Doris, William

  King, Joseph

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rowlands, James

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Ginnell, Laurence

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meagher, Michael

  Stewart, Gershom

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Gulland, John William

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Swift, Rigby

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Molloy, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hackett, John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Mooney, John J.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Morgan, George Hay

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hancock, John George

  Morison, Hector

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomas, J. H.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Muldoon, John

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Munro, Robert

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wardle, George J.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Nolan, Joseph

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Nuttall, Harry

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Hills, John Waller

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hodge, John

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Shee, James John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Winfrey, Richard

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Perkins, Walter F.

  NOES.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Baker, Sir Randall L. (Dorset, N.)

  Hinds, John

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Neilson, Francis

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Fell, Arthur

  O'Grady, James

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Martin.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Gretton, John

  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to move, in paragraph (d), after the word "has," to insert the word "had" ["little or no deterrent effect"].
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I have a previous Amendment.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member made a, speech on that Amendment just now, but I understood that the Division which has been taken covered that. The hon. Member spoke in support of the alternative he had on the Paper to the Amendment then before the House. The House came to the decision that the words of the Bill so far should stand part.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I made a speech, but the Home Secretary did not listen to it.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: The object of this Amendment is to leave the question, whether the punishment has failed in operating as a deterrent, not as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of fact. It is not necessary for me to make any observations upon it, as I understand that the Home Secretary is inclined to favourably consider the Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment. It makes the Clause much clearer and the definitions much more harmless.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add as a new paragraph,
  "(e) Mentally infirm persons, that is to say, persons who through mental infirmity arising from age or the decay of their faculties are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs."
  A separate paragraph with regard to mentally infirm persons, such as I am now proposing, was contained in the Bill of last year, and we have never yet been told why the Home Secretary has deemed it necessary to omit such a paragraph from the Bill this year. The Bill as it stands only applies to mentally defective persons who have been mentally defective from birth or from early age. A person cannot be dealt with under any of these para-
  144
  graphs unless he was defective from birth or from an early age; therefore no person can be dealt with who becomes mentally deficient in later years. Everyone acquainted with local government knows perfectly well that a very large number of the aged persons in our workhouses and lunatic asylums, are only mentally defective through senile decay. Before the Royal Commission it was stated by the chairman of the Asylums Committee of the London County Council:—
  "Patients were sent to the asylums of the county council who were senile and not strictly lunatic... The old senile dements are sent to the county asylums practically because someone wants 10 get rid of them. … They represent very nearly one-third of those we receive. We have hundreds and hundreds now that we could dispose of if we had asylums similar to the imbecile asylums belonging to the Metropolitan Asylums Board. It is a serious matter affecting the relatives … to brand as a lunatic a man or woman whose faculties are simply decayed by the advance of years.
  An interesting Return was issued a short time ago by the Local Government Board showing the number of mentally defective persons in workhouses in England and Wales. It showed that out of 29,484 adults who were mentally defective, 10,000, or more than one-third, were persons of sixty years and upwards. In this Return the mentally defective in workhouses are classified according to the five classes contained in the Mental Deficiency Bill of last year, the fifth class consisting of mentally infirm persons who would have come under such a definition as I am now proposing. Under that heading 32 per cent, of all the mental deficients in our workhouses would have come. That definition has been omitted, and we have been given no reason whatever why the right hon. Gentleman has not included it in his Bill this year. Everyone will agree that persons, whose only crime is that they are mentally defective, ought not to be in workhouses or lunatic asylums. They ought to be placed in homes or institutions provided for mentally defectives under the Bill we are now discussing. Early last year the Home Secretary said:
  "Mentally defectives ought nut in lie treated in the workhouses, as their case is one in which workhouse treatment is of no value. They ought to be treated in a suitable home which would, if not cure them, at any rate give them a prospect of leading a fairly tolerable life."
  It is perfectly clear that to keep aged people suffering from senile decay in a lunatic asylum is a great waste of money. They do not require the very expensive medical treatment which lunatice receive in our modern lunatic asylums. They will be much better off and much economically treated in homes for mental defectives.

  145
  Unless this definition is inserted, these unfortunate people cannot be dealt with.
  Mr. MARTIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: With much of the hon. Member's speech we agree. At the same time he will remember, as he served on the Committee, that in view of the financial provisions of this Bill it is really impossible to include all those we wish to include. The Bill is limited to congenital cases—the cases of those who from birth or early age have displayed these particular defects. The substance of the answer to the Amendment is that the money at our disposal at present is not sufficient to meet all the cases we would wish to meet. I say that quite frankly to the House. That being so, we have, as it were, to choose the most urgent cases. In our view, the cases included in the Bill are more urgent than the cases the hon. Member wishes to include. That is a frank and candid admission, and that really represents the real substance of the situation.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: These people are already provided for in lunatic asylums, and there would be no additional cost.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: That is just so. If the senile dements develop such a state of abnormality of mind that they are lunatics, they are already provided for under the present law, but we do not think they ought to come definitely as a new class in addition to (a), (b), (c), and (d) under this Clause. At any rate, I think the hon. Member will agree with me that once we substantiate that, we have to choose this is really the class that ought, as it were, first to be excepted from the provisions of this Bill. If it was a very bad case, of course, he would be certified as a lunatic. If he is not so certified, a man in this condition would less require special treatment than the other classes included in the Bill. To include this class would entail very heavy additional expenditure, and if you entailed heavy expenditure certain classes would be excluded from the Bill which in our opinion ought to be included, rather than the class to which the hon. Member refers. I agree with the substance of his remarks. When he remembers the financial limitations which have been put upon us, I hope, although we all agree there is merit in the Amendment, he will not press it.
  Mr. MARTIN: Why was it included in the first Bill.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The hon. Member was on the Committee the second time, and the Bill was very much improved on the second occasion.
  Mr. J. WARD: I am very pleased to think the Under-Secretary has decided not to accept this Amendment. I have supported the Bill, so far as I have given support to it, on the supposition that it is really to deal with those who may be offensive to society. Surely these poor old people who would be included in the Amendment could not possibly come under that category. Therefore it would be most offensive to include them in a Bill of this description.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I was pleased to hear that the Government were not going to accept the Amendment, sorry though I am to have to oppose my hon. Friend, who is generally a supporter of individual liberty, though on this occasion he has fallen away. At the same time I must really protest against the reason given by the Government for their rejection of the Amendment. They certainly would not find any approval from the hon. Member (Mr. John Ward) any more than they would from me. What the Under-Secretary has said is that the Government would like to lock all these people up, but they have not got money enough to do it. Can one really imagine a less conclusive defence? They had it in the last Bill. The hon. Gentleman says this is an improvement on the last Bill, but though it is an improvement he says he should like to have this in which is not an improvement, if he had money enough to put it in. Is that logical or practical? If he is going to draw the line as to money is there not a very much simpler line? If he is frightened of locking up these poor people, whom I have no desire to lock up, would it not be much simpler to make a difference between compulsory and voluntary? We know that there is only £300,000 under the Bill. That will not be enough to deal with voluntary cases. Surely he might save all this difficulty and trouble by drawing the line at voluntary cases—people who are willing to go to asylums and those excellent institutions which at present deal with idiots and the feeble-minded! But to suggest that the limit of age is the one which is to be taken, simply because of money, is only worthy of some of his supporters who are anxious to

  147
  lock up so many people under the Bill. I certainly rather agree with the hon. Member (Mr. John Ward) than with the Government. Still, if you accepted this Amendment, you would be on exceedingly dangerous ground and that is why we are opposing it. You would be locking up people at forty, fifty, or sixty, who had been sane until then. When they got a little bit feeble they would be locked up right and left on account of family disputes and people wanting to get hold of their money. That is where the Clause is a bad one which should be rejected, and that is the real danger. I am glad the Government have not money enough to do it, because it would be an absolutely wrong thing to do. I shall have to strain my conscience to the extent of voting with the Under-Secretary against my hon. Friend.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be under the impression that I propose by this Amendment to lock up poor unfortunate old people who are at liberty at present. Nothing is further from my mind. All I propose is that old people who are now locked up in asylums and workhouses should be transferred to proper homes and institutions.
  Mr. J. WARD: The old men can come out of the workhouse whenever they like.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: There is no getting away from the fact that there are thousands of old people in the workhouses who cannot get away, and they cannot get away from the lunatic asylums. Every asylum authority in the country will testify that a very large number of old people are there who ought not to be there. This provision was in the Bill last year, when exactly the same amount of money was provided as is provided this year. For the hon. Gentleman to say he will not accept the Amendment this year because he has not enough money is absolutely absurd. If my hon. and learned Friend is against the Amendment I shall not proceed to a Division.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause to add the follow-; ing new paragraph,
  "(e) sexually feeble-minded persons, that is to say, female persons who do not belong to any of the above-mentioned classes of mentally defective persons, but
  148
  who are feeble-minded and on account of their mental condition fail to exercise due self-control or due self-protection with respect to sexual immorality."
  The object of this definition is to bring the benefits of the Bill to certain classes of people who are a constant source of trouble to Social Workers and Poor Law guardians, persons who are feeble-minded, but do not come under the definitions we have already passed. They have no criminal or vicious-propensities which bring them under the operation of the criminal laws, but they are really incapable of properly looking; after their affairs, and particularly are incapable of protecting themselves against sexual indulgence. Many thousands of children are born into the world of parents of this kind, and for their sake as well as for the sake of the mothers these feeble-minded women who are subject to this particular kind of mental and moral defect should be brought within the purview of this Bill. If this Amendment is accepted I have a subsequent Amendment to treat this particular class of moral imbeciles differently from some others, by saying that they shall not be dealt with other than by being sent to an approved home or placed under guardianship. I am not an enemy of liberty, but I am very desirous that this particular class of imbecile should have the benefit of this Bill.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: My hon. Friend has referred to a circumstance which was present to the minds of those who brought in this Bill. He seems to be under the impression that the class to whom he-referred are excluded from the provisions of the Bill. He will find if he will look at the Bill that the class of women could be brought under paragraph (c). So far as the term "feeble-minded" is concerned, they are already included in the Bill. What does the hon. Member want? He says there is a class who fail to exercise due self control. I really could not accept the Amendment. I think his proposal, if carried out, would be exceedingly harsh. The Amendment gives a very vague classification. Really the point is that the Bill is intended to make it possible for any honest man, any honest doctor, to say whether a certain person does or does not come within the provisions of the Bill. If a woman is a feeble-minded person, she comes within the provisions of the Bill,

  149
  whether she has tendencies to sexual immorality or not, and the hon. Member wishes to add that she cannot exercise due self-control or due self-protection. I really think that is putting too severe a strain on the administrators of the Act. I hope very much for these reasons that no further addition of this kind will be made to the Bill.
  Sir. F. BANBURY: I am afraid I do not agree with the Under-Secretary for the Home Department in his reason for objecting to the Amendment, although I am opposed to it. He says that all this sort of people will be dealt with under the definition we have already passed. That may or may not be so.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: So far as the feeble-minded are concerned, they already come within the Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is my point. I do not know who is really feeble-minded or who is not. I do not know who is to decide that question. Very likely two doctors would agree that some person is feeble-minded, although others held a contrary view. While I do not agree that the reasons advanced by the Under-Secretary are good reasons, I am going to support him if the Amendment goes to a Division. I do not know whether the hon. Member who moved the Amendment is an advocate of female suffrage or not.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Yes.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am surprised that lie proposed the Amendment. One of the reasons why I am going to vote against him is that I think it would not be fair to women that this particular Amendment should be put in the Bill. The Amendment says that persons shall be deemed to be defectives who are
  "sexually feeble-minded persons, that is to say, female persons who do not belong to any of the above-mentioned classes of mentally defective persons, but who are feeble-minded and on account of their mental condition fail to exercise due self-control or due self-protection with respect, to sexual immorality."
  Why not include men? Why should women only be brought under this Section? I am serious upon this point, because I have always said there was no necessity whatever for female suffrage. I have always said that we are perfectly capable of looking after the interests of
  150
  women, but if we are to have such legislation as this, one law for men and another law for women who are, incapable of due self-control or self-protection with respect to sexual immorality, my objection to female suffrage would vanish. Everyone knows perfectly well that if this Amendment is correct, it applies as much to men as to women, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman opposite should have brought it forward, to deal only with the class he describes as female persons. Of course, this really shows what absurdities we are attempting to legislate upon. We are really trying to make out that wherever there is a particular thing we disapprove of, the person, male or female, who does that particular thing is mentally defective, and should, therefore, be locked up on the ipse dixit of two doctors, and confined for five years in a place of detention. I am sorry to differ from the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he will accept my criticisms in the spirit in which they are offered. I trust the House of Commons will not accept this Amendment, and that even at this late hour the Government may possibly be induced to see that this Bill cannot possibly be carried out without inflicting great hardship and injustice upon a large portion of the community.
  Mr. J. WARD: The reason why I object to this Amendment is that it would be impossible for anyone to decide when a person came within its terms, unless, perhaps, the President of the Divorce Court, or the King's Proctor. I feel certain that while there is a certain degraded class on the streets who want protection, these women are not exclusively the class who would come within the terms of the Amendment. I venture to say that if these-words were put in, although the paragraph would be applied to poor people, you could not apply it to rich people, however immoral they might be. It would be utterly impossible to do that.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not see why it should not apply to everybody.
  Mr. J. WARD: It would be utterly impossible to apply any portion of this Bill from beginning to end to wealthy people.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is why I am against the Bill.
  Mr. J. WARD: It is largely for people in poor circumstances that you are passing it. I am morally certain that those who have framed this Amendment mean it to

  151
  apply only to one rank of society—the poorer people. They have no intention whatever of applying such a strict code as this to those in the higher grades of society. It is more aimed at a class than at an offence, and I object to it entirely. By no stretch of imagination could it apply to the people who happen to move in good society, whose records we hear of from time to time in the Divorce Courts, but to their less fortunate fellow citizens in the poorer ranks of society it may apply very effectively and very harshly. It establishes one code of morals for one section and another code for another section of the community, and it is because of this difference in its application according to wealth and social status that I object to this Amendment from beginning to end.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am exceedingly glad that a Member from the Labour Benches has at last spoken against the ill which threatens to lock up poor people.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I am not referring to the hon. and learned Member in particular, but I have noticed that for the last hour nearly every speaker on the Amendments has referred, more or less, to the Bill as a whole. It is very important at this stage that we should deal with the Amendments before the House, and not with the Bill as a whole.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am very glad that a. Member from the Labour Benches has spoken against the Clause which is to lock up poor people. I am opposing this Amendment because it discloses no necessity to lock up this particular class of persons. I sympathise greatly with the Mover of the Amendment. It seems to be the logical outcome of certain portions of the Bill. The Under-Secretary, in speaking against this Amendment, referred to his remarks on the last Amendment and said that the same reasons applied to this. As far as I understand his remarks on the last Amendment were that there was not sufficient money available to deal with the different things that they would wish to deal with, so that if he had money at his disposal he would, I understand, accept this Amendment.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: That is not the case. There are other reasons also, but even if this were an Amendment which we could accept on other grounds it would be impossible on account of the financial restriction.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Why the hon. Member who moved this should have restricted it to females I do not know. There is nothing in his speech that would have prevented it applying to men as well as to women. If the Amendment were to be moved in its present form it should be applied to both men and women, and then it would have the merit at all events of being logical and possibly in accordance with the rest of the Bill. I know no other part of the Bill which makes a different law for women and for men. Though I oppose the Amendment I am glad the hon. Member has moved it, because it throws a strong light on the lengths to which you may be tempted to go if you continue the class of legislation which we have begun. It is because it will make a further step in that direction that I am prepared to vote against the Amendment. What is proposed is practically imprisonment for life without a proper trial. It is a danger to the personal liberty of people, however much we may not sympathise with them, and it is a dangerous precedent to lock up people, whether male or female, in the manner proposed.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: May I be allowed to withdraw? [HON MEMBERS:"NO."]
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am very glad that this Amendment has been moved, because it enables the Government to show that they can resist pressure in this direction, and also because it has induced the Undersecretary to the Home Department to explain to the House that the women who are meant to be dealt with under this Amendment will be dealt with under Section (c).
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: So far as they are feeble-minded.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: That is what I meant to say. This only deals with feebleminded persons. Therefore, we are told by the Under-Secretary that these people should come under Section (c). It is very desirable that the House should understand the people who do come under paragraph (c). In the second place, I am glad that it has been moved, because it makes quite clear what is at the back of the minds of the promoters of this Bill. Just as they want to make people sober and thrifty by Act of Parliament so they want to make them moral by Act of Parliament. Two years ago an Amendment such as this would have been carried. It would have been thought such an admirable thing to

  153
  make people moral by Act of Parliament. Now an Amendment on these lines would not have met with a seconder if it had not been felt desirable that the subject should be debated. The only thing I regret is that the Amendment should have been moved by the hon. Member for Hagger-ston, who has done magnificent service for freedom in other spheres, and has also worked effectively for women suffrage, and I think it is sad that an Amendment such as this should have been put into his hands—of course he loyally moved it—and that he should be held responsible for it. Last year in the Committee stage a similar Amendment was moved, I think by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, and was rejected without a Division, as this Amendment will also be rejected without a Division. I think a very healthy spirit is growing up of opposition to ail such interference with the moral conduct of the people of the country. The more you look after them by the State in this way the less chance they have of standing on their own legs, and the more necessary further grandmotherly interference is found to be. I protest against this Amendment. I wish that it could be divided on. At any rate, an Amendment similar to this will not pass into law during the lifetime of this Parliament.
  Amendment put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Circumstances rendering Defectives subject to be dealt with.)
  2.—(1) A person who is a defective may be dealt with under this Act by being sent to or placed in an institution for defectives or placed under guardianship—

  (a) at the instance of his parent or guardian, if he is an idiot or imbecile or is under the age of twenty-one; or

  (b) if in addition to being a defective he is a person—

  (i) who is found neglected, abandoned, or without visible means of support, or cruelly treated; or

  (ii) who is found guilty of any criminal offence, or who is ordered or liable to be ordered to be sent to a certified industrial school;

  (iii) who is undergoing imprisonment (except imprisonment under civil process), or penal servitude, or is undergoing detention in a place of detention by order of a Court, or in a reformatory or industrial school, or in an inebriate reformatory or who is de-
  154
  tained in an institution for lunatics or a criminal lunatic asylum; or

  (iv) who is an habitual drunkard, within the meaning of the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900; or

  (v) in whose case such notice has-been given by the local education authority as is hereinafter in this section mentioned; or

  (vi) who is in receipt of poor relief at the time of giving birth to an. illegitimate child or when pregnant of such child.

  (2) Notice shall, subject to regulations, made by the Board of Education, to be laid before Parliament as hereinafter provided, be given by the local education authority to the local authority under this Act in the case of all defective children over the age of seven—

  (a) who have been ascertained to be incapable by reason of mental defect of receiving benefit or further benefit in special schools or classes, or who cannot be instructed in a special school or class without detriment to the interests of the other children, or for whom the Board of Education certify that no suitable special school or class is available;

  (b) who on or before attaining the age of sixteen are about to be withdraw or discharged from a special school or class, and in whose case the local education authority are of opinion that it would be to their benefit that they should be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship.

  Mr. MARTIN: I propose to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "defectives" ["an institution for defectives"], to insert the words "or a certified house as provided in Section forty-six." This-Clause is probably the most important in the whole Bill. As it stands at present, there are two classes of institutions to which to send defectives, and there is a third class which, under Clause 48, instead of being sent to an institution, may be sent to a certified house. My point is, if you send a defective to a certified house, it must be clear that all the safeguards which are provided, and all the provisions under Clause 2, apply as well to the certified houses. It is only a drafting matter, and it seems to me it should be done.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is rather unusual to insert in an earlier Clause a

  155
  reference to a later Clause, and if I put it to insert the words "or a certified house" it will be better.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MARTIN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "defectives," to insert the words "or a certified house."
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I think this is the best opportunity for making clear exactly what institution these people will be sent to. There are institutions which may be certified by the county or borough councils, and institutions which may be carried on by the guardians, and then those run by the Secretary of State, and, besides that, there are certified houses to which my hon. Friend has referred.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would be quite out of place to discuss that point now. This is moved as a drafting Amendment, and the other point does not arise until later in the Bill.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I think it would certainly be desirable that the various institutions to which defectives can be sent should be stated in this Clause. Certified houses will be privately managed, and you will have a number of people under the procedure provided sent to those houses. I expect the word "institutions" here is meant to cover them, and it certainly would be better to have it stated.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Clause 2 provides that a person who is a defective may be dealt with by being sent to "an institution for defectives," and Clause 48 (l) states that—
  "Any defective who may be ordered to be sent to, or may be placed in an institution under this Act may be ordered to be sent to or to be placed in a certified house."
  Do not the hon. Members think that once is quite sufficient to have the thing stated? The Amendment is quite unnecessary, and the only justification for it is if you want to say twice what is in the Bill once.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) (a), to leave out the words "or is under the age of twenty-one."
  This part of the Clause has really to be read in conjunction with Clause 3. Under
  156
  Clauses 2 and 3 a person can be dealt with at the instance of the parent or guardian without any judicial order whatever, if that person is an idiot, or imbecile of any age, or if he is mentally defective. Under paragraph (b) of Clause 2 (1) there is no necessity to show that the person is found neglected, abandoned, or without visible means of support, and the person can be dealt with by the parent or guardian without the order of a judicial authority under Clause 4. It is quite clear that this procedure does not contain the same safeguards for the protection or liberty of the subject as are contained in Clause 5. Under this Bill it is proposed to repeal the Idiocy Act. So far as I know, under that Act any person can be dealt with at the instance of a parent or guardian if he is an idiot or an imbecile. This proposal goes further than that, as it deals with people who are not idiots or imbeciles, but simply defectives. I think there is an unwarranted and unnecessary infringement of the liberty of the subject. I hope in this case I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). If this Clause is passed a parent will be able to take his child from a special school, without any order from a judicial authority, merely by getting two medical men to sign a certificate. All that these medical men are asked to certify is that the child comes under one of the four definitions laid down in the Bill. The parent can then remove his child from a special school and place it in an institution under the Board of Control. I want to know whether that is the intention of the Home Secretary. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to adopt this Amendment and thus place the proposals under this Bill on the same basis as the proposals under the Idiots Act.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I desire to second the Amendment. It seems to me very important that this question should be seriously considered. If the Clause stands as at present any parents or guardians will be able to send their children or those over whom they have guardianship to these institutions under much simpler arrangements than those under which they can be sent away by the officer of the local authority. It seems to me rather serious if you are going to make it easy for certain evilly disposed guardians or parents to get rid of their children by locking them up in these feeble-minded institutions. There have been cases of evilly-disposed parents

  157
  or guardians getting their children consigned to lunatic asylums. The difficulties in the way of such parents or guardians are considerable. The doctors who sign the certificates have to be satisfied that there are certain definite symptoms of insanity. The cases under subheads (c) and (d)—moral imbeciles and feeble-minded persons—are border-line cases, in which it is less the business of the medical man to decide whether the persons ought to be sent to these institutions, than that of the educators of children or those who have practical experience of children. I am against giving greater powers to evilly-disposed parents to put their offspring into these homes. Very often boys and girls during years of adolescence form attachments with members of the opposite sex which are considered undesirable by their parents. It is a little risky to give those parents such simple opportunities as they have under this Bill of getting their children put away. You have to deal with bad parents as well as with mentally defective children. You have to deal with a system whereby the lunacy laws are made much wider than at present.
  Under paragraph (b) rather elaborate processes have to be gone through before persons under the age of twenty-one can be consigned to feeble-minded institutions. But under Sub-clause (a) the process is a great deal simpler. I view with some alarm this tendency to give almost absolute power to parents over children of eighteen, nineteen, or twenty years of age. The Government ought to consider very carefully whether these words might not be omitted without doing much damage to the Bill. As far as I remember, the Bill of last year did not contain this sentence, and so far was a better Bill than the present measure from the point of view of the liberty of the subject. This Bill contemplates dealing with children during the school years from seven to sixteen, and it seems to me it would be better to make the upper limit under which the parents have control sixteen instead of twenty-one years of age. After the child has left school and has passed through the sifting-out processes provided by the education authorities with their special schools and so on, it is a little dangerous to give this power to the parents. If there is any feeble-mindedness about a child it will be found out long before he reaches twenty-one. It is a primâ facie case in favour of the child if he has passed the age of sixteen without being sifted out
  158
  and sent to a special school. I hope, therefore, the Government will consider whether they cannot accept some such Amendment as this in order to give an additional safeguard to children who may displease their parents or get into difficulty with their guardian over money matters.
  Mr. McKENNA: I hope the hon. Member for Stowmarket (Mr. Goldsmith) will not attack me if I reply to his present Amendment by pointing out other Amendments which I propose to make. I have to ask for immunity from attack by him, because on a previous occasion he criticised my action in venturing to accept an Amendment. I do not propose to recommend the House to accept his present Amendment, but I propose to accept an Amendment standing in the name of the hen. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to insert the words "at the instance of his parents if he," so that as regards persons under the age of twenty-one the power will be limited to parents and will not be given to guardians. That deals with half the case. With regard to parents, I propose in Clause 3, which deals with procedure relating to parents, to move to insert words requiring the certificate, "where the defective is not an idiot or imbecile," to be "countersigned by a judicial authority for the purposes of this Act." This point was discussed at considerable length in Committee, when I promised to introduce words to ensure that a judicial authority should have cognisance of the certificate, so that we might be satisfied that it was not merely a medical certificate, but that a judicial authority would know the circumstances of the case and be able to refuse to sign the certificate if all the circumstances were not fully satisfactory. I hope that with this explanation the hon. Member will be satisfied and not press his Amendment. The reason for not meeting the whole of his case is that I am informed, and I believe it to be the fact, that in many cases we should give, great offence if we insisted on parents going before a judicial authority. I quite agree that we have to safeguard the liberty of the child. I think we have done it. But, of course, I must remind the hon. Member that after the petition there is the whole procedure in Clauses 11 and 12 which apply to this case also. Clauses 11 and 12 also deal with the release of the Orders. I think, having regard to all the circumstances of the ease, we have fairly met the views expressed.
  Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: I may point out that it is necessary that the Amendment should be withdrawn in order to put the one that follows, the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I would like a word or two upon this Amendment, before it is withdrawn. It may be necessary to withdraw it, but I should like to say a word or what the Home Secretary has just said. The Home Secretary says that it might annoy the parent if he is proceeded against by judicial authority. I cannot help that. The parent ought not to have the right to do what he likes with any of his children. He ought not to be able to lock them up, and then because it annoys him to have to appear before the judicial authority, not to have to appear. Why not? Here, again, we come back to the fatal and vicious faults of the Bill, that new proposals and new powers are to be given to certain people, and forsooth, they are not to be subjected to judicial authority for fear that we annoy—
  Mr. McKENNA: I did not say that.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but I understood him to say that one of the reasons that he objected to this Amendment was that it might give offence to the parents that have to appear before the judicial authority. If he did not say that I have nothing further to say. But my belief is that the right hon. Gentleman did—
  Mr. McKENNA: I said what the hon. Baronet now says.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes. Surely then under these circumstances we are here to see that right prevails. We are not here to encourage parents who want to get rid of their children. I do not hold that parents are exceptionally bad people who cannot be trusted with this power. But unless the Amendment of my hon. Friend is accepted any parent who wants to get rid of his child of eighteen or nineteen or twenty can do so, and if he is not to go before judicial authorities for fear of the annoyance of it, well, a more extraordinary doctrine to have been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman representing the Liberal party I have not heard. We have always supposed that the Liberal party stood for the liberty of the subject. I could not have believed that I ever should have risen in this House to
  160
  controvert a doctrine of that sort. It has not been put forward by the reactionary people who are opposed to the liberty of the subject. If it had been then, possibly there might have been something in it. That it should be put forward and advanced by one of the greatest living instances of the new Radical party—words fail me to describe my feelings at the present moment! We have already passed certain Acts of Parliament against cruelty to children, because we believe that some parents are not fit to be entrusted with the destinies of their children. In the case put forward, the right hon. Gentleman gives these very people the power to lock up their children—
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no, no, the hon. Member must not misrepresent me!
  Sir F. BANBUTRY: That is as I understand it.
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not so.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, then, is he going to meet my hon. Friend half way? How some of this ever got into the Bill I cannot conceive. How it ever passed Committee upstairs that a guardian should have this power, again I cannot conceive. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to alter it later on as he says to meet my hon. Friend upon the question of the guardian, and then later on going to meet him still further in the matter of the parents, may I ask him why he should not meet him now in a clear, definite manner and accept the Amendment? I should like to have some reason for this: otherwise I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division. At any rate, those of us who still have some lingering regard for freedom ought to support my hon. Friend.
  Mr. HILLS: I do not think that the fears of the right hon. Baronet are quite justified. I think he has overlooked the fact that the child can only be sent away upon the certificate of two doctors, of whom one must have been approved by the local authority, and that when the child is so sent the Board of Control must at once be notified. Then there are provisions in Clause 11 for the examination at the end of the year, and subsequently—
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I inform my hon. Friend that I place no reliance whatever upon the certificate of the two doctors?
  Mr. HILLS: The hon. Baronet is so impressed with the fact that everybody can be got at that it will be hard to convince him. Still, so far the terms of protection go, I think they are quite adequate. I can see reasons for distinguishing between the case of the parents and the guardians. After all, a great many guardians are in loco parentis. Surely the thing that you want to do in this Bill is to see that a certain power is not abused. So long as you make sure of that I would be quite satisfied to give the guardians the same powers. My first impression as I heard my hon. Friend speak was that the taking out of these words would enlarge the scope of the Act. I am not sure that it will not, because the first few words in Section 2 will then apply to defectives. I hope for that reason the Amendment will not be pressed. Still I do not quite understand why no distinction is to be made between the powers given to the parents and the powers given to the guardians.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: My hon. Friend's incurable optimism makes him a most dangerous man to follow, but why this thing has been brought up I cannot imagine. The Home Secretary, in a very able speech on the Amendment, made it clear that he thought the point should be met. As it is now, at the instance of a parent or guardian, where the child is under the age of twenty-one you can lock him up upon the certificate of two medical men countersigned by a certificate from the judicial authority. Let me put to the right hon. Gentleman, and to my hon. Friend who has just sat down a case which arises in every-day life, a case where the husband and wife are separated by a judicial separation. The wife has got the custody of the children. There is a feeble-minded child whom the mother loves just as much as any of the stronger-witted children. She is willing to look after it, and has the money to look after it, but the husband under this Bill as it stands being at enmity with his wife, to annoy or to distress her, has only got to go and insist, because the child is feeble-minded, on getting the certificate of two doctors, because the safeguard of the right, hon. Gentleman is only illusory. What is the judicial authority? The magistrate many of us are magistrates, and the magistrates, when the certificate is brought to him can only countersign it. You cannot set up your opinion against the opinions of two doctors. You have no opportunity of seeing or cross-examin-
  162
  ing them. You have simply the certificate signed by two doctors, and if they are respectable men, you can only countersign their certificate. The man may have quite rightly stated that the child is feeble minded, and once that is done, the judicial authority countersigns the certificate, and although the mother had been looking after it perfectly well, the father has power, under this extraordinary Act, to take away that child and shut it up in an asylum, in which it will have to associate with people that have been removed from the lunatic asylums and from criminal lunatic asylums, and also with people who are morally imbecile, and have such strong vicious propensities that punishment has not effect on them. Therefore, the case of the husband who wishes to spite a wife—and I am taking this concrete case, because it is simpler and easier to follow a concrete case—has got full powers to take the feeble-minded child away and shut it up in an asylum of the kind I have indicated. It is true that the husband, instead of sending the child to that asylum about which I shall have a word to say when we come to this extraordinary method of management, could send it to a certified home, where it would not have to associate with people of the kind I mention, but where it would be locked up for a considerable period, and would, of course, cause endless heart searching and pain to the mother from whom it is taken away, and over whom the husband has such powers and enormous leverage of pressure, under an Act of this kind. If I differ from my hon. Friend, it is because possibly my professional practice has given me experience in cases of this kind, and when we are dealing with the liberties of the public, we are bound to see that the proper precautions are taken even if we are to sit up late, before giving powers of this kind to lock up people.
  10.0. P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think the concession made by the Home Secretary though not quite adequate to meet all the circumstances, deserves to have been received somewhat better. It is, of course, valuable to find the Home Seecretary offering some safeguard in circumstances such as that in this Clause. I think we are entitled to point out that this is the second safeguard that has been introduced into the Clause as a result of the action of the critics of the Bill. When the Bill was introduced, a single medical certificate was sufficient to lock up any young

  163
  person up to the age of twenty-one at the instance of the parent or guardian. In the course of the discussion a concession was made, making it necessary to have two doctors. Now the Home Secretary has, I think, very wisely gone further. He has made it necessary that this certificate should be countersigned by a judicial authority. I regret that the ordinary procedure of a judicial order is not required in these cases as in other cases, but the right hon. Gentleman has brought about the intervention of the judicial authority, and I myself feel satisfied with the concession he has made.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in paragraph (a), after the word "or" ["or is under the age of twenty-one; or"], to insert the words "at the instance of his parent, if he."
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in paragraph (i), to leave out the words "or without visible means of support."
  This is a very important Amendment, and I hope the Government will accept it. It is an Amendment put in by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire during the Committee stage of the Bill. Paragraph (i) of Sub-section (b), as it originally stood in the Government Bill, stated that people who are found neglected, abandoned, or cruelly treated, could be dealt with as feebleminded persons, and sent to these institutions, and then Eugenists came along and added, "Those without visible means of support," which has no real connection with the other three conditions provided. As the House knows, these are the very vaguest form of words. After all, it seems right that there should be power to send children to these institutions if they are really neglected, abandoned, or cruelly treated. I agree that children who come under these categories, or that are neglected in any other way, should be sent to institutions. Their parents have obviously failed to look after them, but to add the further words "having no visible means of support" seems to me to be cruelly unjust to many of those parents. How on earth are the feebleminded children to have half-crowns in their pockets? How are they to show visible means of support? You can test
  164
  whether persons are abandoned, neglected, or cruelly treated. How can you test whether they are without visible means of support? In the case of tramps, that is sufficient if they have a half-crown in their pockets; but how are you going to apply that condition to those feeble-minded children? It seems to me to be perfectly monstrous. I dislike the whole Bill, but this addition makes it far worse. If the Government will take these words out, I do not propose to talk any longer on this Amendment, but certainly if the words are to remain in, the Bill will be far more dangerous than it was when it came before us on Second Reading. We were told on Second Reading there were two conditions to be satisfied before people could be locked up, and one was that the defectives should come under the definition in Clause 1; and the second was that they should come into contact with, the law. Can anybody suppose that being without visible means of support can be ultimately considered as coming into contact with the law. The cranks say that everyone of those children is without visible means of support, and it means if these words are left in there will be other circumstances to be considered, besides proving that the child is mentally defective and gets into trouble with the law. You simply have to prove that it is mentally defective alone, and then one of your officers has only got to find the child outside its parents' home without half-a-crown in its pocket and all is up with the child. I urge everybody who believes in the liberty of the subject and who believes that it is not the function of the State to lock up people simply because they are feeble-minded to vote for cutting out these words so that the Clause will read as it was when it first went upstairs, where these words were accepted in a light-hearted manner to burke discussion.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg leave to second this Amendment.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The hon. Member talks about this Clause interfering with the liberty of the subject, but the provision about a person being found "neglected, abandoned, or cruelly treated" applies to something which is done by somebody else and not the child. Supposing the child has lost its parents and it is deaf, it has not been either "neglected, abandoned, or cruelly treated." If the hon. Member looks at this provision he will find that his proposal is entirely un-

  165
  necessary, because the case he has put before us comes within the third rule of this Bill. These words were introduced in Committee and accepted and there was no Division upon them, and, therefore, I cannot accept the hon. Member's Amendment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: There might be a case of a defective person who, through no fault of his own, or anyone else, was without means of support. I think those words must have been understood to refer to a definition of vagrancy, and it certainly is very undesirable to give the impression or perhaps the reality of harshly treating poor people because they are poor or defective. The case contemplated by the Under-Secretary is quite a different one, and belongs to a different classification altogether. No one expects a child to have visible means of support, and the provision is intended to refer to an adult or wandering idiot who is found by the roadside starving and unable to do anything for himself. The two cases of the adult and the child are constantly mixed up, because some phrases are intended to apply to the children and some to adults, and so far as I can understand it the phrase "without visible means of support "must be intended to refer to adults. I should have thought that "abandoned" covered nearly all cases of children. There may be the case of an orphan child or a child whose parents have been sent to prison, which ought to be dealt with.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: These words are taken from the Children's Act.
  Sir F. BANBURY:I do not think it is a good argument to advance that because certain words appear in the Children's Act they should be brought into this Act. As far as I know the Children's Act it has been a dead letter, and it was an absurd Act which has resulted in nothing. The arguments which were advanced by the Under-Secretary dealt entirely with the case of children, and I agree with my Noble Friend that this does not apply to children at all. If the Under-Secretary will look at the Clause he will see that it begins:—
  "A person who is a defective may be dealt with under this Act by being sent to or placed in an institution for defectives or placed under guardianship—

  (a) at the instance of his parent or guardian if he is an idiot or imbecile, or is under the age of twenty-one."
  166
  That does not apply to a child. The next provision is as follows:—

  (b) If in addition to being a defective he is a person—

  (i) who is found neglected abandoned, or without visible means of support, or cruelly treated."

  Surely that refers to one of the class which I have just read—that is, a person who is a defective. There is nothing about a child in that provision. I feel quite certain that if this Section was passed in this way any person who may be a defective, and under the age of 21, who is certainly not a child, may be locked up because he is without visible means of support. That may be right or wrong, but if we are going to pass this proviso let us do so with a full understanding of what we are doing and do not let the House be led away by the argument that we are only dealing with children. I think we ought to have the assistance of a Law Officer of the Crown when we are dealing with legal questions of this kind. There being no Law Officer present, I express my opinion upon what anybody with common sense would understand this Clause to mean, and that is that any person who is without visible means of support may be locked up for an indefinite period. If that is so, and I cannot conceive that there can be any doubt about it, what is the meaning of these words, "without visible means of support"? The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) made a speech protesting against poor people being dealt with in a manner different from rich people, and I hope that the Labour Members will bear that in mind when they are considering this particular Bill. What does this mean? It means that a person who is more or less defective, but who is capable of earning a livelihood may be taken and locked up, because he happens to be out of work for the moment, and has no visible means of subsistence with him. He has no money in his pocket, and he cannot say he has an engagement to do a certain amount of work. Why should we lock that person up? I cannot see any reason why we should. Under these circumstances, hope that the hon. Gentleman will divide upon his Amendment, unless, of course, the Home Secretary can give any better reason in support of the words being retained in the Bill than that which was given by the Under-Secretary.
  Mr. ACLAND ALLEN: As I was responsible for moving the Amendment in Committee upstairs, I should like to say

  167
  that I should be extremely pleased if the Home Secretary could give us a distinct reply now. Before action can be taken with regard to a person under this Section, he must be found to be defective within the definition of Clause 1, and he has either to be an idiot, an imbecile, a feeble-minded person, or a moral imbecile. Really I do not know whether the hon. Baronet is of opinion that an idiot, an imbecile, a feeble-minded person, or a moral imbecile, who is without visible means of subsistence is not a proper person to be dealt with under this Act. It seems to me that if you take into account the definition of a feeble-minded person in Clause 1 and realise that the defective person must at the same time be in the world without any visible means of support—anybody who really cares for these people at all must see that they are proper people to be taken.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that people who are poor should be locked up and that people who are rich should not be?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The Under-Secretary defended it simply on the ground that it applied to children, but I think that he will agree with me that the words, as they stand, will apply to adults as well.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Certainly. I said "Here is an illustration." Of course, it will apply not only to children, but to persons of all ages.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Therefore, any person above the age of twenty-one can be taken under this Act provided that he is without visible means of subsistence. I want to meet the hon. Gentleman with regard to the children. Of course, if the child is neglected, abandoned, or cruelly treated, you are quite right in taking him and locking him up in an asylum; but under the Clause as drafted you have the right to take a child away from his parents simply because they are poor and have no visible means of subsistence. I cannot believe that is what the Government mean. If the child is neither neglected, abandoned, nor ill-treated, yet you have the right to take him away because his parents are without visible means of support. There would be power to take him before the magistrate, and take him compulsorily from his parents. Even on the Under-Secretary's statement it is an injustice to
  168
  the children. It is upon adults the real mistake occurs, and it is a great deal too strong a Clause to put in, that you should have power to lock up a defective person simply because he is without visible means of support. If he has got sufficient means you cannot touch him, and if he has not you can. The Amendment proposes to leave out the words, "without visible means of support."
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire upon his candid and straightforward statement to the House. He stated exactly the object and purpose of the words. He said that anyone who is mentally defective, as defined in Clause 1, ought to be put away.
  Mr. ACLAND ALLEN: If without visible means of support.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Yes, if without visible means of support. We have been told by the Home Secretary up to now, that it was not only persons mentally defective that were to be put away, but that they had, besides, to come in contact with the law and to get into the Courts for a crime. Does the right hon. Gentleman pretend that a child without visible means of support is committing a crime. As a Radical I have always protested against sending a tramp to prison; but in that case the term is only a fortnight, whereas here it is for life. People so poor as to be without visible means of support are to be deprived of their privileges as citizens, and treated as though they were persons who had committed a crime sufficiently heavy to warrant their being taken away. Either this Bill deals with mentally defective persons who have committed no crime to bring them under the law, or those words must go out of the Clause. On Clause 1 we were told by every speaker on the Government Bench that the definitions must be wide, and that we should not make a hard and fast line; and that persons who come within the definitions and within the meshes of the law, come under Clause 2, and that, therefore, we need not bother to make the definitions more tight in Clause 1. Now we are told, forsooth, that it does not matter whether or not they come into contact with the law, and under Clause 2 those who come within Clause 1 are, in the interests of society, to be put away. You cannot have it both ways. Either those definitions must be watertight, and everyone locked

  169
  up who conies within, this Clause, or else you leave them vague. You must take the greatest care that people come in contact with the law before they are brought within the meshes of this Act. I hope there will be sufficient independence among Members of this House to see the injustice of leaving these words in. It is making the Bill from a bad Bill into a monstrous Bill, and I hope the words will therefore be taken out.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I rise with reluctance to intervene, as I am very anxious to see the Bill go through. But are we not a long way from the real essence of the Bill? The object is to protect people who are suffering, and suffering badly. A common case known to everyone is that of a vagrant who is a vagrant because he is feeble-minded. He is within the meshes of the law. If he is without visible means of subsistence he can be arrested. Without this provision many vagrants who are mere imbeciles or feeble-minded cannot be properly cared for. The object of this Bill is to care for them, to treat them as patients, and this small Amendment makes that impossible. I am a lawyer, and therefore speak apologetically and with all modesty on behalf of my own profession. It is not a necessary postulate that every Court of Law will interpret such a phrase in the idiotic way which has been suggested in the course of this discussion. There is no Court that would say that because I was walking along the street, having left my small change behind, that I am therefore, without visible means of subsistence. Nor would an ordinary Court say that a child who was away from home and had no purse was, therefore, without visible means of subsistence. The person aimed at is really a person who has nothing to live upon, who is feeble-minded, and who ought to be taken care of.
  Mr. DICKINSON: The suggestions which have been made are a total travesty of the whole Bill, and have proceeded upon a total misconception of what is going to happen. These people are to be placed in homes if certain things happen
  —if on the evidence the judicial authority thinks it desirable to do so in the interest of the person himself, but when they are in the homes the Board has to release them unless it is satisfied that their detention is in their own interest. It all depends on how far the Board will trust the authorities to act in the interests of the defective person. There is no foundation for the idea that people are to be shut up simply because they are defectives or without visible means of subsistence.
  Sir W. PHIPSON BEALE: I should have thought the two last Members had said the final word on this point. The hon. Member for Cambridge University seems to think that because a person is found without half-a-crown in his pocket he will be liable to be arrested for being without visible means of subsistence. No Court would be so foolish as to come to a conclusion of that sort.
  Mr. BOOTH: This is really one of the very bad blots on the Bill, and I hope that those in charge will press the Amendment to a Division so that we may show how strong is the feeling in support of it. The admissions made to-night are in entire contradiction of what the Home Secretary preached in Committee last year. He again and again asserted that the object of this scheme was not to deal with feeble-minded people, but with people who came in contact with the law. Coming in contact with the law is now reduced to being without visible means of subsistence. I say to those who are friends of this Bill—I do not regard myself as a friend of the Bill; I regard myself as a friend of the feeble-minded—that nothing more calculated to make this Bill unpopular and the authorities working it unpopular and disliked by the working-classes could be done than to put in such a hideous phrase as this. I hope those who have studied this question will record their votes in the Division.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 66.

  Division No. 211.]

  AYES.

  [10.31 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Barnston, Harry

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Adamson, William

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Barton, William

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Malley, William

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Shee, James John

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Boland, John Pius

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hills, John Waller

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hinds, John

  Pointer, Joseph

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Butcher, John George

  Hodge, John

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Reddy, Michael

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Clough, William

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Crumley, Patrick

  Joyce, Michael

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cullinan, John

  Keating, Matthew

  Rowlands, James

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

  Kilbride, Denis

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Dawes, J. A.

  King, Joseph

  Scott, A, MacCallum (Glas.. Bridgeton)

  Delany, William

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Sheehy, David

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Dillon, John

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Doris, William

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Duffy, William J.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Swift, Rigby

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Lyttelton, Hon J. C. (Droitwich)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  McGhee, Richard

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Maclean, Donald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  MacNeill, J, G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Thomas, James Henry

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Fell, Arthur

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Field, William

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Wardle, George J.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meagher, Michael

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

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

  Glanville, H. J.

  Middlebrook, William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Millar, James Duncan

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Molloy, Michael

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wiles, Thomas

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Morison, Hector

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Gulland, John William

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Muldoon, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Munro, Robert

  Wilson. Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Hackett, John

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Hancock, John George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Younger, Sir George

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Haydon, John Patrick

  O'Doherty, Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Dowd, John

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Barnes, George N.

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Boyton, James

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Brace, William

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Bull, Sir William James

  172

  173

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cassel, Felix

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Clynes, John R.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  John, Edward Thomas

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Martin, Joseph

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Neilson, Francis

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Gordon, Hon, John Edward (Brighton)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Gretton. John

  Pringle, William M. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Sir F. Banbury.

  Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Radford, G. H.

  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in paragraph (b) (ii), to leave out the words "or liable to be ordered."
  Mr. McKENNA: I will agree to insert the word "found" before the word "liable" if the hon. Member will move the Amendment in that form.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: In that case my point would be met. I move, to insert the word "found" after the word "or" ["or liable to be ordered"].
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. McKENNA Mr. McKENNA rose in his place, and claimed to move, that the following "words of Clause 2—
  "(iii.) who is undergoing imprisonment (except imprisonment under civil process), or penal servitude, or is undergoing detention in a place of detention by order of a Court, or in a reformatory or industrial school, or in an inebriate reformatory or who is detained in an institution for lunatics or a criminal lunatic asylum; or
  (iv.) who is an habitual drunkard within the meaning of the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900; or
  (v.) in whose case such notice has been given by the local education authority as is hereinafter in this Section mentioned; or
  (vi.) who is in receipt of poor relief at the time of giving birth to an illegitimate child or when pregnant of such child.
  (2) Notice shall, subject to regulations made by the Board of Education, to be laid before Parliament as hereinafter provided, be given by the local education authority to the local authority under this
  174
  Act in the case of all defective children over the age of seven—

  (a) who have been ascertained to be incapable by reason of mental defect of receiving benefit or further benefit in special schools or classes, or who cannot be instructed in a special school or class without detriment to the interests of the other children, or for whom the Board of Education certify that no suitable special school or class is available;

  (b) who on or before attaining the age of sixteen are about to be with-drawn or discharged from a special school or class, and in whose case the local education authority are opinion that it would be to their benefit that they should be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship;"

  and also the following words of Clause 3:— (Power to Deal with Defectives at Instance of Parent or Guardians).
  "(1) The parent or guardian of a defective who is an idiot or imbecile, or is under the age of twenty-one, may place him in an institution or under guardianship: Provided that he shall not be so placed in an institution or under guardianship, except upon certificates in writing."
  stand part of the Bill.
  Question put, "that the Question 'that the words of the Bill to the word "writing" stand part of the Bill' be now put."
  Mr. GOLDSMITH (seated and covered): I wish to point out that under the Closure Motion I have been ruled out on an Amendment to Clause 2, proposing to insert words which were contained in the Bill last year.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the House accepts this Motion, and the Motion consequent upon it, we shall begin with Clause 3 after the words "except upon certificates in."
  Mr. RAWLINSON (seated and covered): May I point out that there is no Motion, dealing with Clause 3.
  Mr. SPEAKER: On the Report stage we do not deal with the Bill by Clauses. We are dealing with the Bill as a whole.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 211, Noes, 82.

  Division No. 212.]

  AYES.

  [10.44 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Adamson, William

  Gulland, John William

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Hackett, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hancock, John George

  O'Grady, James

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Malley, William

  Arnold, Sydney

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Shee, James John

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury. E.)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Barton, William

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Pointer, Joseph

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Henry, Sir Charles

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Higham, John Sharp

  Radford, George Heynes

  Boland, John Pius

  Hinds, John

  Reddy, Michael

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hodge, John

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Brace, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Robinson, Sidney

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rowlands, James

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Jones. J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones Leif Stratten (Notts Rushcliffe)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Clough, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Clynes, John R.

  Kelly, Edward

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Sheehy, David

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Cowan, William Henry

  King, J.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Cullinan, John

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Sutherland. John E.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Lundon, Thomas

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Tennant, Harold John

  Delany, William

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Thomas, James Henry

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  McGhee, Richard

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dickinson, W. H.

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dillon, John

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Doris, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wardle, George J.

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow Tradeston)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Meagher, Michael

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Meehan. Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Middlebrook, William

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Molloy, Michael

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Field, William

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Morison, Hector

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Muldoon, John

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Munro, Robert

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Nolan, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Nuttall, Harry

  Greig, Colonel James William

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Greene, W. R.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Barnes, George N.

  Gretton, John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barnston, Harry

  Guinness, Hon.W.E, (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Bird, Alfred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hills, John Waller

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boyton, James

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hogge, James Myles

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Butcher, John George

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cassel, Felix

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lewisham, Viscount

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Martin, Joseph

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Younger, Sir George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Neilson, Francis

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Rawlinson.

  Fell, Arthur

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Bill to the word 'writing' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 53.

  Division No. 213.]

  AYES.

  [10.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cowan, William Henry

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Adamson, William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Cullinan, John

  Hazleton, Richard

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

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

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

  Arnold, Sydney

  Dawes, J. A.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Delany, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hills, John Waller

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hinds, John

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Dillon, John

  Hodge, John

  Barnes, George N.

  Doris, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Barton, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Bird, Alfred

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Boland, John Pius

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Joyce, Michael

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Field, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Brace, William

  Fiennes, Hon Eustace Edward

  Kelly, Edward

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Bryce, John Annan

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  King, Joseph

  Buckmaster, Stanely O.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

  Butcher, John George

  Glanville, Harold James

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Cawlsy, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gulland, John William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Clough, William

  Hackett, John

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Clynes, John R.

  Hancock, John George

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  McGhee, Richard

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Stewart, Gershom

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sutherland, John E.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pointer, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

  Thomas, James Henry

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Radford, G. H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Meagher, Michael

  Reddy, Michael

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Middlebrook, William

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wardle, G. J.

  Molloy, Michael

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Morison, Hector

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Robinson, Sidney

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Muldoon, John

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Wiles, Thomas

  Munro, Robert

  Rowlands, James

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Nolan, Joseph

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

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  O'Dowd, John

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  O'Grady, James

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Younger Sir George

  O'Malley, William

  Sheehy, David

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  O'Shee, James John

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  NOES.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Barnston, Harry

  Gretton, John

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Cassel, Felix

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Fell, Arthur

  Martin, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Rawlinson.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Lord HUGH CECIL: As it is now after eleven o'clock, I desire to move, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that Motion, as the House has resolved to sit after eleven o'clock.

  CLAUSE 3—(Remaining Portion.)
  "writing of two duly qualified medical practitioners, one of whom shall be a medical practitioner approved for the purpose by the local authority (in the prescribed form), stating that the person to whom the certificate relates is a defective and the class of defectives to which he belongs, accompanied by a statement, signed by the parent or guardian, giving
  180
  the prescribed particulars with respect to him.
  (2) Where a defective has been so placed in an institution for defectives or under guardianship the managers of the institution, or the person under whose guardianship he has been placed, shall, within seven days after his reception send to the Board of Control hereinafter constituted (in this Act referred to as the Board) notice of his reception and such other particulars as may be prescribed.
  Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "writing of," and to insert instead thereof the words "the prescribed form signed by."
  It is merely a formal Amendment in order to make way for the substantial

  181
  Amendment which I have on the Paper lower down, and to which I have already referred in my explanation of the preceding Amendment. I hope the House will allow me to get this Amendment at once, so we can get on to the subsequent Amendment later on. I leave out the words "in the prescribed form" where they occur lower down, but that is merely verbal in order to make way for the subsequent Amendment, which is an Amendment of very much more substance, and one which I undertook at an earlier stage of our discussions to move in order to satisfy criticism raised —
  Mr. RAWLINSON: What is the prescribed form?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the right hon. Gentleman might explain rather more fully. It is rather difficult to understand what he proposes to do. He proposes to leave out the "writing of" and to put in the words "the prescribed form signed by." In what respect is the new wording better than the old? We ought to have some explanation of what the Amendment is, even if we are not allowed to discuss the most important Clause of the Bill.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am sorry if I did not make the point clear.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: You very seldom do.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord need not inform me quite so pointedly. I propose to move out the words "writing of," and to insert the words "in the prescribed form" instead. Then when we come to the lines of the Clause where the words "in prescribed form" appear in brackets, I propose to leave them out. That is purely a drafting Amendment. Unless I move them out there I should not be able to move the subsequent Amendment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: What is the subsequent Amendment?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is on the Paper "And where the defective is not an idiot or imbecile, countersigned by a judicial authority for the purpose of this Act." I propose to insert these words, and in order to do so, I must put in the words "in the prescribed form," instead of the words "writing of" and leave them out where they appear in brackets lower down. I hope I have made the point quite clear to the Noble Lord.
  Captain JESSEL: Does "prescribed form" mean in writing? What is the meaning of the words?
  Mr. McKENNA: They mean, as shown in Clause 17, prescribed regulations made under this Act.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I suppose on this first Amendment to leave out "writing of" and insert "prescribed form," we must also discuss the Amendment to leave out the words "in the prescribed form" lower down, and that this is the only opportunity we shall have.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would be more convenient to discuss that Amendment in its proper place.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The Clause would be made nonsense of unless the subsequent Amendment is put in. The one Amendment occurs in two different places.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member discusses that Amendment now he cannot discuss it again on the next Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Would it put us cut of court later on?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If it is discussed now I certainly should not allow another discussion on the other Amendment when we reach it.
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  Mr. MARTIN: I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the word "two" ["two duly qualified medical practitioners"] and to insert instead thereof the word "three," so that a certificate of three medical practitioners must be obtained. The Government are so proficient in this matter, and so desirous of being agreeable to everyone, that I have no doubt this Amendment will be accepted.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I hope my hon. Friend will not persist in this Amendment, because it is carrying it too far in the case of defectives to provide for the certificates of three duly qualified medical practitioners. In the case of a lunatic there are certificates from two medical practitioners, and I do not think there is any sufficient reason for departing from that practice.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not think the answer of the Under-Secretary is a sufficient one. The original proposal of

  183
  the Government provided for the certificate of one medical practitioner, and the Government admitted in Committee that the arguments were sufficiently strong to change "one" into "two." Personally, I do not see why the same arguments should not induce the right hon. Gentleman to accept "three" instead of "two." The Under-secretary should not meet a serious argument with a quip, and hon. Members are entitled to a respectful answer, and not a few perfunctory sentences. This is not a proper way of conducting the business before Parliament. I do not understand why Bills are put before Parliament at all if, when an Amendment is put forward, there is not to be a serious discussion. I understand that this Bill was submitted to a Grand Committee from which, necessarily, many hon. Members were excluded, and this is the only opportunity they have of discussing the Bill at all. The earlier Clauses are very important and raise very difficult questions, which deserve very careful consideration. The manner in which this Bill is being conducted is in flagrant contrast with the tone in which the Prime Minister spoke about this measure. He assented to the view that it ought to be conducted in a conciliatory manner. There has been, nothing but discourtesy.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord's remarks are scarcely relevant to this Amendment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I bow to your ruling, and will address myself more strictly to the Amendment. It seems to me that the one safeguard in this Bill is the medical certificate, and it ought to be made as certain as it can be made. The whole Bill really rests upon medical opinion. No one is to be shut up unless a certificated is granted. The procedure, when a certificate has been granted, is such as to leave safeguards which are not entirely satisfactory. There is, for example, only one magistrate whose assent is required. It is therefore important that the medical certificate should be as strong as it can be. The hon. Member's Amendment is that there should be not merely two but three signatories to the document, and it does not seem to me to be unreasonable, this being the main protection against abuse, that three doctors instead of two should be assenting parties to the certificate. This is not the same as the case of lunacy. The case of lunacy is relatively a, very easily distinguished
  184
  case. The case of a feeble-minded person is one in which it is confessedly very easy to make a mistake. Therefore, it might easily happen that there would be difficult cases in which it would be hard to determine whether a, person was or was not a feeble-minded person within the construction of the Act: and it does not seem to me unreasonable that you should require rather a stronger body of medical opinion in support of the proposition that a person is feeble-minded or morally imbecile than you do in support of the proposition that a person is a lunatic. At any rate, this is the main safeguard in the Bill, and I cannot see why you should not make it as strong and as trustworthy as it can be made by three doctors' signatures to the certificate.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Under-Secretary has advanced two arguments against this Amendment. The first was that in Grand Committee they accepted an Amendment increasing the number of doctors from one to two, and the second was that under the Lunacy Acts only two doctors were required. I would point out that a very large number of hon. Members had not the privilege of being on the Grand Committee and that they therefore cannot know what arguments were brought forward there to convince them that two was the right number. Under these circumstances, I think that the hon. Gentleman might have told us why he considered two the right number, seeing that originally he put in the number one. We do not even know whether in Grand Committee three or four was moved or whether the only opportunity of amending it was by accepting the Amendment of two. I am afraid that I am not at all conversant with the provisions of the Lunacy Acts, but I believe that the argument that there ought to be two doctors because under the Lunacy Acts two doctors, are necessary is fallacious.
  I believe, though here I am open to correction, that under the Lunacy Acts there are very stringent provisions as to whether or not the certificates of the two doctors should be accepted; and I appeal to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson), who has had great experience in these matters, whether I am not right in thinking that under the Lunacy laws there is the right, also, of trial by jury. If I am right in that, then I submit that it entirely disposes of the second argument of the Under-Secretary. We therefore ought to have close reasons advanced

  185
  by the Home Secretary for refusing this Amendment. I myself am in favour of the Amendment, because I think the power we are going to put into the hands of two men is too great a power for so few hands. If this proposal passes we might have a Ben Allen and a Bob Sawyer of the medical profession giving a certificate consigning a person to what comes to be confinement for a very great number of years. I am the last man to say anything against the medical profession; but it is a large profession, and all the members of it are not animated by the same feelings. Anyone with experience of life and business knows perfectly well that if a witness does not desire to come before the court he has no difficulty whatever in obtaining a medical certificate that the state of his health is such that it is not safe for him to come before the court. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that
  I have shown that the chief arguments of the Under-Secretary are gone, I think we ought to have some much stronger argument before rejecting the Amendment.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think the Government are running a very great risk in not accepting this Amendment. Only last week I heard two doctors say that one of the Members of the Government was an idiot, and the same doctors gave an opinion that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was an imbecile.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Those observations are not relevant to the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 24.

  Division No. 214.]

  AYES.

  [11.25 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Cullinan, John

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

  Adamson, William

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

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

  Hills, John Waller

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Delany, William

  Hinds, John

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hogge, James Myles

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Dickson Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Dillon, John

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Doris, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Duffy, William J.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Barnston, Harry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Barton, William

  Edwards, A. Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Beale, Sir William phipson

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshrire)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Fell, Arthur

  Joyce, Michael

  Bird, Alfred

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Keating, Matthew

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Boland, John Pius

  Field, William

  Kelly, Edward

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Kerry, Earl of

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Boyle, William L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Brace, William

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Bryce, John Annan

  Glanville, Harold James

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lundon, Thomas

  Butcher, John George

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Cassel, Felix

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  McGhee, Richard

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. T. J.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hackett, John

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hancock, John George

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Clough, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Clynes, John R.

  Hayward, Evan

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Meagher, Michael

  Crumley, Patrick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Meehan, Patrick J (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Middlebrook, William

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Thomas James Henry

  Molloy, Michael

  Reddy, Michael

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Morrell, Philip

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Muldoon, John

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Munro, Robert

  Roberts, Sir H. (Denbighs)

  Webb, H.

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Robinson, Sidney

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Rowlands, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  O'Dowd, John

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  O'Grady, James

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Sheehy, David

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Simon, Rt Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Stewart, Gershom

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark West)

  Younger, Sir George

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Pointer, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gretton, John

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Boyton, James

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hodge, John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Martin and Sir Frederick Banbury.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words, "in the prescribed form," and insert the words, "and, where the defective is not an idiot or imbecile, countersigned by a judicial authority for the purposes of this Act."
  The words are inserted here in order to carry out a pledge made in Grand Committee that where a defective is dealt with at the instance of his parent or guardian and is under the age of twenty-one, some judicial authority should be given to the proceedings and they should not merely be commenced on the certificate of two doctors. The words I have proposed carry out exactly, I believe, the pledge given in Grand Committee.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I am not quite sure that the Amendment really carries out in any way the understanding on which my Amendment was withdrawn upstairs, because it is not quite clear what is meant by the word "countersigned." I should like to know whether the judicial authority under the Amendment will have power to make any inquiry as to the conditions under which the
  188
  application is made, and as to the nature of the evidence on which it is based, because the object of my Amendment upstairs, which was practically accepted in substance by the Home Secretary, was that protection should be afforded as between the child and the parent, and that when an application is made by the parent for an order for the removal of the child to a home, some judicial authority or other should intervene. It might be suggested that the parent is unlikely to make an application, but by Clause 17 the word "parent" is given a rather wide definition, and may include any person who is doing the duty which ought to be performed by the father or mother. Under the circumstances, I ask the Home Secretary whether he could not see his way to alter the words and let the Amendment read, "where the defective is not an idiot or imbecile he cannot be removed except on the order of a judicial authority." That would mean that the judicial authority acting under this Clause would have the same power and the same duty as under any other Section in the Act.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I think this is one of those most illusory safeguards which sometimes we come across in Acts of Parliament. Under this Bill the parent has the power of shutting up his child, or in the case where there is a judicial separation the father, separated from the mother, has the power of taking the child away from her and shutting it up. Therefore it has to be safeguarded very carefully. That being the state of affairs, he can have the child shut up on the certificate of the two doctors referred to; and then there is this safeguard. Two certificates are to be granted by the medical authority in the prescribed form. The House of Commons has not the slightest idea what that prescribed form is going to be. It is one of the most important things in the Bill, and it is left to be settled by rules by some other tribunal. They have got the prescribed form, which may be a good or a futile one, signed by two doctors. It then has to be countersigned by a judicial authority—that is a magistrate. So when the two certificates are taken to the magistrate, he will probably be sitting in his own house, and not in a Court, and all that he can do is to satisfy himself that the certificate is in proper order, namely, properly signed by two doctors. If properly signed, he has no power to send for the two doctors, and no power to cross-examine them. It can be and must be done in his own house, and he has no power to do otherwise. I submit that this is quite an illusory safeguard. The proper course would be to bring these cases before a judicial authority. There is no reason why it should not be done by petition brought before a magistrate in open court, or in a court of some kind, and that he should have power to deal with the medical people. What is proposed here is merely the ministerial office of countersigning by a judicial authority. It is certainly necessary that some further power should be given to him under the Bill. I am glad to see one of the law officers of the Crown present. I do not think he will question what I have said.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I do not see the object of the Amendment. It does not appear to be a safeguard for these people at all. The medical certificate is taken by the parent or guardian to the magistrate in his private house, and he, without seeing either the doctors or the defectives, or making any inquiry whatever, can sign the medical certificate. It appears to me
  190
  that there is no safeguard there. The alteration proposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Ellis Davies) does make it a little bit better. You have got to remember that the doctors in cases of mental deficiency are the same as in cases of lunacy. In cases of lunacy there is some sort of judicial inquiry. Here you are proposing no judicial inquiry at all. You are trusting entirely to the supposition that the parent or guardian must always act in the interest of the child. If you get a parent or guardian not acting in the interest of the child, I do not think the safeguards in Clause 3 are worth the paper they are written on. The suggestion as to subsequent inquiry is not correct. From, the beginning of Clause 5 you will see that the application is made in private and from the beginning of Clause 6 you will see that it will be held in private. There is no open trial. If there is a case of a parent or guardian trying to shut up children without due cause there will be no possible safeguard for the liberty of the individual. We all know that cases might occur such as pointed out by the hon. Member for Cambridge University, where the parents quarrel, and might avenge themselves on each other by having the children locked up under this Bill. How would the Amendment proposed by the Secretary of State meet a case like that? It would not be possible in the circumstances for a magistrate to do anything but countersign the order in ignorance of the facts and have the child sent to one of these institutions. I think that possibly it might be worth while to have the Amendment if it was amended as proposed by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. Otherwise it is not worth while having it.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I would suggest as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "countersigned" to insert the words "after due inquiry." I think that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is designed to meet a defect in the Bill, but I am not quite clear as to what the process of countersigning implies. It is very important that the judicial authority should not sign merely formally, but should first satisfy himself as to the propriety of the transaction. I do not see how that can be done unless you by your words insure that he makes some sort of inquiry. My impression is that countersignature normally means a signature certifying the accuracy of the previous signatures—in this case the signatures of the two duly qualified medical

  191
  practitioners. If what is intended is something more than that, that the judicial authority should really inquire into the matter before giving the counter-signature, then it should say so, so that the judicial authority should only sign where he thought that the certificate was properly given. The words which I suggest would make the Amendment better designed to carry out that object.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We must first get rid of the words "in the prescribed form."
  Question, "That the words 'in the prescribed form' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord perhaps would, instead of the words, "after due enquiry," move the words, "after such inquiry as he shall think fit."
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to move in the proposed Amendment, after the word "countersigned" to insert the words, "after such inquiry as he shall think fit."
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Words proposed, as amended, inserted in the Bill.
  Mr. McKENNA Mr. McKENNA rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the words—
  'stating that the person to whom the certificate relates is a defective and the class of defectives to which he belongs, accompanied by a statement, signed by the parent or guardian, giving the prescribed particulars with respect to him.
  (2) Where a defective has been so placed in an institution for defectives or under guardianship the managers of the institution, or the person under whose guardianship he has been placed, shall, within seven days after his reception, send to the Board of Control hereinafter constituted (in this Act referred to as the Board) notice of his reception and such other particulars as may be prescribed.'"

  CLAUSE 4.—(Power to Deal with Defectives otherwise than at the Instance of Parent or Guardian.)
  4. A defective subject to be dealt with under this Act otherwise than at the instance of his parent or guardian may be so dealt with—

  (a) under an order made by a judicial authority on a petition presented under this Act; or

  192

  (b) under an order of a court, in the case of a defective found guilty of a criminal offence or liable to be ordered to be sent to an industrial school; or

  (c) under an order of the Secretary of State, in the case of a defective detained in a prison, criminal lunatic asylum, reformatory or industrial school, place of detention, or inebriate reformatory;

  but no such order shall be made except in the circumstances and in the manner hereinafter specified.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Presentation of Petitions.)
  Requirements as to the making of Orders.
  (1) An order of a judicial authority under this Act shall be obtainable upon a private application by petition made by any relative or friend of the alleged defective, or by any officer of the local authority under this Act authorised in that behalf.
  (2) Every petition shall be accompanied by two medical certificates, one of which shall be signed by a medical practitioner approved for the purpose by the local authority, or a certificate that a medical examination was impracticable, and by a statutory declaration signed by the petitioner and by at least one other person (who may be one of the persons who gave a medical certificate) stating—

  (a) that the person to whom the petition relates is a defective within the meaning of this Act, and the class of defectives to which he is alleged to belong; and

  (b) that that person is subject to be dealt with under this Act, and the circumstances which render him so subject; and

  (c) whether or not a petition under this Act, or a petition for a reception order under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, has previously been presented concerning that person, and, if such a petition has been presented, the date thereof and the result of the proceedings thereon; and

  (d) if the petition is accompanied by a certificate that a medical examination was impracticable, the circumstances which rendered it impracticable.

  (3) If a petition is not presented by a relative or by an officer of the local authority, it shall contain a statement of the reasons why the petition is not presented by a relative, and of the connection of the petitioner with the person to whom the petition relates and the circumstances under which he presents the petition.
  (4) Where the Board are satisfied that a petition under this section ought to be presented concerning any person, and that the local authority have refused or neglected to cause a petition to be presented, they may direct an inspector or other officer to present a petition, and this section shall apply accordingly.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Procedure, on Hearing Petitions.)
  (1) Upon the presentation of the petition and such documents as aforesaid the judicial authority shall either visit the person to whom the petition relates, or summon him to appear before him.
  (2) Proceedings before the judicial authority may
  stand part of the Bill, be now put.
  Question put, "That those words stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 70.

  Division No. 215.]

  AYES.

  [11.54 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Field, William

  Morgan, George Hay

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Morrell, Philip

  Adamson, William

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Muldoon, John

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Munro, Robert

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Arnold, Sydney

  Glanville, H. J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Gulland, John William

  O'Dowd, John

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Grady, James

  Barton, William

  Hackett, John

  O'Malley, William

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Shee, James John

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Hayward, Evan

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hazleton, Richard

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Boland, John Pius

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

  PonsonBy, Arthur A. W. H.

  Brace, William

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hodge, John

  Reddy, Michael

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Redmond, John E, (Waterlord)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones. Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Clough. William

  Jones, William S. Glyn-(Stepney)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Clynes, John R.

  Joyce, Michael

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  Rowlands, James

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cullinan, John

  King, Joseph

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Sheehy, David

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Delany, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lynch, A. A.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  McGhee, Richard

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Doris, William

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomas, James Henry

  Edwards, A. Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Meagher, Michael

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Esmonde. Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Middlebrook, William

  Webb, H.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Millar, James Duncan

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molloy, Michael

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Barnston, Harry

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Bird, Alfred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boyle, William L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boyton, James

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Butcher, John George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cassel, Felix

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Martin, Joseph

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Younger, Sir George

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Lord Hugh Cecil.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Bill to the word" [part of Clause 3, Clause 4, Clause 5, and part of Clause 6] "'may' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 37.

  Division No. 216.]

  AYES.

  [12 m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Adamson, William

  Cullinan, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Baird, J. L.

  Delany, William

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

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Doris, William

  Hodge, John

  Barton, William

  Duffy, William J.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Bird, Alfred

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Boland, John Pius

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Joyce, Michael

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Keating, Matthew

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kelly, Edward

  Brace, William

  Field, William

  Kerry, Earl of

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Kilbride, Denis

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  King, Joseph

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Butcher, John George

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Lundon, Thomas

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gulland, John William

  Lynch, A. A.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Clough, William

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Clynes, John R.

  Hackett, John

  McGhee, Richard

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Sutherland, John E.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Meagher, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Reddy, Michael

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Middlebrook, William

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Millar, James Duncan

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Molloy, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Webb, H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Muldoon, John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Munro, Robert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rowlands, James

  Whyte, A, F. (Perth)

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Dowd, John

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  O'Grady, James

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  O'Malley, William

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N)

  O'Shee, James John

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sheehy, David

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Younger, Sir George

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Stewart, Gershom

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Hon. Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Mount, William Arthur

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barnston, Harry

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Greene, W. R.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boyton, James

  Hills, John Waller

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hogge, James Myles

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Hugh Cecil and Sir Frederick Banbury.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Martin, Joseph

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  REMAINING PORTION OF CLAUSE 6.—(Procedure on Searing Petitions.)
  may in any case if the judicial authority thinks fit, and shall, if so desired by the person to whom the petition relates, be conducted in private, and in that case no one except the petitioner, the person to whom the petition relates, any two persons appointed for the purpose by the person to whom the petition relates, and the persons signing the medical certificates and the statutory declaration accompanying the petition shall, without leave of the judicial authority, be allowed to be present.
  (3) If the judicial authority is satisfied that the person to whom the petition relates is a defective and is also satisfied that he is subject to be dealt with under this Act, the judicial authority may, if he thinks it desirable to do so in the interests of such person, make an order either ordering him to be sent to an institution the managers
  198
  of which are willing to receive him, or appointing a suitable person to be his guardian, and the order shall state the class of defectives to which he belongs, and the circumstances which render him subject to be dealt with under this Act:
  Provided that—

  (a) where the petition is not presented by the parent or guardian, the order shall not be made without the consent of the parent or guardian, unless in the opinon of the judicial authority such consent is unreasonably withheld; and

  (b) nothing in this section shall prevent an order being made, notwithstanding that the person to whom the petition relates does not appear to the judicial authority to belong to the class of defectives to which he is in the petition alleged to belong, if the judicial authority is satisfied that he is a defective.

  (4) If the judicial authority is not satisfied that the person to whom the petition relates is a defective, and subject to be dealt with under this Act, or that it is desirable in the interests of such person that an order should be made, the judicial authority may, if he thinks fit, adjourn the case for a period not exceeding fourteen days for further evidence or information, and may order that the person to whom the petition relates shall submit himself to medical examination, or may dismiss the petition:
  Provided that, unless the petition is dismissed, the judicial authority shall order a medical examination in any case where the petition was accompanied by a certificate that a medical examination was impracticable.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "may in any case if the judicial authority thinks fit, and." The Clause gives the details of the procedure for the hearing of petitions. The first Sub-section provides:
  "(1) Upon the presentation of the petition and such documents as aforesaid, the judicial authority shall either visit the person to whom the petition relates, or summon him to appear before."
  In the ordinary course of events the person will be summoned to appear before him. The first notification a defective will get of the probability of his being put away will be a summons to appear before the judicial authority, and if the judicial authority thinks fit the petition shall be conducted in private. There has been a good deal of protest against hearing these petitions in private, and the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley Jones) has some Amendments down on this point, but unfortunately he is not able to be present. If my Amendment is carried, the Clause will then read:
  "(2) Proceedings before the judicial authority shall, if so desired by the person to whom the petition relates, be conducted in private."
  That removes from the judicial authority the power to hold a public inquiry if the person to whom the petition relates desires it to be conducted in private, and at the same time it prevents any hole-and-corner business, and that is important. I do not think I need labour the importance of having public hearings in these cases. The mere presence of the Press acts as a
  200
  deterrent against any hole-and-corner and unjust proceedings. Although the Press may not report the case the presence of the Press is a safeguard against any injustice being done because directly a case appears in the newspapers where there has been any injustice hon. Members, as well as the friends and relatives of a defective, can make whatever protest is possible and get the matter rectified or reversed.
  Mr. MARTIN: I beg leave to second the Amendment.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: This is a controversial point as to whether the proceedings shall be public or private. Under the Clause as it stands, normally, the proceedings shall be public, but if the judicial authority thinks fit or if so desired by the person to whom the petition relates the inquiry shall be conducted in private. In this Clause we are very nearly following the recommendation of the Royal Commission. It is not an easy point to decide. There are some who suspect the judicial authority and some who suspect the doctors. We have to consider the interests of the patient. The proceedings under the Lunacy Acts are conducted in private, and I submit that it is really in the interests of the alleged defective and of the alleged defective's family that these proceedings should be in private, if the judicial authority or the defective himself desires it. I do not know why it should be considered a slur upon the family, but we know perfectly well that parents are not anxious to publish the fact that they have a defective child, both for their own sake and for the sake of the defective's brothers and sisters, and therefore, although publicity is a safeguard it is also a danger. I suggest that when we say that normally the proceedings should be public, but that when the judicial authority or the alleged defective desire it it shall be in private, we are making the best provision possible as well as following the recommendation of the Royal Commission and the procedure under the Lunacy Act.
  Mr. H. TERRELL: Personally. I strongly support this Bill, and I hope to see it on the Statute Book before very long, but I support the Amendment, because the proceedings before a judicial authority ought always in my opinion, to be public. I speak from some experience of judicial proceedings of various kinds, and I have never, except in the case where the interests of

  201
  infants are concerned and where private matters are gone into known any advantage to be gained by a private judicial inquiry. Here, where you have a judicial inquiry into the question whether a man's liberty should be restrained or not, it is essential that publicity should be accorded rather than stifled. I also very strongly object to the judicial authority being the body that should have the power against the wishes of everybody concerned of hold-an inquiry in private. I could quite understand the inquiry being in private if the parents or the immediate relatives for some good cause shown desire it, but to give an unfettered discretion, which is not subject to correction by any other tribunal, to the judicial authority which is to investigate and determine the matter is to my mind an innovation which, if adopted, may have very serious consequences. It would be a precedent which would possibly be followed in other cases with very disastrous consequences. I do not see that the slightest benefit either to the lunatic or to his family is to be gained by giving this great unfettered discretion to the judicial authority which is to determine this matter. I think this Amendment should be accepted and that the only case in which the inquiry might be held in private should be where the parents of the patient on good cause shown desire it. I would strongly urge upon the Home Secretary, who himself has had considerable experience in judicial investigations, to realise the importance of not introducing a-precedent for holding these judicial inquiries in private. The Under-Secretary has suggested that lunacy proceedings are analogous. A lunacy inquiry is with the object of determining whether or not a person is a lunatic, and those proceedings are before, a jury. You cannot have a man declared a lunatic otherwise than by the inquiry of a jury.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: In 1911 and last year we had twenty or thirty thousand petitions, and in only four did they want a jury.
  Mr. H. TERRELL: The parties interested are entitled to have a jury, but you are here introducing a very serious innovation in judicial practice and enabling the Court to determine finally, against the wishes of everybody, the lunatic included, that the inquiry shall be private. Under the Bill as it stands, the lunatic and everybody concerned may object to a private inquiry, and yet you are giving power to the judicial authority to say that the in-
  202
  quiry shall be private and the proceedings concealed from the public.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: It must be understood that if this Amendment is carried the relations of the defective will still be able to have the case heard in private. We are not interfering in any way with the friends of defective persons. All we are doing is to say that the Court shall not against the wishes of the defective and his friends hold the inquiry in private. This inquiry is not similar to an inquiry in lunacy; it is an inquiry as to whether a person comes within the different categories set out in the Bill, and it is a case in which the presence of the Court may help very materially.
  I think that when you are having, as in this case, an officer of the local authority as petitioner—and, I suppose, in years to come, in at least nine out of every ten cases the petitioner will be an officer of the local Mental Defectives Committee of the borough or county council—it is far more important the inquiry should be held in public than it is when the petition is laid by the friends and relatives of the lunatic. There ought to be the keenest criticism of the action of the officer of the local authority. In future you are going to have a black list drawn up of mentally defectives persons in the country, and whenever any person whose name is on that list is brought before a Court the officer of the local authority will submit a petition in order to have that person confined. Therefore, in dealing with such cases it is ten times more, important to have them heard in public than in the way an ordinary lunacy inquiry is conducted. Even now, where the officer of an education authority summonses people for not sending their children to school or for some other infraction of the Education Act the cases arc fully reported, and the fact that they are so reported acts as a restraint on the local authority proceeding against too many people. You have through the mere menace of publicity alone a large check upon arbitrary and despotic action on the part of a local authority, and if ever publicity is necessary, surely it is required in cases where you will be inflicting the rigour of the law upon the poorest class of the population who do not know their rights as we do, and who, if the inquiry is held in private, will be absolutely at the mercy of the local authority.
  Therefore I protest that we ought to pass this Amendment. I hoped that

  203
  the Government were going to accept it, and I am sorry some influence has supervened which has induced them to decide to keep it out of the Bill. I am certain that this provision will make the Bill far more of a hardship to the lower classes than it would prove with the Amendment in it. You are storing up for yourselves an evil day when the people of the country realise the sort of legislation which you who are not affected by this law are passing. Can anybody doubt the statement the Bill will not affect Members of this House? The law is only meant for the lower orders, and anyone who reads the Bill cannot fail to see that the means through which it is going to be enforced is through the ordinary elementary school, from which mentally defective children are to be gradually weeded out. This Clause will, without doubt, inflict considerable hardship upon poor people who have mentally defective children, who love them and wish to keep them with them. These are the people who are going to be penalised by this Clause, and when you start penalising them like that you are touching them in the most intimate feelings, and you will infallibly evoke a great burst of unpopularity.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member that publicity is an advantage in these matters as well as a certain safeguard, but I think he I overrates its value when he thinks it will; make people conduct their business in a just and reasonable manner, or that it will prevent arbitrary and despotic decisions. The House of Commons always sits in public, but it cannot be said that its business is reasonably conducted, or that it is free for arbitrary and despotic procedure. The Home Secretary might do worse if he sat in private, and therefore I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member
  that this Amendment would be an improvement. I shall therefore support it.
  Mr. SANDERSON: The last thing I want to do is to take up time, but I really do think this is important. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Henry Terrell). I cannot imagine what is the object of giving the judicial authority power to sit in private. The Under-Secretary based his speech principally on the argument that he could understand cases where the persons concerned would be likely to wish that the cases of their children should be heard in private. That is already safeguarded by the subsequent provisions of the Sub-section. Let me give a case which is in my mind. Supposing you take a town where the magistrates are administering this Act and an opinion gets about that they are not administering it in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and then they have it in their power to do this. What a very unsatisfactory thing. Perhaps there is a good deal of discussion as to whether one particular person is one who ought to be shut up—and I can quite imagine a great amount of feeling being raised in a small place like that about one particular case—and if the justices are aware of that feeling and have perhaps made up their minds, to a certain extent—as we know justices do sometimes make up their minds—as to how they are going to decide the case, and they are going to decide it against the popular opinion they may decide to hear it in private, and that is a very unsatisfactory thing. This is a very important matter and there is no reason to give this power. I certainly shall support the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided: Ayes. 172; Noes, 56.

  Division No. 217.]

  AYES.

  [12.33 a.m

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Brace, William

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Delany, William

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Arnold, Sydney

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Doris, William

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Duffy, William J.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barton, William

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Clough, William

  Edwards, A. Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Clynes, John R.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Boland, John Pius

  Crumley, Patrick

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Cullinan, John

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Field, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rowlands, James

  Fitzgibbon, John

  McGhee, Richard

  Samuel, J, (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Meagher, Michael

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Sheehy, David

  Gulland, John William

  Middlebrook, William

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hackett, John

  Molloy, Michael

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Stewart, Gershom

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Muldoon, John

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Munro, Robert

  Sutherland, John E.

  Hayward, Evan

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Dowd, John

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hills, John Waller

  O'Grady, James

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Malley, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Webb, H.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Shee, James John

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Parry, Thomas H.

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

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wiles, Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Keating, Matthew

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Kelly, Edward

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

  King, Joseph

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Reddy, Michael

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Goldstone, Frank

  Pointer, Joseph

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barlow, Montague, (Salford, South)

  Greene, W. R.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barnston, Harry

  Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Boyton, James

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hodge, John

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hogge, James Myles

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Younger, Sir George

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Morrell, Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Martin.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Mount, William Arthur

  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I rise to move: "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
  We have been considering this Bill now for about nine hours, and I really think the time has arrived when this Debate should be adjourned. Most of the time we have been listening to the very excellent speeches delivered by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), and at the present moment the Home Secretary seems no longer
  206
  inclined to hear any arguments either in favour of or against the Bill. All that is being done at present is for a number of Clauses to be put until we reach a Clause on which the Home Secretary himself has an Amendment down. On a Bill of this importance, which the House is discussing for the first time—because the House so far has had no opportunity of discussing the details of the Bill—the most careful consideration ought to be given to the various Clauses in the Bill, and

  207
  therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to agree to the Adjournment of the Debate and give us another day on which we can discuss some of the important proposals contained in the next few Clauses.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: In seconding the Amendment, I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make some proposal which we can accept. I think he will agree with me that it is not wise to keep the House sitting up during the small hours of the morning. I do not know whether I am speaking for everyone on this side or not, but, so far as I am personally concerned, I should be quite willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman if he would make some reasonable proposal. I do not think it is possible for him to obtain the whole of the Bill to-night, or rather this morning, and it is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend says, that this is the first time the House as a whole has had the opportunity of considering this most important Bill. The House ought to have some opportunity of expressing its opinion, at any rate, upon some of the Clauses. I do not rise to second this Amendment in any hostile spirit, but rather in the hope that we shall come to some sort of agreement that will be mutually advantageous to everybody and really in the interest of the House itself.
  Mr. McKENNA: I recognise fully the sympathetic spirit in which the Motion has been made and seconded. I must, however, appeal to the House to support me in going on with this Bill. At this period of the Session it is only reasonable to remind the House that every day given to the further consideration of a Bill like this which is going to be passed, simply moans encroaching more and more into the holidays, which I know my hon. Friends are as anxious to have as I am. If we have this Debate now, with a little effort we ought to get through the Report stage, remembering also that the strenuous opposition to this Bill only comes from a mere handful of Members, to meet whose views, I would like to remind them, I have been doing everything I can for a period of two years. They will not be satisfied unless or until this Bill is turned from a Bill representing the views of the great majority of the House into a Bill representing the views of the smallest minority. That we cannot do. This Bill has got to represent in
  208
  principle the views of the House. The House has been very willing to assist me in meeting the reasonable objections of hon. Members who take a particular view in dealing with matters of this kind, and I would beg them not to press their opposition to an unreasonable extent, but allow us now to make substantial progress with the Bill. There is so little left of controversy that with a little good-will we might get the whole Bill at this one Sitting.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman takes up a wholly reasonable line. It is not the fault of the opponents of the Bill or the non-official supporters of the Bill that the measure comes before the House so late in the Session. The Government have had control of the time of the House, and it was quite possible for them to have brought it under consideration at an earlier period in the Session and give reasonable time for its consideration. I do not think it is very reasonable to ask the House to take the Report stage of a Bill containing seventy Clauses, even if the opposition is confined to a small number of Members, at a single Sitting. It is certainly propounding a standard of progress different from that to which either party has been accustomed since I have been in Parliament. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will be able to recall a single instance of a Bill of this complexity and length being passed through its Report stage at a single Sitting of the House of Commons. It appears to me that if you are to have a Consideration stage at all you really mean a Bill to be considered. I do not think the discussion up to now has been of unreasonable length. [HON. MEMBERS: "Clause 1."] The first Clause passed quite easily through the House and no one used obstruction.
  Mr. McKENNA: Six hours.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It is an exceedingly important Clause, containing the definition of feeble-minded persons. The first two Clauses are the most important in the Bill. I am putting it to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not really a reasonable thing to pass a Bill of this length and complexity in a single Sitting. After all, we are supposed to be doing useful work in reviewing this Bill in the House. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest the we are not entitled to discuss the Bill at all; and, if we are entitled to discuss it, then we are entitled

  209
  to discuss it at a reasonable hour of the day. If the right hon. Gentleman could say that he wanted two or three more Clauses I do not suppose that anybody would be inclined to resist him, and if he would make a reasonable proposal we could come to an understanding. But to ask that the whole Bill should be carried through the consideration stage at a single sitting is, I submit, to treat the House with contempt. The Government might as well have put down a Motion to dispense with the whole stage. If they do not think it right to move that sort of Motion, it is presumed that they think there should be a proper consideration of the Bill, and it is perfectly absurd to say that you can have anything like a proper consideration in the early hours of the morning.
  Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now seriously consider the propriety of adjourning the Debate. We ought to treat legislation in a serious spirit, and it is impossible for the Government to say they are doing so if they expect members of this House to review the remainder of the seventy Clauses at this Sitting. This is not a matter of party controversy. It is not a Bill which divides the House on ordinary party lines, and the right hon. Gentleman has only to conduct the Bill in a reasonable and conciliatory spirit in order to make more rapid progress than he has already achieved. He has made no appeal to the House to assist him, and he has been content with the arbitrary Motions he has made from time to time, which have had the effect of shutting out discussion on matters that some of us think should not have been passed over without consideration. But even so, he has made very good progress. Why should ho not be satisfied with a moderate, but nevertheless very real, measure of progress, and adjourn the further consideration of the measure at a point which could be agreed upon by arrangement with all concerned? If such Bills as this are to pass through the House of Commons, they can only be properly debated if there is a certain amount of give and take between Members and the Government. I certainly do not think the course which the Government propose to take on this occasion is a reasonable one, and I shall therefore support the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to support the Motion for the adjournment of the discussion, and I do so, first of all, on purely
  210
  personal grounds. I have had to sit here during practically the whole time since a quarter to four o'clock yesterday afternoon with the result that I have not been able to go to the dining room or even to the tea room to get a meal. I think it is rather hard that one should be overwhelmed by the mere physical impossibility of remaining in one place without a meal for such a long period, and I trust, that the Government will be reasonable in the matter. But I support the adjournment for an even stronger reason which I will state shortly to the House. This is the first occasion on which the Government have made use of the Kangaroo to closure a Bill which is not opposed officially by the Opposition. It is also the first occasion on which a non-controversial Bill in the ordinary party sense has been forced through the House when it has not been obstructed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I notice that some hon. Members do not agree with my statement, but I venture to say that any Member who has been here during the whole of the Debate will bear me out when I say that there has been no sort of obstruction to the Bill. The Amendments moved by my Friends and I have been Amendments of real substance, and they have been debated seriously. It is true that since the use of the Kangaroo Closure began a change has taken place, but I defy anybody to say that previous to that there was obstruction of any kind. On the other hand the discussion has been of a practical, a business-like, and a useful character. When the Home Secretary says that the first Clause took six hours to get through he forgets that an hour-and-a-half was taken up with the discussion on new Clauses. There is one other thing to remember. The Secretary of State talks about those who have sought to improve this Bill by all the means in their power as being only a small minority opposed to the Bill. He knows perfectly well that there would be an even smaller minority if the Bill had been framed on voluntary lines.
  We all know that something must be done to deal with the problem of mentally defective people, and if the Bill had been cast on voluntary lines I am certain that there would have been an overwhelming majority in favour of it. You would in fact have had a unanimous House, anxious to frame-the best sort of measure and to place it on the Statute Book. There is one other thing that I want to say. However over-

  211
  whelming the majority in this House, I have always understood that it was a ruling principle that minorities were given fair play. I want the House to realise that the minority to-day may be the majority to-morrow, and that the minority may be right and the majority be wrong. You cannot make things right or wrong by Act of Parliament, whether legislation is carried by majorities as great as 200 or 300 or not. This Bill, if it is made into an Act of Parliament, will be a wrong Act, and it will be right for anybody to resist that Act by the best means in his power. It is a measure which is contrary to the conscience of humanity, and whether you pass it by a triumphant majority here or not, you will not make the Act binding on anybody. It is, I submit, an iniquity that a Bill of such tremendous importance should be passed through the House of Commons by means of a drastic use of the closure in the small hours of the morning, and in any case it shall not be said that the minority, small though it may be, gave way in their perfectly legitimate opposition to these proposals, however great may be the strain imposed on them.
  Captain JESSEL: As a supporter of the Bill, I feel that I must support the appeal which has been made to the Home Secretary either to adjourn or to come to some bargain with hon. Members on this side of the House as to the amount of further progress which is to be made during the present sitting. It is not the fault of the Opposition that this Bill has come down to the House so late in the Session. We are not masters of the time of the House, and the Government might have managed to bring the Bill on earlier in the Session. The Home Secretary says that there are very few points of substance left to be discussed, but it must be remembered that this is a very important Bill. It has to do with the liberties of the subject, and there are, I submit, a great many points worthy of discussion in the House if we are to try to make it as good a Bill as possible. Yet, here we are solemnly asked to dispose in one sitting of a Bill of seventy Clauses. I wish to point out to the Home Secretary that there are certain Amendments on the Order Paper which we regard as important. We cannot at the present time tell whether they are going to be jumped over or not under the process of Closure which the Home Secretary has adopted.
  1 A.M.
  212
  In these circumstances I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could not give us some indication as to the Amendments that he is willing, after consultation with us, should be discussed. As my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. H. Terrell) said, with one exception every Amendment that has not been closured since a certain period of the evening has been an Amendment which the Home Secretary has moved himself or of which he had approved. There are certain Amendments of substance which do require a good deal of discussion, and if the Home Secretary would indicate that he would to-night go down only as far as a certain Clause in the Bill, then we might have another day to finish the discussion. I do not think that is too much to ask, and I believe if such a course is adopted it will be in the interests of the Bill. I appeal to the Home Secretary not to rush the Bill for the sake of the honour and glory of getting it through at a single sitting. Hon. Members opposite—I should be the last to wish to complain of it—took up a great deal of the time before dinner. No doubt the subject matter of the Clauses with which they dealt was very important, but the fact remains that very few Members on this side of the House had a chance to get a look-in in the Debate. Hon. Friends behind me had various important Amendments on the Paper which they wished to move, but the Home Secretary became impatient, and closured the whole Clause. That was not very fair to some of my hon. Friends behind me, and I, as a supporter of this Bill, and hoping it will get into law, beg the Home Secretary not to try to attempt to rush it and to take the whole Bill to-night, but to indicate what he thinks is a reasonable proposition as to what proportion he proposes to take tonight, and what we may discuss on another day.
  Mr. McKENNA: I have had so much support on this Bill from the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, from the hon. Gentleman behind him who moved this Motion, and from other hon. Gentlemen opposite, that I feel most reluctant to seem to be unduly oppressive in my demands on the time of the House, but when the hon. Member and the Noble Lord speak of an arrangement, they forget that my hon. Friend who sits behind me (Mr. Wedgwood), and who has taken the greatest part in opposing this Bill, is not prepared to make any sort of arrange-

  213
  ment of any kind. In view of what has been said—and I recognise the force of the appeal that has been made—if we went this morning to the end of Part I—that is to Clause 19—and then took the remaining Clauses of the Bill to-morrow after Eleven, then I think that would be a reasonable division of the Bill, and I hope it will be acceptable to my hon. Friends, to the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, and his hon. Friends.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme will accept this arrangement. It is a very reasonable proposal on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, and I trust the hon. Member will accept it.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: So far as I am concerned, it seems to be quite a reasonable proposal.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The only thing is that the only two subjects which I wish to debate come before this second part. One is on Clause 6, which deals with the question of the parental veto on sending children to institutions, and the other is on Clause 11, as to whether these orders should be permanent, or should last only for the year, and that after the year is over the inmates are to be free, so that they can go if they like. Those two points seem to me to be the most important things, from my point of view, as affecting the liberty of the subject, and yet they are to be discussed in the middle of the night, in this way! The remainder of the Bill deals with the constitution of the authorities, and with matters of that sort, which do not interest me materially, and no doubt they will be disposed of on a Friday afternoon. I should regret very much, however, if those other two points were discussed at this time. I am quite certain they are the questions in which people outside take the greatest interest, but I am quite prepared to sit up, if hon. Members opposite are prepared to sit up and finish these Clauses, only I do not see much bargain in the case, and I do not see how we can possibly get through these Clauses before six in the morning.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I am quite ready to withdraw the Motion, on one condition— namely, that the right hon. Gentleman will give me an informal undertaking that he will not move the closure more than is absolutely necessary —[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—as, in that case, I certainly shall persist in my Motion.
  Mr. McKENNA: I shall be reasonable.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: If the right hon. Gentleman tells us he is going on to Clause (19), and is going to move the closure, and to put two or three Clauses at the same time, I shall certainly stick to my Motion.
  Mr. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. Member that I certainly would not presume to ask Mr. Speaker to allow me to move the closure, or put the question to him, unless I had been, personally, through every individual Amendment. No Amendments were passed over last night which had not either been dealt with, in principle, before, or were really material ones. I can assure hon. Members that that has been literally the case, in regard to all the Amendments which have been passed over. The Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, which was an important one, in Clause (5) should be discussed on Clause (6), and we hope to discuss it now.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: It must be understood that there is no bargain, and that I am not bound not to move my Amendments.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The real question is whether what we are doing now can improve this Bill. I will not keep the House one minute, but I do submit that we arc not doing good work at this time of night. We are debating a very important question—and we have a lot more important questions before us—and if we get Clause (19) to-night, this House will not be doing good work as a revising body at all. We have very big and important matters before us, and the Government ought to give us a morning sitting to deal with them.
  Sir NORVAL HELME: May I ask if it would be possible to come to an understanding by which we could adjourn earlier to-night, guaranteeing that the Bill should go through on Friday at a reasonable hour?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am quite prepared to do that.
  Mr. H. TERRELL: With a view to getting this Bill through, we might take it on Friday, as that day, which was given to the consideration of the Marconi Committee, is now free. But if we take part of it to-morrow evening, and finish it on Friday, we should get through the Bill.

  215
  But there are things of such importance that they do require very careful consideration at a reasonable hour of the day
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I may only speak by the indulgence of the House, but I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Motion for the Adjournment. Though I do not think the Home Secretary has made a very generous offer, I think it would be unreasonable to press him much further. I understand that we shall adjourn, making the Debate as short as we reasonably can, at Clause (19), and that the rest of the Bill will be taken to-morrow.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: After the last statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, I am perfectly willing not to move my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in paragraph (a), after the word "consent" ["made without the consent"] to insert the words "in writing."
  Mr. McKENNA: I accept the Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move in paragraph (a) to leave out the words "unless in the opinion of the judicial authority such consent is unreasonably withheld," and to insert instead thereof the words "unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the judicial authority that the parent or guardian is unable or unwilling to make suitable provision for the care of the defective."
  My primary object in making this change is in order to throw the onus of proof upon the petitioner, instead of leaving it upon the parent. I frankly confess to the House that, although my officers and my hon. Friends and I have given a very great deal of care to these words, we are not particularly satisfied with them. They do effect their primary object, but they are open to the objection that the parents or guardians might profess themselves able or willing to make suitable care or suitable provision for the care of the defective, and that then there would be no guarantee that such suitable care or suitable provision would be actually forthcoming. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University has an Amendment down, which is printed as referring to Clause 5, but which should
  216
  be Clause 6. He proposes to insert at the end of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3) of Clause 6, after "withheld," the words, "Provided that such consent shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld if the judicial authority is satisfied that the parent or guardian in good faith desires the well-being of the defective person." That again, if I may say so, errs, like my own Amendment, in not giving any security that the parent or guardian is capable of carrying out his intention in the interest of the defective. I will formally move my Amendment and I shall keep a perfectly open mind as to what hon. Members suggest as an alternative or better form of words.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I hope the Home Secretary will not press these words, but that he will keep the words as they stand in the Bill and accept the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. The effect of altering the words as they stand in the Bill is this. That there is one thing and one thing only required by these new words, namely, proof that the parent or guardian is unable or unwilling to make suitable provision for the defective. These are words of limitation, and, to my mind, it is much more satisfactory to leave the words which are in the Bill because they are much wider words—"unless in the opinion of the judicial authority such consent is unreasonably withheld." That may be for various reasons. You have only to consider whether the consent has been properly given or improperly withheld, and there, is the end of the proviso. Various considerations may arise as to whether or not that consent ought to be given or has been unreasonably withheld, but these new words limit the whole question to whether or not suitable provision is made or will be made for the care of the defective. That may be promised, but never carried out, as the Under-Secretary himself allowed, and the reason I object to the new words is that I do not want the only question to arise to be whether suitable provision is offered or undertaken on behalf of the defective.
  I want a much wider basis to be maintained—namely, that the judicial authority should consider all the various grounds that may make that consent a good consent or an unreasonable consent, and act accordingly. In the words of the Noble Lord, "provided that such consent shall not be deemed to be unreasonably-withheld if the

  217
  judicial authority is satisfied that the parent or guardian in good faith desires the well-being of the defective person," he ensures something like good faith on the part of the parent or guardian, and that is really all the Home Secretary is looking for. I remember this question was very carefully considered previously, and I do not really see any good ground for altering it. I want the judicial authority to have as wide a range for considering the question of consent in all its bearing as possible, and therefore the words in the Bill are happier than the words proposed by the Home Secretary, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will leave the Bill as it is, subject to accepting the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University.
  Mr. H. TERRELL: I do not think the words in the Bill very happy or calculated to have the result which is desired. What is meant by the words in the Bill as originally framed—"unless in the opinion of the judicial authority such consent is unreasonably withheld "—it is very difficult to say. We intend to provide for a case that often happens of parents who have a defective child and who use that child as a drudge. We want to protect that child. The parent in that case would not consent, but how could it be proved that the consent was unreasonably withheld? That would be impossible under the ordinary practice to satisfy a Court as to that. Then as to the words the Home Secretary proposes to introduce, I think they fall short of what is desired to be accomplished. May I ask the House, because this is a very important matter, to read the Clause as in the original Bill, and as it is now proposed to be Amended—"Where the petition was not presented by the parent or guardian the Order shall not be made without the consent of the parent or guardian." That gives the parent or guardian an absolute veto on the making of the Order. It is proposed to limit that veto by the Amendment and the way in which it is proposed to limit it is by saying that that veto shall not be absolute if it is proved to the satisfaction of the judicial authority that the parent or guardian is unable or unwilling to make suitable provision for the case of the defective. That only deals with the ability or willingness of the guardian or parent to make provision.
  Take the case, which frequently happens, of a parent, a mother, who has a, small income, lives in a home, has a
  218
  defective child and uses it as a drudge. She would be able to show that she was able to make suitable provision for the child. She would say she was willing for the child to live in the house, and how could you say: "How do we know that you will take proper and suitable care of the child, and will not use it as a drudge?" That would be impossible. The mother would say: "I have the means and am willing to make provision for the child," and the Court would have to say that the veto was absolute. I venture to suggest to the Home Secretary that if at the end he would add the words: "and that the defective would be adequately attended and cared for "that would leave the situation better. The Clause would then declare that the Order shall not be made without the consent of the parent or guardian, but the consent of the parent or guardian shall not be required if it is proved that the parent or guardian is unable to maintain the child or unless it is proved that the defective will be adequately and properly cared for. That is exactly what we want to provide for. We want to limit the veto of the parent in two respects, first by making him show that he is able and willing to maintain the child and, secondly, by satisfying the Court that the child will be adequately and properly, cared for. This is a very clumsy Clause, I agree, because you get a negative and then an exception to the negative, but if you read the Clause, adding the words I have suggested, I think the House will see it meets the case in those two respects. I have considered the drafting, and I think if you will simply add these words to the Amendment, and then read the whole Clause with the Amendment and these words together, you will find that it will have the effect which I have suggested, and, if so, I would venture to ask the Home Secretary to add these words to the Amendment, which would then carry out what I believe is the, intention of the House, and give adequate protection to a defective child.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I hope the Home Secretary will not listen to the blandishments of the hon. Member opposite, and accept his Amendment, or in any way move in that direction. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment and accept the Amendment moved by the Noble Lord opposite. It seems to me the best form of words. If the right hon. Gentleman insists on his Amendment. I propose to leave out "unable or." I

  219
  have the strongest possible objection to the Amendment, which, as it stands, merely means that if a person is poor his veto is to have no effect at all whatever, and only the veto of the fairly-well-to-do middle-class people will be considered. It seems to me that if we were to have the Amendment of the Noble Lord opposite, although it does not do everything, and still leaves the onus of proving good faith upon the parent or guardian, it gives much more safeguard to the right of parental veto than the Amendment of the Home Secretary. I have myself got down an Amendment which I think the best of all, but I do not propose to move it. My Amendment is to leave out "unless in the opinion of the judicial authority such consent is unreasonably withheld; and'' and to insert "the parent or guardian has been convicted of an offence under the Children's Act, or under any of the Acts for the prevention of cruelty to children." That seems to me to be far and away the best safeguard for parents. If parents have done something wrong and have been convicted, then by all means let them lose their parental rights, but, if they have not done anything wrong, I contend that the right of the parent to say whether his child should go to one of these institutions or not ought not to be tampered with. But I recognise that, being in the small minority to which the Home Secretary referred, I have no right to get an Amendment accepted. The Noble Lord opposite, however, does represent a considerable party, and if his Amendment, which does go rather further than the Home Secretary's, and does, at the same time, safeguard the interests of the parents, were carried, I think we might get on to the next Amendment and go ahead.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I confess to thinking that the Amendment of the Home Secretary, as it stands, would not be an improvement to the Bill, and it would be better to keep the Bill in its original form than accept the Amendment. But, perhaps, it would be convenient to state the point of substance at issue. The Bill as it stands is ambiguous. It does not quite definitely say what would be deemed to be unreasonable refusal of consent, and there are two classes of refusal, one of which I think ought to be classed as unreasonable and the other ought not to be so classed. There is the indifferent parent, and the grossly negligent or cruel parent, or the parent who has become so weary by the
  220
  infirmity of the child that no proper effort is made to look after the child. I have heard of the case of a child who was tied up by a leg. That is the sort of case in which a parent ought not to refuse consent to the child being taken elsewhere where it would be well treated. But there is another class of case where the parent is often really passionately attached to the feeble-minded child. We must not forget what has been frequently pointed out by great writers, that an infirm or feebleminded child often excites more affection than a child that is sound, and that is the sort of sentiment which has not always received the respect which often from the mere point of view of health it ought to receive.
  There is a tendency to think that a well-managed asylum with proper nurses and proper medical attention is more important to a child than an affectionate parent. I am sure that is profoundly untrue, even from the point of view of health, and it is extraordinarily cruel. It is hardly possible to overstate the cruelty that might be inflicted if a doctor or magistrate, or cranks about this thing, were to take away from an affectionate parent a feeble-minded child which a parent loved to have at home by him or her, and loved to look after. I do not want at all to excite class prejudices, but it is a simple fact that poor people are very defenceless in these matters. One does not suppose there would not be a desire to treat them fairly, but they do not know how to work the law in their own interest. They do not understand how it is done. They are perfectly defenceless before an authority who says, "you must do this," or "you must do that," and they cannot help themselves in the presence of the authority. I think we ought most scrupulously to guard against such a danger. I think there are two ways, but I do not think you could possibly guard against it if you accept the view contained in the Home Secretary's Amendment and also contained in the proposal of my hon. Friend that ability to provide for the child should be a necessary qualification, because the moment you put in this the question arises: What is the suitable provision which the parent ought to be able to make? It leaves room for the discretion of the doctor or magistrate, or both, "which might lead to the very kind of oppressive treatment I am anxious to stop.
  If you make the rule that an affectionate parent is not to be interfered

  221
  with, such an affectionate parent will not wish to keep the child in misery when the child can manifestly be much better treated in an asylum. The affection of a parent is the safeguard where suitable provision cannot be made that the child will be handed over, but unless you make the character of the parent and not the resources of the parent the test your Bill is in my view defective. I think my object might be reached in two ways. One is the way I propose in my Amendment on the Paper, but which should be put in a slightly different form because you do not need the proviso, namely: "Such consent shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld if the judicial authority is satisfied that the parent or guardian in good faith desires the well-being of the defective person." Or you might do it by amending the Home Secretary's Amendment by leaving out the words "unable or unwilling to make suitable provision for the care" and adding instead thereof "is culpably indifferent to the well-being."
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will you move that Amendment?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I conclude, as a matter of form, by moving that Amendment. I do not wish to take up time in discussing both Amendments if the Home Secretary would be good enough to say that he would consider either of them. On reflection, I would prefer this last form of words. It would make the Clause read, "unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the judicial authority that the parent or guardian is culpably indifferent to the well-being of the defective." I need not say I do not attach any special importance to the particular words, but the point is I am anxious to make the character of the parent the test, and that the parent who is really doing the best for his child should be allowed an absolute veto, and that a negligent, cruel, or drunken parent, or one who is not doing his best for the child should not be allowed an absolute veto. In order to bring the matter to an orderly conclusion I beg to move the Amendment to the Amendment which I have read out, namely, to leave out "unable or unwilling to make suitable provision for the care," and to insert "is culpably indifferent to the well-being."
  Mr. McKENNA: I am going to make a suggestion if I may be allowed to do so, before the question on the Noble Lord's Amendment is put from the Chair. As I
  222
  expected would be the case, I have had considerable assistance from speeches which have been made with regard to this Amendment, and it appears to me, on reflection, that on the whole I should do better to keep a modified form of the words as they now stand in the Bill, and not move to leave out those words in order to substitute my own words. With the consent of the House I would rather the Clause should read as follows:—"Unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the judicial authority that such consent is unreasonably withheld, or that the parent or guardian cannot be found." If the House agrees to put in those words it would meet the wishes of my hon. Friend (Mr. Wedgwood), who desires in the first instance that the onus of proof should be put on the petitioner. We could then discuss whether, by taking the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, or some other Amendment, we could define what is unreasonable. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my original Amendment and to leave out the words as before, but to substitute "it is proved to the satisfaction of the judicial authority that such consent is unreasonably withheld, or that the parent or guardian cannot be found." I therefore move to leave out the words from "unless" to "and" ["unless in the opinion of the judicial authority such consent is unreasonably withheld, and."]
  Question, "That the words proposed to-be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Mr. McKENNA: I now beg to move to leave out the words "in the opinion of the judicial authority such consent is unreasonably withheld; and," and to insert instead thereof the words, "it is proved to the satisfaction of the judicial authority that such consent is unreasonably withheld or that the parent or guardian cannot be found."
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I do not quite understand where we are. If these words are put in then I think we must have the Amendment suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, because without it the Bill, in my opinion, would be no better than it was before, and I should have to oppose my right hon. Friend's Amendment. At present we have had no assurance that we shall have some such words as the Noble Lord has suggested, and as the matter has been shifted about so often I should like to know

  223
  definitely what we are going to get before we vote to put in the words now moved lay the Secretary of State.
  Sir F. BAN BURY: I would suggest that it would be in order to move my Noble Friend's words as a proviso.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Yes, but if the words be not accepted by the Government they will not go in the Bill. The present words of the Home Secretary are not anything like so good as the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had on the Paper.
  Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend wishes to have an assurance I can give it him. If the Noble Lord agrees, the following words can be added to the Amendment: "Consent shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld if withheld with the bonâ fide intention of benefiting the defective."
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I must confess that it is rather late at night to attempt to appreciate the exact force of the words, but on the face of it the Amendment does make a decided improvement in the Bill, and I think I see no reason for resisting it.
  Mr. McKENNA: I will move after the words last proposed to add the words "but consent shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld if withheld with the bonâ fide intention of benefiting the defective." I think that fairly carries out the purpose of the Noble Lord.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is "intention" better than "desire"?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think my hon. Friend will find the form of words satisfactory. I think I had better move the whole words in an inclusive form as follows: After "unless" to insert "it is proved to the satisfaction of the judicial authority that such consent is unreasonably withheld, or that the parent or guardian cannot be found, but consent shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld if withheld with the bonâ fide intention of benefitting the defective."

  CLAUSE 7. (Variation of Orders.)
  (1) Where an order has been made that a defective be placed under guardianship the judicial authority which made the order, or any other judicial authority, or,
  224
  where the original order was not made by a judicial authority, any judicial authority may, on application being made for the purpose by the guardian or by the Board or by the local authority, and on being satisfied that the case is or has become one unsuitable for guardianship, order that the defective be sent to an institution.
  (2) A person appointed to be guardian of a defective may, on the application of the local authority or of the Board or of any other person who appears to be interested, be removed from his office by any such judicial authority as aforesaid, and where a person appointed to be guardian of a defective dies, or resigns his office, or is removed from his office, such judicial authority as aforesaid may, on the like application, appoint a suitable person to act in his stead.
  (3) An order under this Section shall not be made without giving to the relative or other person who presented the original petition and to the local authority an opportunity of being heard.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, to insert, at the end of the Clause the following Sub-section:—
  "(4) Any order made under the preceding Sections shall cease to have effect and be deemed to be cancelled if the parents or guardians of the person with respect to whom the order was made withdraw in writing their consent to such order, unless the board can show to the satisfaction of the judicial authority that the parents or guardians are not fit and proper persons to have charge of the defective."
  I want to add this fresh Sub-section (4) to this Clause, which deals with variation of orders, that is to say, the judicial authority can vary the orders. This new Sub-clause is really a complement to the parental control in the preceding Clause, and I am particularly anxious that this should be added, so that, if the parents change their minds, or more particularly if their children are being ill-treated in these homes, they will have the power of withdrawing them from the homes, so that they will not be committed, at the age of five, six or seven years, to be kept there until they are twenty-one. Under this, if the parents think their children are being ill-treated, and if the parents themselves are decent parents, and fit and proper parents, they will have an opportunity of

  225
  getting these children back. If the House gives the parents this power, they will be more ready to send the children to the homes, in the first place, and if the homes are decently carried on, to keep them there. If the parents have the right of taking back their children, you will find that these homes will be carried on upon much more humane and satisfactory lines. The managers of these institutions will do their best for the children, if they feel that the parents can take them away if they are badly treated, or do not get on, or are unhappy. Therefore, I hope this Amendment may go in, and that we may complete the parental control which we have given earlier in the Bill, by giving the same parents the right to reverse their consent if at any time they find their children unhappy or ill-treated.
  Mr. MARTIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. Under Clause 11 there is very ample power of discharge.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Not with the consent of the parents.
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes. My hon. Friend has not really quite mastered either the intention or the actual machinery of the Bill. You can hardly allow a parent, who has given his consent, to cancel his consent at any moment, and to withdraw the child, absolutely at his own discretion. If he were to do that this would be a measure entirely different from the present Bill. We pre-suppose here that, since a parent has given his or her consent, and the child has entered an institution, that it should be in the institution, unless it is discharged by the representatives of the Board of Control, by the visitors, or by the cancellation of an Order. To try to work the Bill upon a compulsory basis, and, at the same time, to allow a parent, any day, and every day, to withdraw the child and put it back again, would be to render such working impossible. My hon. Friend will see that, in Clause 11 at the end of the first year, the parent can withdraw the child if the Board of Control are satisfied that the parent has the means of looking after it.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: That is only in the case of the parents of a child under age.
  Mr. McKENNA: Not in Clause 11. Clause 12 deals with a child under age.
  226
  In Clause 11 there is ample power in the first year, the second year, or at any time, and the parent of a child in an institution has only to write to the Board of Control and say: "My circumstances are such that I have the means to look after it," and the Board of Control would instantly consider the case, and release the child. But that is not quite the same thing as to ask that the parent who may be a fighting parent, shall be allowed the right, every week, to withdraw the child, and then to put it back again. That would render the whole thing unworkable. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied after my explanation.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: No, I shall not be satisfied. This seems to me to be the vital part of the Bill. Clause 11 says nothing about the parent, and gives him no rights. There is nothing in it to say that the parent has any right to reclaim the child, once the child has gone to the institution—
  Mr. J. W. HILLS: Clause 12.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Clause 12 deals with where a parent voluntarily sends a child. Clause 11 deals with cases where a judicial authority sends a child to an institution. It is with such cases where the judicial authority—
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend is not correct. Clause 12 provides that until the visitors do not discharge the defective, there comes in the appeal above, under which the Board of Control may consider the appeal.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: But the appeal to the Board is after the Report has been made by the medical officer of the institution.
  Mr. McKENNA: The appeal will be heard.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The whole point is that, in Clause 11, the only thing that is taken into consideration is whether the child is or is not defective, and not whether the parent wishes him back or not. What is considered, in Clause 11, is the re-examination of the state of health of the defective. The parents may say a defective is not a defective, and they may appeal on that line, but they cannot appeal and say, "now we are able to look after the child; previously we were not able to look after the child. We are afraid it is being unkindly treated, and

  227
  we want it at home, to treat it kindly." That does not come in at all. The only thing considered is the state of mental health of the child itself, and if it is unhappy, its state of mental health is not likely to be improved. Just as you have given the parent the right to say whether or not the child should be sent to these places, so, on absolutely analogous lines, you ought to give him the right to withdraw his child, if he thinks it is not being kindly treated. Every human right which gives the parent the right of veto on having his children sent away at first is every bit as strong in favour of giving him the right to recover his children in later years. I hope some other hon. Members will vote for this Amendment, as well as myself. I certainly shall go to a Division. I regard this as one of the most important parts of the Bill, and by passing this Amendment you will take away one of the things that will be most complained of in after years, and which will give rise to most dis-
  satisfaction to people who come afterwards.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Might I point out that there is a still easier way of accomplishing this object? Under Clause 24 "any Commissioner shall have power to discharge at any time any person detained in a certified institution or certified house, or under guardianship under this Act," so that if a child were unkindly treated, all a parent would have to do would be to persuade one of these Commissioners—and some of them are women—to discharge the child, and that Commissioner would have power to do it. That would be a simpler way than-under Clause 11. It is difficult enough to get them in the home, as the machinery of the Bill is very cumbersome, but they can get out by any one Commissioner visiting-one of the institutions, and if he finds that the child is neglected, that Commissioner can discharge it.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 166.

  Division No. 218.]

  AYES.

  [1.52 a.m.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hogge, James Myles

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Horner, Andrew Long

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Martin.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hazleton, Richard

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Delany, William

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Adamson, William

  Devlin, Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hills, John Waller

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Doris, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Duffy, William J.

  Hodge, John

  Baird, J. L.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Barnston, Harry

  Duncan, J. Hastings, (Yorks, Otley)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Barton, William

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  John, Edward Thomas

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, Henry Kaydn (Merioneth)

  Boland, John Pius

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexlord, N.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Brace, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Joyce, Michael

  Brady, P. J.

  Field, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Kelly, Edward

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  King, J.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gilmour. Captain John

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Lewisharn, Viscount

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Clough, William

  Gulland, John William

  Lurdon, Thomas

  Clynes, John R.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lynch. A. A.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hackett, John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  McGhee, Richard

  Cullinan, John

  Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds. West)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Hayward, Evan

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Meagher, Michael

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Reddy, Michael

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Molloy, M.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Morrell, Philip

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Muldoon, John

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Munro, R.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robinson, Sidney

  Webb, H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rowlands, James

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Dowd, John

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Grady, James

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  O'Malley, William

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  O'Shee, James John

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Sheehy, David

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Stewart, Gershom

  CLAUSE 8. (Procedure in Cases of Persons Guilty of Offences, etc.)
  (1) On the conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction of any person of any offence punishable with penal servitude or imprisonment, or on a child brought before a court under section fifty-eight of the Children Act, 1908, being found liable to be sent to an industrial school, the court, if satisfied on medical evidence that, he is a defective within the meaning of this Act, may either—

  (a) postpone passing sentence or making an order for committal to an industrial school, and direct that a petition be presented to a judicial authority under this Act with a view to obtaining an order that he be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship; or

  (b) in lieu of passing sentence or making an order for committal to an industrial school, itself make any order which if a petition had been duly presented under this Act the judicial authority might have made, which order shall have the like effect as if it had been made by a judicial authority on a petition under this Act:

  Provided that, if the court is a court of summary jurisdiction and the case is one which the court "has power to deal with summarily, the court, if it finds that the charge is proved, may give such directions or make such order as aforesaid without proceeding to a conviction, and such a person shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a person found guilty of an offence.
  (2) The court may act either on the evidence given during the trial, or may call for further medical or other evidence.
  (3) Where the court so directs a petition to be presented against a person, it may order him to be detained in an institution for defectives or in a place of safety for such time as is required for the presentation of the petition.
  (4) Where it appears to any court of summary jurisdiction by which a person charged with an offence is remanded or committed for trial that such person is a defective, the court may order that pending the further hearing or trial he shall be detained in an institution for defectives, or be placed under the guardianship of any person on that person entering into a recognisance for his appearance.
  (5) Where it appears to the police authority that any person charged with an offence is a defective, they shall communicate with the local authority, and it shall be the duty of the police authority to bring before the court such evidence as to his mental condition as may be available:
  Provided that where it is intended to bring such evidence before the court the police authority shall give notice of the intention to the person charged, and to his parent or guardian, if known.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—to leave out the word "medical" ["if satisfied on medical evidence"] and to insert instead thereof the word "the."
  2.0 A.M.
  The effect of this Amendment would be that instead of the Clause reading "the Court if satisfied on medical evidence" would read "the Court if satisfied on the evidence of two medical practitioners." I should like to point out to the House that under this Clause as it

  231
  stands anyone who is brought up before a Court of competent jurisdiction or a child brought before the Court under Section 58 of the Children Act, 1908, can be sent to a home for mental defectives on the evidence of one medical officer only. This is an Amendment desired by the London County Council. The object of the Amendment is to secure that no one can be dealt with as a defective except on the certificates of two medical men. Nowhere else in the Bill as it stands can a person be dealt with as a defective on the evidence of one medical man only. There is no difference "between this Clause and the other Clauses so far as principle is concerned. The only way in which it does differ is that in this case the medical evidence is given not in writing but orally. I cannot see that this affords any ground for relying on the evidence of one medical man only, and I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept both this Amendment and the consequential Amendment which I shall move afterwards if he accepts this one. I hope that in his answer the right hon. Gentleman will give us his reason why in this Clause, and this Clause only, one medical man is deemed sufficient.
  Captain JESSEL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member apprehends, as I gather from his speech, that in the words of the Clause as they now stand the evidence of one medical man is contemplated under the Bill. That is really not so. In this case all that the Bill does is to leave to the Court the decision as to the quantity of evidence which the Court thinks right in order to come to a decision. We do not propose to lay down to a Court what is the amount of evidence which should be taken in order to establish a fact. The conditions here are not the same as in an ordinary case of proceeding before an authority under the Act. This relates to a Court of competent jurisdiction which is already engaged in trying the defective on some other matter, and, a question of fact arising before the Court, the Court has to be convinced on the question of fact; but we leave the Court to determine the amount of evidence that is necessary. It is quite true the Court may be satisfied with the evidence of one medical man, but it is much more likely that the Court will require the evidence of two, three, or four medical men.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I should like to point out what really happens in this case. In these industrial school cases a large number of children are had up before the police magistrates, and in London an officer of the county council advises the magistrate as to what industrial school the child ought to be sent, and the child is sent and kept there until sixteen years of age. You propose in this Bill that in certain cases that child should be sent to a home for defectives instead of to an industrial school. That is a very important change, and in future probably an officer from the county council—a medical officer—would attend and give evidence before the police magistrate. We know perfectly well that in a Police Court there are a number of cases to be dealt with and proper attention cannot be given to each individual case. There is every probability that the magistrate will agree with the medical evidence given before him. I really think that before we send a boy who has committed some small offence to a home for idiots and imbeciles, instead of sending him to an industrial school, where he would receive proper industrial training and a good school education, we ought to put in every safeguard in this Bill that is possible. This is a safeguard which is deemed to be necessary by the largest local authority in the country, the London County Council, who deal with an enormous number of industrial school cases every year, and who have put into force the Defective Schools Act more than any other authority. They have got the largest experience, and if they deem it necessary, I cannot see any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept this Amendment.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. It is surely of importance that an authority to whose care these children are to be committed should, through their medical officer, have some voice in determining whether a child is suitable for sending to one of the institutions under their control, and it would be only bringing this Clause into conformity with other Clauses in the Bill. I admit quite frankly that I understood the concession had been granted in this Clause as in others, and it was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman that it was desirable in view of some public fears that had been engendered by this Bill to give, in other Clauses, the right of calling the evidence of a second medical practitioner if only to satisfy some feel-

  233
  ing in the public mind. I do think that if the right hon. Gentleman were to accept this Amendment it would tend to allay somewhat the fears that have been raised in certain quarters as to whether there will not be an attempt made to send children unnecessarily to institutions. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to bring this
  Clause into conformity with other Clauses and to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, "That the word 'medical' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 143, Noes, 37.

  Division No. 219.]

  AYES.

  [2.9 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Grady, James

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hackett, John

  O'Malley, William

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Shee, James John

  Barton, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hazleton, Richard

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Boland, John Pius

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Price-Jones, Colonel E.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Reddy, Michael

  Brace, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Hey wood)

  Joyce, Michael

  Robinson, Sidney

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Keating, Matthew

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kelly, Edward

  Rowlands, James

  Clough, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Cullinan, John

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lundon, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Delany, William

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  McGhee, Richard

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Doris, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Meagher, Michael

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Webb, H.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Molloy, Michael

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

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Morgan, George Hay

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morrell, Philip

  Wiles, Thomas

  Field, William

  Muldoon, John

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Munro, Robert

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  O'Doherty, Philip

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Barnston, Harry

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hills, John Waller

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hodge, John

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hogge, James Myles

  Sutherland, John E.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  John, Edward Thomas

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Clynes, John R.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Goldstone.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Martin, Joseph

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Mr. McKENNA Mr. McKENNA rose in his place and] claimed to move "That the Question be now put that the words of the Bill to the word "unless" in Clause (11) ['An order made under this Act that a defective be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship shall expire at the end of one year from its date, unless continued
  in manner hereinafter provided'] stand part of the Bill."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put, 'That those words stand part of the Bill.'"
  The House divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 25.

  Division No. 220.]

  AYES.

  [2.17 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Goldstone. Frank

  O'Grady, James

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  O'Malley, William

  Adamson, William

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Shee, James John

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles p. (Stroud)

  Hackett, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Barton, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hazleton, Richard

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Higham, John Sharp

  Reddy, Michael

  Boland, John Pius

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Brace, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Joyce, Michael

  Rowlands, James

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Keating, Matthew

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kelly, Edward

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Clough, William

  King, Joseph

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Clynes, John R.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Sheehy, David

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Cullinan, John

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Stewart, Gershom

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  Lynch, A. A.

  Sutherland, John E.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Delany, William

  McGhee, Richard

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dickinson, W. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Doris, William

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks. Otley)

  Meagher, Michael

  Webb. H.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

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

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Millar, James Duncan

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Molloy, Michael

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexlord, N.)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wiles, Thomas

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Morell, Philip

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Muldoon, John

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Ffrench, Peter

  Munro, Robert

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Field, William

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Nolan, Joseph

  Fitzgibbon. John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Dowd, John

  NOES.

  Baird, J. L.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Greene, W. R.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Barnston, Harry

  Hills, John Waller

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hodge, John

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Booth and Mr. Martin.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. {Honiton)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Question, "That the words of the Bill to the word 'unless,' stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.

  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) after the word "mentioned" ["hereinafter mentioned"] insert the words "and

  237
  the means of care and supervision which would be available if the defective were discharged."—[Mr. Webb.]
  Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (2), after the word "in," to omit the words "the interests of the defective," and to insert instead thereof the words "his interests."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I think this is an Amendment on which we ought to have some explanation.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is only a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendment proposed: In Subsection (3), after the word "condition" ["his mental condition"], to insert the words "and the means of care and supervision which would be available if he were discharged."—[Mr. McKenna.]
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not think this is a drafting Amendment, and perhaps some explanation might be given.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am sorry I was absent from the House. I expected another Division to take place. The object of these words is to enable an authority to have regard to the means of livelihood and care which would be able to be given, in order that where the parents should look after the child, so that, in such a case, the authorities should discharge the child. I have put these Amendments down after consultation with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and they are intended—I am not sure how they will be received—as a concession to his views. I hope, at ane rate, he will accept the intention as being bonâ-fide in the interests of the defectives.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in Sub-section (3), after the word "defective" ["interests of the defective"], to insert the word "alone."
  This Amendment is, I believe, a purely drafting one if the Government's intentions are as stated. In this matter, obviously, what ought to be considered by the authorities are the interests of the defective, and nothing else, I am afraid that the hon. Member for St. Pancras and for Dumbartonshire will be the sort of people who will decide whether these people ought to be let out or not.
  238
  They are people who are constantly talking of the welfare of society as a whole, and particularly of the future of the race, and they cannot be expected to judge these matters from the point of view of the interests of the defective alone. I am particularly anxious that the only thing to be considered should be the interest of the defective person. If all the Members of the House are thinking of that interest let them have the Amendment in, after "defective" insert "alone" in line eleven. It will then read: "On such reconsideration the visitors shall visit the defective or summon him to attend before them and inquire into his mental condition and into all the circumstances of the case, and if it appears to them that further detention in an institution or under guardianship is no longer required in the interests of the defective alone shall order him to be discharged." Some might think that a person is a bad breeder, that some woman who goes out will have bad babies, and that the race will be injured. That is not what we want the visitors to look after. What we want them to look after is the interest of the defective alone. I move these words, and hope they will be accepted by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, because I am sure the more the public understand that we are moving in the interest of the defective, and not in the interest of eugenics, the better it will be.
  Mr. MARTIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman presses this, I have no objection. It is in the interests of the defective that the Bill is being passed.
  Question, "That the word 'alone' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Could the right hon. Gentleman accept the next Amendment I have on the Paper, to leave out the word "fourteen" ["parent or guardian may within fourteen days after the decision of the visitors appeal to the Board"], and to insert the word "forty"? It is only to give the parents forty days' notice instead of fourteen.
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh no. Withdraw it.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Very well, I will withdraw that, and go on to the next one —after the word "visitors" ["after the decision of the visitors"], to insert the words "has been communicated to the

  239
  defective and his parent or guardian." I want to make it read: "Provided that if the visitors do not order his discharge the defective or his parent or guardian may within fourteen days after the decision of the visitors has been communicated to the defective and his parent or guardian appeal to the Board."
  Mr. McKENNA: I accept that.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Withdraw the next.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: No, the next is rather important. I am only presenting this in the interests of the defectives. Under the Clause the report has to be made by the medical officer of the institution. Many of these institutions will be private places assisted out of the ratepayers' money, and I think it extremely undesirable that the medical officer of such an institution should have the drafting of these reports, so vital to the inmates of these institutions. It seems to me he ought to be the last person to have the drafting of them.
  I, therefore, beg to move to leave out the words "the medical officer of the institution" ["shall be a special report as to the mental and bodily condition of the defective made, in the case of a person detained in an institution, by the medical officer of the institution"] and to insert instead thereof the words "a duly qualified practitioner who is not the medical officer of that institution, and who may be selected by the defective or parent or guardian if desired by them." I move that, although I am afraid the Government cannot accept it, as they are bound up with the medical officers of these institutions. But I do hope they will understand the feelings of the parents with regard to these medical officers who may desire to keep these people in the institutions. It is known that even, in the case of lunatic asylums people, who are useful to officials of the asylum are retained longer than they need be. Exactly the same thing applies to mental defectives, because they are more on the border line and so the risk to them is greater. I think, that apart from the question of expense, and it is only the expense which ties the Government down to the medical institutions, an inquiry should be made by an independent medical officer who can act on his own.
  Mr. MARTIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: These are words, I am afraid, I cannot accept. The provision in the Clause is for "the medical officer of the institution," and "institution" here means art institution run by a local authority. The medical officer is a man who would know most about the defective and he could not by any possible means have any personal interest, in the pecuniary sense, in the person remaining in the institution or being discharged from the institution. He would merely be the servant of the local authority. With regard to the other case of institutions not under the local authorities I would refer the hon. Gentleman to Clause 48, paragraph (d) of the proviso to Sub-section (2) in which it is stated that "a special report under Section 11 of this Act as to the mental and bodily condition of a defective detained in a certified house should not be made by the medical officer of the house or by any medical practitioner directly or indirectly interested in the house." Therefore, where there could be a question of a person interested arising in a case of a special report of this kind we have expressly excluded the medical officer of the house. We have only left the medical officer where he must know more about the person, and only where he could have no interest have we allowed him to remain the authority to sign the report.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Under Clause 37 the local authority may contribute such sums upon such conditions as they think fit towards the establishment of certified institutions or contract with the managers of any certified institutions. It is in these cases that, I think, a danger would occur. As I understand it, when you contract with the managers of such institutions they do not come under the head of certified houses but of certified institutions, and, therefore, come under this Clause, and if the Home Secretary would make an Amendment in Clause 11, "the medical officer of the institution," and would make it quite clear that these institutions, as he said they were, are purely institutions run by local authorities I should be quite satisfied, but it is when these institutions are not run by the local authorities and are arranged for under Clause 37 that there would be a possibility of complaints being made and of friction arising. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could make an Amendment here or in Clause 48 includ-

  241
  ing approved houses and institutions of that sort.
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman would wait until we come to Clause 37 I think I shall be able to show him that he has not read the Clause correctly. His argument would be quite apposite then.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: In that case I will withdraw my Amendment here, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my next Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: After the word "detained" ["to be detained in an institution or under guardianship"] insert the words "in his own interest."—[Mr. Wedgwood.]

  CLAUSE 13.—(Power to Recover Expenses.)
  (1) Where an order that a defective be sent to an institution or be placed under guardianship has been made under this Act, the judicial authority which made the order or any other judicial authority, or, where the order is not made by a judicial authority, any judicial authority, may, on the application of the petitioner, or of the managers of the institution or the guardian, as the case may be, or of an officer authorised by the local authority, make an order requiring the defective, or any person liable to maintain him, to contribute such sum towards the expenses of his maintenance in the institution or of his guardianship, or, in the event of his death in the institution of his funeral expenses and any charges incidental thereto, including the cost of conveyance to the institution, as, having regard to the ability of the defective or person liable to maintain him, seems reasonable.
  (2) Any such order may, on the application of the managers of the institution in which the defective is for the time being detained, or of the guardian, or of an officer authorised by the local authority be enforced against any property of the defective or person liable to maintain him, if made by a judge of county courts, in the same way as if it were a judgment of the county court, and, if made by any other judicial authority, as if it were an order for the payment of a civil debt made by a court of summary jurisdiction.
  (3) An order made under this section may be varied or revoked by the judicial
  242
  authority which made it or any other judicial authority.
  (4) Where a defective has been placed by his parent or guardian in an institution or under guardianship any sum which the parent or guardian has agreed to contribute towards the expenses of the maintenance or guardianship of the defective shall be recoverable summarily as a civil, debt.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to> leave out the Clause.
  This Clause gives power to all these local authorities to recover the expenses of looking after these mentally defective persons by parents or guardians. It is rather undesirable that you should not only take people's children away and keep them against the parents' wishes very often, but that you should charge them with the expense. It is rather adding insult to injury. Education is free in this country, and this matter of looking after these mentally defectives is a form of education, and it does seem to me undesirable that you should make it a charge upon the parents and guardians and should be able to enforce the charge by a court of summary jurisdiction. Of course, in most of the cases no charge would be made at all, and no proceedings could be taken and no proceedings would be likely to result in money being obtained; but that makes it all the more undesirable that you should give to the local authorities the power to collect this money in certain cases. It gives opportunities for favouritism and penalising particular persons. We have seen over and over again the great danger of making heavy claims upon the brothers and sisters of children who are under the charge of guardians and in the workhouse. Many of these claims fall very heavily indeed on young workers under twenty-one years of age, and I think it is very undesirable that you add to the unpopularity of this Bill by making it an engine of distortion very similar to the-claims made in support of parents in workhouses.
  Hon. Members know perfectly well the bitter feeling often entertained among the working classes towards their parents when they have to go to the workhouse and an order is made against the children to provide for their maintenance. It is one of the principal sources of bitterness in families. Here you are introducing into this Bill for looking after mentally defective persons, the same sort of discord and the same opportunities for the

  243
  local authority to make a charge of sixpence a week here, and a shilling a week there, and sustain a large expense in collecting money. I believe it is done in the case of the Poor Law so as to make people feel the responsibility of poor relatives, but surely it is not necessary here to make people responsible for sixpence or a shilling a week when we all know how difficult it is to make both ends meet. I certainly do think this Clause, which is new since last time, is most undesirable in the Bill, and if I can get anyone to support me, I shall go into the Lobby against it.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Of course, the meaning of this Clause is that if the defective or those liable to maintain him have the ability to maintain him they ought to do so. That seems a reasonable proposition. My hon. Friend has spoken of this Bill as if directed against the poor, and now he says it is directed against people who are not absolutely poor. Why should not the defective, and why should not those who are liable to maintain the defective not contribute towards the expense? The Royal Commission inquired into the matter very carefully, and this is
  one of their recommendations. It is part of the financial scheme of this Bill, and the local authority and the Treasury look for these contributions.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Because the Royal Commission decided to get all the money they could out of the poor, that does not make it any juster. [HON MEMBERS: "The rich."] This does not apply to the rich. You are going to get all you can out of the poor, and the point is that when you take away children compulsorily this claim becomes not a contribution from the parents, but a tax upon them. I do not think you have any right in the first place to take the children away compulsorily and keep them compulsorily in segregation, but if you do that, you have no right to make parents pay for it. Certainly if any hon. Member will vote with me I shall go into the Lobby against this-Clause.
  Question put, That the words, "(1) Where an order that a defective be sent to an institution or be placed under guardianship has been made under this Act, the judicial authority which made the order, or" stand part of the Bill.
  The House divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 4.

  Division No. 221.]

  AYES.

  [2.50 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Doris, William

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Duffy, William J.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Adamson, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rust e)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Joyce, Michael

  Baird, J. L.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Keating, Matthew

  Barnston, Harry

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford. N.)

  Kelly, Edward

  Barton, William

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  King, Joseph

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Field, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Boland, John Pius

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lundon, Thomas

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lynch, A. A.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Macdonald. J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  McGhee, Richard

  Brace, William

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Goldsmith, Frank

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Goldstone, Frank

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Greene, W. R.

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs, Spalding)

  Bryce. J. Annan

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gulland, John William

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hackett, John

  Millar, James Duncan

  Chappie, Dr. William Allen

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Molloy, Michael

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Clough, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Clynes, John R.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Muldoon, John

  Cullinan, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Munro, Robert

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nolan, Joseph

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Delany, William

  Horner, Andrew Long

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Dowd, John

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Malley, William

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Tennant, Harold John

  O'Shee, James John

  Rowlands, James

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

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

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Sheehy, David

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Reddy, Michael

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. William Jones and Mr. Webb.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  NOES.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Martin.

  Hodge, John

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the words "any other judicial authority, or" ["which made the order or any other judicial authority, or"]. I object to any other judicial authority making the order for a contribution than the original judicial authority which made the order that a defective person should go to a home. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. MARTIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. May I point out to him that the judicial authority which made the order was concerned with defectives, but this authority which is going to make the order for a contribution is concerned with the financial means of the defectives. Those are entirely different matters, and I think my hon. Friend will see that the one has no relation to the other in any way whatever. The judicial authority which made the original order might actually be dead or absent from the country when the time came to have an order made for a contribution towards the expenses of maintenance, and in such case great difficulty would be caused. Therefore I think we should do well to leave the wording of the Clause as it now stands.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the words "or any person liable to maintain him" ["make an order requiring the defective, or any person liable to maintain him"], and to insert instead thereof the words, "or his male parent."
  As the House will see the object of this is to limit the responsibility to the male parent, I think it would be very unfair
  246
  if the authorities were able to come down on the mother of an illegitimate child and make her pay 6s. a week for the maintenance of her defective child. Surely it would be sufficient if the local authority were able to get money out of the male parent of a defective without coming down on other members of the family.
  3.0 A.M.
  So, I move to omit these words, and I shall go to a Division on them if I can get anybody to support me. I do not believe that Members of this House in the least desire to make the mother of an illegitimate child, or the struggling brothers and sisters of people such as these, liable to maintain their relations in these homes, but that is what will be done, unless you vote against an Amendment such as this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It seems to me that, at three o'clock in the morning, hon. Members cannot pay any attention to Amendments that are moved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, Order."] I am perfectly in order, and when I raised this Question I was jeered at by the Irish hon. Members. I am putting a perfectly honest and straightforward point before the House, and because the Irish Members are here to vote down any opponents of the Liberal Government, if they—. [HON. MEMBERS: Order."] Now, as I have been interrupted, let me put this before the House with perfect clearness. If this Clause goes through, as it is, then any relation of these poor people will be liable to be summoned by any judicial authority, exactly as though their relations were in the workhouse. We know perfectly well that this habit of suing impecunious relations of people in the workhouse for maintenance is a very bad thing indeed, and which we want to put a stop to, when those relations are genuinely impecunious, and not parents of these persons. I believe if the—
  Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, "That the Question be now put 'That the remainder of the Clause (13) stand part of the Bill.'"

  CLAUSE 14.—(Provision as to Contribution Orders.)
  The persons liable to maintain a defective under the age of twenty-one against
  Question put, "That the Question, 'That the remainder of the Clause (13) stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 22.

  Division No. 222.]

  AYES.

  [3.4 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Adamson, William

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Gulland, John William

  O'Malley, William

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Hackett, J.

  O'Shee, James John

  Baird, J. L.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barton, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Higham, John Sharp

  Reddy, M.

  Boland, John Pius

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Redmond, John (Waterford)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Howard, John Geoffrey

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brace, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Brady, P. J.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Brunner, J. F. L,

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Joyce, Michael

  Rowlands, James

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Keating, Matthew

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kelly, Edward

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Clough, William

  King, J.

  Sheehy, David

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Cullinan, John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Stewart, Gershom

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Srauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  Lundon, T.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Delany, William

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  McGhee, Richard

  Tennant, Harold John

  Doris, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Wiles, Thomas

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Molloy, Michael

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Morgan, George Hay

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morrell, Philip

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Field, William

  Muldoon, John

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Munro, R.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. William Jones and Mr. H. Webb.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  NOES.

  Barnston, Harry

  Greene, W. R.

  Martin, J.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hodge, John

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Clynes, John R.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Goldsmith.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Question accordingly, "That the remainder of the Clause (13) stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  whom an order to contribute towards his maintenance may be made under this Act shall include the step-parent and, in the case of illegitimacy his putative father and, if the judicial authority having cognisance of the case thinks fit, a person other than his putative father cohabiting with his mother: Provided that where

  249
  a defective is an illegitimate, and an affiliation order for his maintenance has previously been made on the application of his mother under the enactments relating to bastardy, the judicial authority shall not (unless in view of the special circumstances of the case he thinks it desirable) make an order for contribution against the putative father, but may order the whole or any part of the payments accruing due under the affiliation order to be made to the local authority or such other person as may be named in the order, to be applied towards the maintenance of the defective.
  Captain JESSEL: I beg to move to leave out the Clause. I am well aware of the fact that this Clause is taken from the Children Act, but at the same time I wish to point out to the House that it was not in the original Bill and was only passed at one of the last meetings of the Grand Committee upstairs, nor was it in the Bill last year. I cannot understand why the step-parent is put in, because he has evidently had no satisfaction in the matter at all and he is made liable for something with which he has had nothing to do whatsoever. It does seem hard upon a woman who is left a widow that she may not get married again because there may be a defective child, and anyone who wishes to marry her may have this liability thrust upon him. Surely that cannot be a good thing. Then as regards the rest of the Clause, proceedings would probably be taken against the putative father if the woman does not pay the sum. I should have thought that that sum was attachable, or that, at all events, the mother would in any case contribute that sum towards the maintenance of the child. As regards the third category, of persons other than the putative father cohabiting with the mother, that has to be proved in a court. I should think it would be a very difficult thing to prove, and therefore unless the Home Secretary can give a very good reason for the retention of the Clause I do not think it can do any good in the Bill, as it would put a hardship on a respectable woman by making her chance of getting married worse than it otherwise would have been.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment. I think the Clause put in upstairs is quite unnecessary, and that it would bring a number of innocent people within the scope of the law.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am quite ready to meet the substance of the Amendment and to omit the words "the stepparent and." It will then only include the putative father, who is now made liable up to the age of twenty-one, which is quite a proper position, and where the local authority finds a person other than the putative father living with the mother, I think the public should not be put to the expense of the illegitimate child. If this other person is living with her, and perhaps preventing her earning her own living in support of the child, that person should be made liable. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
  Captain JESSEL: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move that—
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I have an Amendment that comes before that. I am asking that the persons already liable to support the defective should not include any relation, male or female, of less than twenty-one years of age or a mother who works for a weekly wage. Surely it is not unreasonable that these people should be excluded. I think the Home Secretary should accept that Amendment. I understand he is going to move the Closure on the rest of the Clauses. Do let us have this to set off against the rest. I only ask that people under twenty-one—
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend is in error. No such person could be liable. The only case it is proposed to meet is that of a putative father, who it is not supposed will be under twenty-one years of age. I do not think that will be likely, particularly as mental deficiency will not be proved until the child is three or four years of age. Consequently the parent must be extremely young.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: It is not a question of the parent, but of other relations.
  Mr. McKENNA: They are not liable.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: There was a case the other day of a girl made to contribute to the support of her mother in the work-house.
  Mr. McKENNA: She was not her illegitimate mother.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: This Clause does not deal only with the illegitimate. It

  251
  deals with legitimates as well as illegitimates, only the House seems to have illegitimacy on the brain. I think these people should not be made liable to maintain the defective. I beg to move.
  Mr. MARTIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move to leave out the words "the step-parent and" ["shall include the step-parent and"].
  Question, "That those words stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

  —(Power to Remove to Place of Safety pending Presentation of Petition.)
  (1) If any officer of the local authority authorised in that behalf or any constable finds neglected, abandoned, or without visible means of support or cruelly treated any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be a defective, he may take such person to a place of safety, and such person may be there detained until a petition under this Act can be presented.
  (2) If it appears to a justice on information on oath laid by an officer or other person authorised by the local authority that there is reasonable cause to believe that a defective is neglected or cruelly treated in any place within the jurisdiction of the justice, the justice may issue a warrant authorising any constable named therein, accompanied by the medical officer of the local authority or any other duly qualified medical practitioner named in the warrant, to search for such person, and if it is found that he is neglected or cruelly treated, and is defective, to take him to and place him in a place of safety until a petition can be presented under this Act, and any constable authorised by such warrant may enter, and if need be by force, any house, building,. or other place specified in the warrant, and may remove such person therefrom.
  (3) Where the place to which such a person is taken is a workhouse, the master shall receive him into the workhouse if there is suitable accommodation therein, arid any expenses incurred in respect of him shall be defrayed by the local authority, but shall, if an order is eventually made, be recoverable from the defective or any person liable to maintain him as
  252
  if they were part of the expenses of his maintenance.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move my first Amendment in Clause 15, which Clause gives power to the local authority to deal summarily with cases of children who are being neglected or abandoned or have no means of support, and it gives not only to the local authority but to any constable power to enter and to remove these children. "If any officer of the local authority authorised in that behalf or any constable finds neglected, abandoned, or without visible means of support, or cruelly treated any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be defective, he may take such person to a place of safety, and such person may be there detained until a petition under this Act can be presented." It seems to me rather strong to give to any constable power to take any child away on the ground that it is a defective child and to carry it off to a workhouse. It is enforced abduction, so to speak, when the constable has grounds to suppose that the child is being neglected. I think the poor are under the thumb of the police enough already, and I do not notice that they are getting more popular as time goes on. I think by giving this power you will be storing up a good deal more unpopularity for the police than they have at the present time. Surely, if you give to any officer of the local authority—and there are lots of these inspectors available—power to take these children wherever they may find them, that is enough, without extending that power to constables who will know very little about this Act, and who have quite enough to do with the working classes as it is. I move to leave out the words "or any constable."
  Mr. MARTIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: Surely, it is proper that a constable who finds a child neglected or abandoned should have the power to take that child.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: A constable has that power already if the children are in difficulty. You are giving additional powers to take away a child who is not in a state which would normally call for the help of the police, and anyone "who is neglected or abandoned" according to the constable. She may be playing in the street in front of her own house.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. McKENNA Mr. McKENNA rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be
  Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Bill to the end of Clause 19 stand part of the Bill."
  now put in respect of the words of the Bill to the end of Clause 19."
  Question put, "That that Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 22.

  Division No. 223.]

  AYES.

  [3.25 a.m.

  Abraham. William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Connor,. John (Kildare, N.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Adamson, William

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  O'Dowd, John

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Gulland, John William

  O'Malley, William

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Hackett, John

  O'Shee, James John

  Baird, J. L.

  Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barton, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hazleton, Richard

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central).

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Reddy, M.

  Boland, John Pius

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Brace, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Charles (Lincoln)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Joyce, Michael

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Keating, Matthew

  Rowlands, James

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Kelly, Edward

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kilbride, Denis

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Clough, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Sheehy, David

  Clynes, John R.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cullinan, John

  Lundon, Thomas

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  McGhee, Richard

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Delany, William

  Maclean, Donald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Doris, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duffy, William J.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Webb, H.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Meagher, Michael

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston),

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Molloy, Michael

  Wiles, Thomas

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Morgan, George Hay

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Morrell, Philip

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Ffrench, Peter

  Muldoon, John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Field, William

  Munro, R.

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  NOES.

  Barnston, Harry

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Morrison-Bell. Major, A. C. (Honiton)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Greene, W. R.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hodge, John

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hogge, James Myles

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Horner, Andrew Long

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Martin.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  The House divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 5.

  Division No. 224.]

  AYES.

  [3.31 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Adamson, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  O'Dowd, John

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gulland, John William

  O'Malley, William

  Arnold, Sydney

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Hackett, John

  O'Shee, James John

  Barnston, Harry

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barton, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hazleton, Richard

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Boland, John Pius

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Reddy, Michael

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Brace, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rowlands, James

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Joyce, Michael

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Keating, Matthew

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kelly, Edward

  Sheehy, David

  Clough, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N.W.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cullinan, John

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Dairyrnple, Viscount

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sutherland, John E.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Lundon, Thomas

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Tennant, Harold John

  Delany, William

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  McGhee, Richard

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dickson. Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Maclean, Donald

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Doris, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Webb, H.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

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

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Meagher, Michael

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Molloy, Michael

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Field, William

  Morrell, Philip

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Muldoon, John

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Munro, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Hon. Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Nolan, Joseph

  NOES.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hogge, James Myles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Martin.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Hodge, John

  Ordered, That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow (Tuesday).

CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT ABROAD) BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
Ordered, That one additional day be allotted to the Business of Supply.—[Mr. Gulland.]
The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes before Four o'clock a.m.., Tuesday, 29th July.

  City of Glasgow Friendly Society.
  City of Glasgow Friendly Society.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Development Commission.
  Development Commission.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
  EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
  WISBECH MEDICAL PANEL.
  WISBECH MEDICAL PANEL.
  Tobacco Cultivation (Ulster).
  Tobacco Cultivation (Ulster).
  Irish Sea Defences.
  Irish Sea Defences.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Fishing Industry (Ireland).
  Fishing Industry (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Training Colleges (Ireland).
  Training Colleges (Ireland).
  Cattle Driving.
  Cattle Driving.
  Sunday Trading.
  Sunday Trading.
  Cost of Naval Clothing.
  Cost of Naval Clothing.
  War Medal (Zulu Campaign).
  War Medal (Zulu Campaign).
  Service Rifles.
  Service Rifles.
AIRCRAFT.
  ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
  ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
  Land Purchase (Egypt).
  Land Purchase (Egypt).
  Highway Robbery (Court of Criminal Appeal).
  Highway Robbery (Court of Criminal Appeal).
  Education Statistics.
  Education Statistics.
  Suffragist Prisoners.
  Suffragist Prisoners.
  Catholic Bishops (India).
  Catholic Bishops (India).
  Moneylenders Bill.
  Moneylenders Bill.
  Marconi Contract (Correspondence).
  Marconi Contract (Correspondence).
  Tuberculosis.
  Tuberculosis.
  Wolverhampton Workhouse.
  Wolverhampton Workhouse.
  Asiatic Seamen.
  Asiatic Seamen.
  Export of Coins.
  Export of Coins.
  Child-Made Goods.
  Child-Made Goods.
  Import Statistics.
  Import Statistics.
  Irish Industrial Minerals Company.
  Irish Industrial Minerals Company.
  Labour Exchanges (Clerks).
  Labour Exchanges (Clerks).
  Sub-Post Offices.
  Sub-Post Offices.
  Letter Delivery (Ballymore).
  Letter Delivery (Ballymore).
  Hull Telephone Service.
  Hull Telephone Service.
POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL.
WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

McBRIDE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Minutes of evidence and proceedings before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in the case, returned from the Commons.
WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) RAILLESS ELECTRIC TRACTION BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; The orders made on the 16th and 17th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 16th and 17th instant discharged, and Bill committed for To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee that the opposition to the Manchester Order was withdrawn: The Order made on the 17th instant respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said order, discharged.

WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL BILL.
BARRY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAM- WAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Duke of Wellington, the Lord Braye, the Lord Gwydir and the Lord Holden be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Marquess of Winchester, the Lord Monson, the Lord Farrer, and the Lord Stanmore and that the Duke of Wellington be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Committee to meet To-morrow.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Regulations, dated 17th July, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, and the Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Outworkers) Amendment Regulations (England), 1913 Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 139.)
ALDBAR TRUST ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Moved, That Standing Order No. 158 be dispensed with, and that the Bill be committed for To-morrow, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAM- WAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Standing Order No. 93 considered (according to order), and dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of the Wandsworth Borough Council: Leave given to present the said Petition.
SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
HEATHFIELD AND DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that His Majesty had (by Commission) appointed the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore) Speaker of the House, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, the Chairman of Committees for the time being, the Earl of Halsbury. the Earl Waldegrave, the Lord Ribblesdale, the Lord Balfour, the Earl Loreburn, the Earl Beauchamp, the Lord Denman, the Lord Colebrooke, the Lord Granard (E. Granard), the Duke of Devonshire, and the Lord Herschell: The said Commission was read.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DUNFERMLINE DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to order): Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered (according to order), and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 22) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Moved, That the order made on the 22nd of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next "be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to: Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Committee to meet To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Westminster Hospital Bill and other Bills do form a Select Committee for the consideration of the Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill; read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

PERSIA AND TIBET.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON rose to call attention to the position of affairs in Persia and in Tibet, to ask for information, and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is for the sake of convenience that I have combined the two subjects of Persia and Tibet in a single Motion, in order to avoid taking up the time of your Lordships by separate debates on two occasions. Nevertheless, the two subjects have a certain geographical connection because they are different aspects of the policy of Great Britain in Asia, and it was as such, as the noble Viscount opposite will recall, that they both figured in the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1997. We have, I think, good reason for calling the attention of your Lordships' House to these two subjects this afternoon. It is now more than six months since we last had anything like a detailed discussion upon the subject of Persia, and a much longer time has elapsed since we had any discussion at all on the question of Tibet. I feel, therefore, that even at the fag-end of the session, when not many people seem to take an interest in the matter, we on this side of the House are justified in making some remarks and putting some questions on these two, subjects; and equally on his side I am confident that the noble Viscount will not resent the opportunity of giving further information on some of these matters.
First as regards Persia. On more than one occasion when I have spoken in this House upon the matter I have been accused of painting a somewhat sombre and gloomy picture of the condition of affairs in that country, and I have been rebuked by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and by the noble

1407
Viscount opposite for my unduly pessimistic views. Well, none of us wishes to be a Cassandra, yet I am bound to say that nothing I have said in my gloomiest moments in this House about the condition of Persia, notably of Southern Persia, in recent times in any degree approaches the revelations that are made to us in the Blue-book which was placed in the hands of both Houses of Parliament a few weeks ago, and which I have spent a melancholy Sunday by the sea-side in examining. The picture given in this Blue-book is the picture—I speak more especially of Southern Persia—of a country in the throes of dissolution; of a country given up to rapine, brigandage, disorder; a country where trade is almost, if not entirely, at a standstill, where roving bands wander about doing as they please, where British officers are fired at and robbed, and in one particularly unfortunate case an officer was killed; a country where the central Government is impotent and the local government is ignored. In fact, the picture is one of anarchy stretching almost the whole way from the Karun River on the west to the borders of Baluchistan on the east.
The other day I came across a description of this unhappy country given by a man who knows it well. He said Persia at the present moment is a country minus a King—true, because he is only a boy; minus a Regent, because the Regent has been travelling about for some time in Europe; minus a Parliament, because the Parliament has been abolished; minus a Government, because no Government can be said to exist; with no army but the robber bands to whom I have been referring, and with no money except that which she can extract from Great Britain and Russia. I believe that to be a true description of the present position of affairs in Central and Southern Persia. At any rate it was the position up to the date of the last Paper in the Blue-book—namely, the middle of February of the present year. Whether there has been any change or relief in the circumstances since then I do not accurately know, but I believe, from such information as I have, that there has been no substantial change, and if there has been any change at all it has been in the main due to the exhaustion ensuing upon a long period of anarchical violence and in part to the inevitable suspension of hostilities when the hot weather in those countries comes.
In reading this Blue-book and in surveying this picture we cannot fail to be struck by the fact that it is in the main in Southern Persia—the part of the country in which British interests predominate—that this pitiable condition of affairs exists. There all the worst cases of outrage and pillage and robbery occur. There it is that trade is practically at a standstill. I might quote many passages in the Blue-book indicating the complete collapse of commercial activity, but I can perhaps best bring it before your Lordships by giving you a single illustration. Let me tell you what happens if a case of tea requires to go from the plantations in India to Ispahan. Whereas in the old days it went from Calcutta or Bombay across the Indian Ocean and through the Persian Gulf to Bushire, and then by caravan to Ispahan, that case of tea now, owing to the conditions which I am describing, has to go all the way across the Indian Ocean, through the Suez Canal, up the Mediterranean, through the Dardanelles, up the Black Sea, to Batoum and Baku, and then after covering a circuitous route of many thousands of miles it makes its way down to Ispahan. That is a deplorable state of affairs.
In the North of Persia—I must discriminate between the two for reasons which you will see in a few moments—the condition is very different. I do not say that there is no insecurity there—that would not be true—but life and property in the northern parts of Persia are relatively safe, and the reason for this is known to every one of us in this Chamber. It is owing to the presence of an overwhelming force of Russian troops in that part of the country. We have been told many times during our debates of the last two years that these Russian troops would presently be reduced, if not withdrawn, and I must recall the attention of the noble Viscount to one passage in particular which occurred in a debate in this House in December 1911, when I had challenged him upon the point. The noble Viscount produced a great impression by reading out a declaration to this effect—
"The Russian Government assures us categorically, and desires to place on record, that such military measures as it has taken in Persian territory are of a purely provisional nature, and it has no intention whatever of infringing the principles of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 as to Persia. That being of the first authenticity and authority is a. very important assurance, and justifies us, under all the circumstances, in framing our policy on the assumption that that was theirs."

1409
That assurance was read out to us on December 7, 1911. At that time the number of Russian troops in the North of Persia was 3,000; at the present moment, according to the information given us the other day in the House of Commons, the number is 17.500. The Blue-book mentions in one place that not a single Russian soldier has been withdrawn during the past year, and it you will look at page 284 you will see that Sir Edward Grey, who was obviously and naturally disturbed at this condition of affairs, on January 10 of the present year politely inquired of the Russian Government whether they could not see their way to withdraw some of these garrisons. The reply is contained on page 293 of the Blue-book, and is to this effect—
"The Russian Government sincerely desire the recall of their troops, but as the latter in existing conditions offer the sole guarantee for security of Russian subjects and trade, they cannot at present diminish their numbers nor can they fix a date for their withdrawal, which must depend on the re-establishment of order."
More than that, in another part of the Blue-book you will find Russia a short time ago seriously contemplating taking over the administration of Northern Ajerbaijan, the Persian province on the North-west; and elsewhere we read that the Persian Cossacks, who, as your Lordships know, are a body of Persian troops officered by Russians and almost the sole stable and reliable military force in the northern parts of the country, have been increased—or are about to be increased; I do not know whether it has yet been done—from 1,800 to 4,300 men.
I can well believe that the presence of this great Russian force in Northern Persia is a guarantee of security, and I can also believe that it may not be unwelcome to the Persian Government or at any rate to some of the Persian Governors in those parts: but the points which I venture to submit to His Majesty's Government are these. Are not these great numbers that I have named out of all proportion to the requirements of law and order in the northern parts of Persia? Can we be quite sure that their presence there is in strict accordance with the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907? And still more, is it not the case that a military occupation of this description is quite inconsistent with the pretence of continued Persian independence? As long as a country is under a military occupation of that sort, surely to talk of it as having
1410
any governing independence is out of the question. Indeed, you will find at one place in the Blue-book—page 271—that M. Sazonoff, the Russian Minister, confesses as much, because he there states that "no Government could be said to exist"—no Persian Government, of course, he meant "at Teheran." I have narrated these facts, for facts they are, with the barest comment upon them.
But, my Lords, this is the country and these are the people whom His Majesty's Government set out in the year 1907, when they made their Agreement with Russia, to resuscitate and safeguard and preserve ! Sir years ago the Persian nation, the Persian people, had a Government, had a Parliament, had a national existence of a sort. Now it has none. I confess I think the contrast between this picture and that must cause grave qualms in the breasts of those who were responsible, not merely for the Agreement to which I refer six years ago, but for the glowing anticipations that were based upon it. As co-signatories of that Convention I venture to say that we in England cannot wash our hands of all responsibility for what is going on in the North. We cannot witness without some apprehension this continued military occupation of a country whose integrity and independence we are always proclaiming; and I trust I may without offence invite from His Majesty's Government some expression of opinion on their part, if possible some intimation of their intention to pursue their efforts with a view of relaxing the conditions in Northern Persia to which I refer.
If an example were required in the matter, it has already been set by ourselves in the withdrawal of our troops from the southern part of the country. Your Lordships will remember that there were about 500 Indian Cavalry, belonging to the Central India Horse, at Shiraz and Ispahan. Why they were sent there no one in this House knows, and no Minister has ever been able to explain. We were told that they were there as a Consular guard, although why 500 men, still more 500 Indian Cavalry, should be required to guard the Consuls in their Consulates no one knows. I have always myself believed—and in this I have no doubt I am correct—that these Indian Cavalry were the illogical and unhappy residuum of a much larger policy which was at one time contemplated

1411
of policing the trade routes of the country and perhaps restoring some measure of order, but that His Majesty's Government at the last moment shrank from the bigger policy and had recourse to this foolish and futile compromise. Anyhow, everybody now admits that the despatch of these troops was a very grave mistake. At Ispahan and Shims they were cooped up inside those towns. When they went out they and their officers were fired at and insulted and robbed, and, as I have said, in one case an officer was killed. Their presence there was a perpetual offence to the Persians, and, what is probably from our point of view more serious, a daily blow to British prestige. I am not usually, as the noble Viscount knows, a very warm advocate of evacuation, but I. must confess that I was never better pleased than when His Majesty's Government took these troops away from Southern 'Persia. It is almost the only act in their 'Persian policy for which I give them, for what it may be worth, my entirely unreserved congratulation and applause.
I spoke about the murder of a British officer, Captain Eckford. May I say a word or two on that point? This wretched event occurred in December, 1912. A British party, officers and men, was moving out into the open country to the south of Shiraz when it was fired upon and attacked by a tribal band. One of the officers was hit by a bullet and killed. This was a very lamentable occurrence, though, of course, it was just the thing you would expect to happen in an Eastern country where the conditions were what I have described. If the bullet, instead of striking him, had struck a native officer I do not suppose we should have heard very much about it. Indeed, if you look in the Bluebook you will find that the native orderly of one of the English officers, Lieutenant Bullock, was so killed, but little attention had been called, at any rate in this country, to that matter. But the fact that it was a British officer, of course, differentiated the case, and His Majesty's Government from the start took a very serious view of the matter. If you look at the Blue-book, page 235, you will find that Sir Edward Grey spoke of it in the strongest possible terms. He telegraphed as follows, under date December 12, 1912, to Sir Walter Townley—
"The murder of a British officer in the circumstances stated constitutes a situation which His
1412
Majesty's Government cannot pass over. They must request the Persian Government to state without delay what reparation they are in a position to accord, and the reparation must include among other conditions the severe punishment of the tribesmen. If the Persian Government are not in a position to afford themselves the needful reparation, His Majesty's Government will have to consider what steps they themselves should take for that purpose."
And a little later you find that the Minister in Persia, Sir Walter Townley, expressed himself in even stronger terms as to the nature of the punishment that ought to be inflicted, even going so far as to say that if it was not done he advised that a British expedition should be prepared to restore order, and, if necessary, punish offenders on the Shiraz-Bushire road.
Now, my Lords, what has passed since December, 1912, in this connection? Seven months have passed. Nothing else has passed at all. First there was to be a punitive expendition organised by the local Governor-General, which was to start out and capture the offenders. These persons were to be seized and justice was to be done to them within a month. Then the condition of the season was pleaded as an excuse, and two or three months' delay was asked. Then we were told that the expedition must be postponed until the autumn. I think he would be a very sanguine man who thinks that the expedition will ever take place at all, or, if it does, that it will be attended with any satisfactory results. Here, again, the facts alone, without comment upon them, are enough to present a most humiliating picture of the condition of affairs.
May I say at once that I am not for a military expedition. I am unreservedly and unhesitatingly against it. I agree on the whole with the arguments which were used at a later date in his reply to the Minister by Sir Edward Grey, and which you will find at page 291 of the Blue-book, dated January 11, 1913. I do not know that I attach as much importance as Sir Edward Grey did to the probable cost of an expedition or to the Losses that it might entail, but on the whole I am inclined to agree with him in thinking that an expedition would have bean a very lengthy operation. It would be difficult to put any limit to the duties that might be imposed upon it, and it might have eventuated, would probably have eventuated, in something like a military occupation

1413
of Southern Persia. For these reasons I think that the Government were right in not having a military expedition of their own, though I notice in his last Despatch, dated February 15, that he does not altogether forego the possibility of having so to act, because he says—
"If the present state of anarchy is allowed to continue matters will go from bad to worse, and it will become impossible for His Majesty's Government to resist the despatch of an important military expedition to Southern Persia, with all its possible consequences."
I mention the matter of the murder of Captain Eckford, not, as I say, to advocate independent military action by ourselves, but to try and bring home to your Lordships, in the first place, the utter collapse of executive authority in Southern Persia which it implies, and, secondly, the terrible blow which must inevitably, if this outrage remains unpunished, be inflicted upon our prestige. It is really not surprising that in one place in the Blue-book you find that a German subject, who was travelling up from the coast and was held up, was told by one of the tribal chiefs that it was lucky that he was not an Englishman, the inference, I assume, being that if he had been an Englishman he would have got something infinitely worse. Further, I refer to this case in order to point out to your Lordships the necessity, to which I am corning hack presently, that if we are not to undertake the preservation of law and order in that country ourselves, it is essential that we should think out and adopt there a policy which will do something to prevent the recurrence of these tragedies by removing their causes. For the moment I will only ask the noble Viscount, when he replies, to be good enough to tell us whether he has any further information on the subject of this tragedy, and whether, so far as he knows, there is any prospect of a punitive expedition being sent or of reparation being exacted.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: By us?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No. I was speaking for the moment of the Persian Government.
I come next to a question closely connected with the matter I have been discussing, the Swedish gendarmerie in Southern Persia. This is a body of Persian recruits under Swedish officers who have been enlisted to attempt the
1414
preservation of something like order in the neighbourhood of Shiraz, and you can scarcely read ten pages of the Bluebook without seeing the part this Swedish gendarmerie is playing. Obviously and deservedly they have excited the greatest interest and received the warmest support from His Majesty's Government. From all I hear, the Swedish officers are brave and resourceful men. Although when they came they were ignorant of Oriental countries and customs, they have done their best. They have been honest and active in a country where, as we know, honesty and activity are at a discount. They have had to meet many obstacles both at headquarters and in the districts in which they serve. They have had great difficulty in getting good recruits, and I may mention one little incident which throws a flood of light on the situation. The, recruits that they engaged at Bushire to go up to Shiraz had to be disbanded because it was found that they had only entered the force with the special object of stealing the rifles on the way up to their destination. It is not clear from the Blue-book how far this force has been successful. I am not very sanguine about it myself, and perhaps my chief cause of apprehension arises from this, that I know that the engagements of these Swedish officers terminate in three years from the commencement of their contract, and I cannot, imagine anything more regrettable than that at. that time, whenever it comes, these men, just at the moment when they have acquired experience and are used to their work, disgusted as most of them probably will be with the futility of their operations, 5110111(1 resign and leave the country. I am fearful that that will happen. I am glad that His Majesty's Government are supporting them in the interval, and not merely supporting them but, as I shall show in a moment, are actually the paymasters of the force. We are paying them from day to day and month to month; we are running this Persian gendarmerie and their Swedish officers.
My point is rather a different one. It is this. That no gendarmerie, with Swedish officers or otherwise, can permanently secure the tranquility or peace of the province of Fars. All that they can do at the best is to safeguard a few trade routes on which they may be posted; and I want with all my power to urge upon

1415
His Majesty's Government the recognition of the fact that what you want in Southern Persia is not a small and dubious body of gendarmerie but an armed force in the hands of the Persian Governor-General of Fars to control the country, to collect its revenue, to suppress disorder, to chastise these troublesome tribes. I am convinced that whether the Swedes succeed or fail —I hope myself they will succeed—you will have to recognise that: the question is too big a one for a force of a few hundreds or even thousands recruited in the manner that these men are recruited. When you have a Persian force—I mean, of course, a force of Persians, from whatever source it be recruited—they must be officered by Europeans. It is no good taking Persian officers for the purpose. The force must be officered by Europeans. Personally, I have no great feeling about it; so essential is order that it does not matter to me by whom it is secured. Let them be officers of any nationality you please; but one cannot help remembering all the while that a few hundred miles away in India is a reserve of officers trained to this precise work for a long time, used to dealing with Mahomedans, profoundly acquainted with Oriental habits, famous for their art of getting on with native troops—I speak of the British officers of the Indian Army. Sooner or later you will have to contemplate employing them. I am not making here any suggestion that will be startling or unfamiliar to his Majesty's Government, because the noble Viscount will remember that three years ago Sir Edward Grey contemplated the formation of a body in Southern Persia which was to be officered by British officers of the native Army in India. I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will bear that in mind, because I cannot help thinking that there and 'there alone one aspect of the ultimate solution must lie.
I pass on from that to what is really a much more vital matter, and that is the policy of His Majesty's Government. And first about these payments. If His Majesty's Government have not been very successful as patrons and preservers of Persia, at any rate they have been very constant and very generous as paymasters. It is difficult from this Blue-book to discover exactly how much they have found. We are told in one place that in 1912 Russia advanced £125,000 in that year only to Persia, but we are not told
1416
what our figures are. We read in place after place of doles of £10,009 and £13,000. We heard in our earlier debates here of a loan of £400,000, half from Russia and half from ourselves. Then in the early part of this year there was talk of a special loan of £100,000, half from Great Britain and half from India, for the financing of the gendarmerie; and since then the Secretary of State in the other House has spoken about a new loan of £400,000, half to be found by Great Britain and half by Russia, one-half of the British moiety being produced by India. I am not sure what the sum total of all these payments is, and I hope that the noble Viscount will allow me to ask him whether he can give us any clear idea what is the total sum which Great Britain and India have advanced in the last few years, or if he cannot give it to-day perhaps he could lay the information later.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: What is the authority and precise form of the statement regarding the £400,000?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The authority is contained in a statement made by Sir Edward Grey in the House of Commons in May, on the last occasion when there was a debate there; but I need not go to the House of Commons for the authority, because it is in the last Paper in the Blue-book, page 310, in the Foreign Office letter to the Treasury, dated February 15, which states the facts and figures have just mentioned. I want to be sure, not merely as to the sum total, but as to the security for payment. I know that the Treasurer-General in Persia, M.Mornard, says that the Persian revenues could meet the charges of a loan of as much as £5,000,000 or £6.000,000. We should welcome from His Majesty's Government any statement as to the sufficiency of the Persian revenues to stand these constant charges. One thing is quite clear from the figures that I have given—namely, that we are pouring money into Persia; we are practically financing the Persian Government in the south of that country; and if von read the Blue-book carefully you will actually find that British money, or British and Indian money, has been used for such purposes as these—to enable a Governor to start for his post, to pay the gendarmerie, to meet the arrears of pay of the civil and military officials, to conduct

1417
when there was the question of a punitive expedition to catch and punish the murderers of a British officer, whether we should not provide the money to pay for this punitive expedition—one of those monstrous paradoxes that one could only find in an Asiatic country.
There are two questions which must be considered about this policy of doles. In the first place, where is it going to stop? How long is it going on? How long will the Persian revenues be able to meet these charges? Sir Edward Grey, in one of his Despatches, says that the policy of his Government is one of unlimited patience. Granted. That may be wise; it may be necessary; but it is unquestionably one of unlimited payment also. We want to be quite clear whether there are to be any limits to these payments, and, if so, where they are to be drawn; and, secondly, whether we are not, after all, pouring money into a sieve, so that it is merely running out at the other end. Are these constant payments going to be effective for the purpose for which we are giving the money—the re-establishment of Persian authority in the South; or effective for the vindication of our own prestige? I can only say, speaking hesitatingly—because it is difficult to dogmatise about the matter—that I feel very doubtful about this policy of reiterated doles. It seems to me that Persia will go on sucking up your doles as long as you choose to provide them. It is a stop-gap policy, a stationary policy; and if we are to contemplate any solution of this inextricable tangle we ought to look further afield in our attempt to find some solution.
It is a very dangerous thing when one is not in the Government to put anything into the pool oneself, because one is contributing ideas very likely without a proper basis of knowledge and information. But the case I would like to put before your Lordships' House is this. What is the crux of this whole position in Persia? Surely it arises from the events of six years ago. In 1907 His Majesty's Government concluded an agreement with Russia, the Anglo-Russian Convention. Under that Convention the country was divided into three parts. Russia had more than one-half of the country; Great Britain had a sphere of about one-sixth; and the remaining one-third constituted what is called the neutral zone. Many of us in this House who doubted the character of the
1418
bargain that had been made drew attention to what we regarded as the absurd inequality—inequity, I might say—of this distribution, but the answer made to us was that His Majesty's Government, in reserving the British sphere, had been actuated solely, and not unreasonably, by strategical considerations, and that they did not wish to put into our sphere more than the Indian Army could protect. But, my Lords, valuable as was that British zone, per se, I think His Majesty's Ministers entirely forgot the political and commercial importance of the areas left in the neutral zone. We pointed out to them over and over again that it was in the neutral zone that British and Indian merchants had sunk their money and practised their trade and that it was in that zone that the British telegraph runs and that practically all our interests are concentred. Look at what has happened since. Six years have passed since you concluded that Agreement. In those six years we have heard nothing about the British sphere, but the neutral sphere has been steadily pushing its way to the front, until now you are in the position of ignoring, your own Agreement. You have been acting throughout, and you will go on acting and be compelled to act, as if the neutral sphere were a British sphere.
Take the evidence of this Blue-book. You find almost in the first pages the British Government threatening to punish a local khan in the neutral sphere. We have been sending Indian troops freely into the neutral sphere. It is the financial administration of the neutral sphere that we are now conducting, and it is gendarmerie in the neutral sphere which we are now paying. It is for railways there that we are now pressing, I am glad to say successfully pressing, at the present time. Therefore for the last two years His Majesty's Government have been successfully demonstrating the futility of their own arrangements concluded with Russia in 1907. The neutral sphere always has been, and is now, a diplomatic fiction. Lip service is paid to it from time to time by our people if we want to be civil to Russia. From time to time we are reminded of it by Russia if she wants to be stiff to us.
The plea that I venture to address to His Majesty's Government is this. I want them to recognise the facts of the case, and I do not think I have exaggerated them. I venture to say that we cannot go on

1419
perpetually acting as though the neutral sphere was and at the same time was not a British sphere. We cannot go on vindicating British rights within that sphere when it is convenient to us, and repudiating British responsibilities within it when that is convenient. I want His Majesty's Government to set their minds to this matter, and see if they cannot work out a policy based on a recognition of the fact that the conditions have changed, and that so long as the neutral sphere remains a neutral sphere we have no right to go on doling out British and Indian money as we are now doing. You may say, "All this is technically and theoretically true; but what does it mean in practice." I think it means that we ought to endeavour to support the authority of the Persian Government, not merely in one portion or corner of the neutral sphere, but over the whole of that sphere; that we ought, as I have said, to enable the Persian Government to raise a force which shall restore order and discharge the duties of government in that sphere; and that we ought—a point I am coming to in a moment—energetically to pursue the policy of building railways within the neutral sphere. I think, further, that we ought to recognise the fact that in 1907, when you concluded your Agreement with Russia, we made a mistake. I do not propose that you should take any action behind the back of Russia or otherwise than in co-operation with Russia. Russia has many times had occasion to be grateful to us for the support we have extended to her from time to time; and it. is only reasonable to say that it is consistent with the close friendship which now prevails between Russia and ourselves that she should assist us to place on a more stable footing our present position, illogical as I have shown it to be, in that part of Persia which is included in the neutral sphere.
Then, my Lords, one word upon the question of railways. I have said that His Majesty's Government were, rightly as I think, pursuing the policy of extending railways in the neutral zone. They have made a beginning in the matter. We learn from the Blue-book that a concession for a railway in the North from Julia to Tabriz was given in the early part of the year to the Russians, and a little later a concession was given for the survey of a. line from Khoramabad to Mohammerah in the South. It is not quite clear whether this
1420
option carries with it the right of construction after the surveys have been made. Presumably it does. I venture to ask a question on that point; and further, when the construction comes, whether it is to be carried out by the British syndicate or by the Persian Government, or by what other agency, if the matter has so far been discussed. Again, I do not quite see at present how this British railway is to be financed unless a guarantee is given either by the British Government or by the Indian Government, about both of which I am extremely doubtful. I dare say it is not unlikely that the Russian Government will find money for their railway in the North, but whether the English Government or the Government at Delhi will find money for the railway in the South seems to me extremely doubtful. I hope that His Majesty's Government will energetically pursue the construction of this railway, because its undertaking is one of the few hopeful symptoms in the dark night of Persian conditions that I have been describing.
There is a more important railway still in contemplation in Persia about which I must say a word. I speak of the Trans-Persian Railway and the Société d'Etudes. A year ago some of your Lordships may recall that we had a debate in this House upon the matter, and it then appeared that there was a financial combination composed of representatives of British, of Russian, and of French finance which was engaged in preliminary surveys and the attempt to obtain concessions from the Persian Government for a great Trans-Persian railway which was to run from Baku in Russian territory right away down to the Indian Ocean in the direction of India. There were some of us in this House at the time who entertained the strongest possible objection—I was one of them—to the principle of such a railway, which we thought inconsistent with the security of India. I am not going to repeat those objections this afternoon. I merely mention, in passing, that there is a very strong body of opinion who hold those views. In reply to my remarks on that occasion, both the noble Viscount and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House said that all His Majesty's Government had done was to agree to an examination of the details of it, but no pledge of any sort had been given as to any part of the line; and in the House of Commons

1421
Sir Edward Grey promised that the report of the Sociéte d'Etudes should be laid, and that no action should be taken until Parliament had been consulted. No official encouragement was given to it.
What has happened in the interim? The Société d'Etudes has been pursuing its labours in Persia, and on the Indian side we have heard of surveys being conducted by our engineers in British Baluchistan. On the other hand, in the Blue-book you find numerous indications that Russia is particularly interested in this railway, especially the Russian portion of it, and that she has been throughout pressing the British Government to adopt a more committal attitude than that of a year ago. This is a matter of supreme importance, and reluctant as I am to weary your Lordships with this long disquisition, I am covering a wide area and striving to do it concisely and with some degree of proportion. The Blue-book shows us that at Balmoral last year M. Sazonoff, the Russian Foreign Minister, in his interview with Sir Edward Grey, pressed upon him to agree to the construction of this Russian section of the line from the Caucasus to Teheran, and he asked for the diplomatic support of our representative at Teheran. That is at page 172; and at page 175 you will find Sir Edward Grey's instructions both to our Ambassador at St. Petersburg and to our Minister at Teheran. He says that His Majesty's Government will agree to give their support to the construction of the Russian section of the line on the condition only that the line shall not go beyond the Russian sphere without British consent at a later date.
A little later on the situation still further develops, and if you look at page 225 you will find there a telegram from our Ambassador at St. Petersburg to Sir Edward Grey—
"Russian Government understand that Société d'Etudes have already chosen representatives to proceed shortly to Teheran in order to negotiate with Persian Government, with support of the two legations, for securing the option to construct Trans-Persian railway and permission to begin preliminary works in return for arranging a large loan for Persia."
In his reply to this communication, Sir Edward Grey apparently, though not very clearly, acquiesces in these arrangements. If I have read this history rightly, it appears to me that the reserve upon which the noble Marquess and the noble
1422
Viscount laid so much stress a year ago has now given way to a very active support; that we are already definitely committed to the construction of the Russian section of the line, and this without any of that reference to Parliament which was promised by Sir Edward Grey a year ago; and, turther, that we are tentatively committed to the participation in the grant of a large loan, £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, to Persia in connection with the deliberations of the Société d'Etudes and the construction of this line. I confess I look upon this situation with considerable anxiety. It seems to me that His Majesty's Government have gone rather beyond their pledges to Parliament in this respect, and I apprehend that if I am right you may find it very difficult indeed to arrest your steps in the future. You will find it very difficult to avoid taking part in this loan. You will find yourselves in this position, that you will in all probability be financing, or in part financing, a Russian railway in Persia, and when the Russian railway is carried to a point where it conies to the end of the Russian sphere and impinges on ours, I can see the difficulty you will find, whatever may be your views, in arresting its further progress. Thus it seems to me that His Majesty's Government have committed themselves, if I am right, to a policy which some of us in this House would regard with very great apprehension if not with dismay, and I await with interest any explanations on the matter that the noble Viscount may be good enough to give me.
Now let me touch upon only one other railway matter which is rather off the field that I have been discussing, although I told the noble Viscount I should refer to it. It is connected with Persia because it touches the Persian Gulf — I mean the Baghdad railway. For a year, as we have seen in the papers, His Majesty's Government have been discussing with the Turkish Government the future arrangements about the continuation of the Baghdad railway south of Baghdad, and on May 29 last Sir Edward Grey made a statement in the House of Commons on the matter. He spoke about certain draft Agreements with the Turkish Government. The first question I would ask is, Have those draft Agreements been concluded? Is the Convention in force? The terms of this Agreement as explained by Sir Edward Grey were as follows, and the House must observe them rather closely.

1423
In the first place the terminus of the Baghdad line under this Agreement is to be at Busra. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with the circumstances of the case will he in entire agreement. I myself have always argued for Busra as against Koweit. Secondly, the line between Baghdad and Busra is to be constructed—but here I am left in doubt as to the agency. By whom will it be constructed? Will it be by the Baghdad Railway Company? If so, will it be under the same conditions as regards capital and kilometric guarantee as the rest of the Baghdad railway? Will British capital be invited to participate in it? The point is of the greatest importance, as your Lordships will see in a moment.
If this section of the railway is to be constructed by the Baghdad Railway Company, which is in the main a German company, then it would appear that Germany will be resuming the rights which she surrendered in 1911. For the surrender of those rights she received the compensation of a railway to Alexandretta, and the making of harbour works at Alexandretta. But if she is now to get the railway as well, it appears to me that she will have done a very good stroke of business for herself, though where British interests or compensation come in I am not so clear. I may be quite wrong about this, but the noble Viscount will correct me if I am. Then the compensation that Great Britain has to get is, as I understand, the representation of two directors on the Baghdad Railway Board. These gentlemen are to watch the operations of the company and see that they do not institute differential rates against us. They are persons who may be very useful for that purpose, but they will be in a very small minority. The Board will consist of between ten and twenty directors—rather nearer twenty than ten—and estimable as these gentlemen may be, I doubt very much whether their presence will provide the safeguard against the sort of danger that some of us contemplate. In return for this Great Britain is to agree to the increase of the Turkish Custom duties, which is no doubt a matter of great importance to the Turkish Government.
Now I pass on to that part of the Agreement which deals with the estuary of the Shat el Arab and the Gulf. The British interests in the Shat el Arab and the Tigris are to be provided for by
1424
the construction of a board or a committee in which British interests are to be secured, and of which there is to be a British chairman. I do not know whether the noble Viscount is in a position to give us any further information on that point. I would like to ask him, if I may, whether it is to be a Turco-British board, or whether further foreign elements are to be introduced, and also whether the Port of Busra will be under its administration? The next feature of the Agreement Sir Edward Grey stated was that we recognise the Turkish suzerainty over Koweit, and she recognises the autonomy of the Sheikh of Koweit—one of those peculiar arrangements that can only exist in the East—as well as the Treaty obligations into which he has entered. I think that is a very good solution, so far as it goes; and fin ther—a point which Sir Edward Grey did not mention—I believe some sort of agreement has been arrived at by which Turkey has abandoned or modified some of those rather troublesome claims of hers of authority and suzerainty in different parts of the Persian Gulf. I do not press the noble Viscount for information if he does not wish to give it. I merely ask him whether he is in a position to say that this is true. I await an answer to these questions before I would dare to pronounce a verdict on the whole. Subject to what I have said about Germany and the Baghdad railway, it seems to me to be a fair agreement. May I derive from this the plea that we may have some Papers on the matter? I conclude with a Motion for Papers. I wonder if we can have some more Papers about Persia, carrying the position on from February 15, and in any case may we have some Papers about the Agreement with the Turkish Government over the question of the Baghdad railway?
I have only one other question to deal with, and that is the subject of Tibet. I almost wish I had made Tibet the occasion for a separate discussion, but I think I can promise to be reasonably brief and concise, because what I have to say can be comprised in a very narrow compass. As regards Papers, the plea for Papers in the case of Tibet is stronger still. I think I am right in saying that we have had no Papers about Tibet since 1910—in other words, for three years we have had no official information of what has been going on. Your Lordships may be quite certain that I am not going to retread the paths of ancient

1425
history or revive ancient controversies about Tibet. I will only take up the matter in its most recent phase. Your Lordships will remember that a feature of the arrangements concluded by His Majesty's present Government, both with China and with Russia, over the subject of Tibet, involves the recognition of Chinese suzerainty over that country. I have no doubt that when the Government took that step they thought that Chinese suzerainty in the future would be the same vague and impalpable thing that it had been in the past. It is quite clear that they did not at all foresee the consequences of their act. That, I think, showed a want of prevision on their part. The Chinese, on the other hand, had very different ideas. Mere suzerainty did not interest them at all; they were bent on converting suzerainty into sovereignty, and they set about it in a very businesslike way. They despatched an expedition to Tibet which behaved with great rigour and severity. They compelled the Dalai Lama to flee the territory, and. have even carried their pretensions so far as to indulge in intrigues with the Indian border States of Sikkim, Bhutan, and Nepal. For a time His Majesty's Government appear to have treated those proceedings with equanimity. I know the noble Viscount is always very sensitive on the subject of interfering with Tibet in any way at all, and I have no doubt that His Majesty's Government thought they would rather acquiesce than have further trouble with regard to Tibet.
The change did not come from them. It came from a very unexpected quarter. When the Revolution broke out in China, the Chinese troops in Lhassa, who were anti-Manchu, mutinied and killed their commander, and forced the local Amban to abdicate. Then came a period of unrest, during which the Dalai Lama, who had been our guest in India returned to the country and made an arrangement by which the troops were allowed to stay. Again the next step came from China. The Chinese Republic, in order to turn attention from the troubles with which it was pressed at home, seemed to think it politic to indulge in an attitude of ambition and aggression abroad, and accordingly they launched another expedition against Tibet with some vigour. Here, again, in the absence of Blue-books and official Papers am dependent on what has appeared in the Press, but we
1426
have had it stated with apparent authority and dates and full details in the Press that in August last year our Minister at Peking, Sir John Jordan, addressed a formal Note to the Chinese Government in which His Majesty's Government are said to have stated that they could not acquiesce in the definite incorporation of Tibet in China, or the further despatch of a punitive expedition, or the continued use of India as a highway to Tibet. The recognition of the Chinese Republic by His Majesty's Government must be withheld until they received satisfaction on these points, and until some new Agreement had been arrived at. I could give the noble Viscount the reference, if he desires. To that Note the Chinese Government—this information, again, comes from Peking—are alleged to have replied in December, 1912, and the terms of their reply are said to have been these: that they defended their action and declined to see that there was any occasion for a new Agreement. I think the noble Viscount Neill agree, if these communications have passed, that we may reasonably ask to see these documents and to he made acquainted with what has been passing on this very important matter.
What is the present position at Lhassa? I really would like sonic information upon the point. Is the Dalai Lama in power at Lhassa? Is he back in the Potala? Is the Chinese Resident there? Are there any Chinese soldiers in the place? Is Chinese sovereignty existing in any form? Is there to be a discussion between Chinese and British representatives upon the matter? and is there to be a new Agreement? I think those are fair questions to ask.
There is one more act, and one more act alone, in the drama about which I want to ask a word. It may be remembered that in the course of the Chinese Revolution Mongolia declared its independence of China, and the Russians took advantage of this movement to make a Treaty with Mongolia and to declare a protectorate over her. The terms of that protectorate are contained in a Paper which has been presented to Parliament. I have no idea whether any communication has been made to His Majesty's Government on the matter, whether they acquiesced in or accepted the arrangement, or what part they took. But, anyhow, there it is, and we may look upon Mongolia as having been practically lopped off from China, and as having passed under the protection Of Russia.

1427
Now comes the point to which I would respectfully ask the attention of the noble Viscount. It is alleged that simultaneously with these proceedings between Russia and Mongolia negotiations have been going on between Tibet and Mongolia. which are said to have culminated in a Treaty, dated January, 1913, between the two countries. The agent who was instrumental in negotiating this Treaty is said to have been the well-known Dordjieff, who was the stormy petrel of Tibet in politics, as we all remember, some years ago. Dordjieff has been to St. Petersburg and has addressed a public meeting there on the subject of Russian interest in, and Russian connections with, Tibet; and he has also visited the Russian Foreign Office. The questions which I desire to address to the noble Viscount arise out of a statement which, if true—and for all I know it may be quite untrue—is a rather serious one, contained in the well-known Russian paper, the Novoe Vremya. I have not got the actual date of it, but the statement runs—
"Tibet has always looked upon Russia as a powerful friend. The spiritual connection between Russia and Tibet has always been strong. The Russo-Mongolian Treaty of November 4, 1912, formed a practical basis for a rapprochement between Russia and Tibet, and the latter country in its turn concluded a treaty with Mongolia on January 11—
That is the treaty I alluded to—
"Russia has thus already become connected with Tibet through Mongolia. With the help of Dordjieff, the harmony of Anglo-Russian interests in Tibet may be established. Russia must achieve that. Not only our Buryats, but the whole of Mongolia is spiritually connected with Tibet. United by religion and customs, and now by an official Treaty as well, Mongolia and Tibet have become one. In future Russia may extend her industrial interest to Tibet. Our bank at Urga could operate in Tibet as well; Tibet will willingly take our credit. notes. There is no doubt that next to the Mongolian question, which our diplomacy has not yet settled, the course of events in the Far East gives prominence to the question of Tibet, which is closely connected with the former question."
In that statement, which may be true or entirely untrue, there is a definite assertion that a Treaty was concluded between Tibet and Mongolia, and, further, the inference is drawn from it that, by virtue of this Treaty, Russia will be drawn to extend her influence over Tibet. I say, frankly, I do not believe it. I cannot believe that Russia would be a party to any arrangement of that description, which would be so inconsistent with the terms to which she has set her hand with regard to Tibet in the
1428
Anglo-Russian Convention. My reason for putting the question and reading the extract is to enable the noble Viscount, if he can do so, to deny what I hope to be an entire untruth.
Now, I have covered a very wide area, and I apologise to your Lordships for the length of time it has taken me to do so. You may be quite certain that in return I shall spare you the penalty of a peroration. My object in these remarks has been to place before your Lordships the facts of the case involving British relations of the most important character over a large portion of the Asiatic continent; secondly, to invite information and an expression of opinion on many of these points from His Majesty's Government; and, thirdly, to ask them, over all this great area, and more particularly with regard to Persia, to recognise facts as they are, and, instead of expecting the facts to be modified to suit their policy, to adjust their policy so as to meet the unquestionable facts of the case. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to Affairs in Persia and in Tibet.— (Earl Curzon of Kadleston.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, the noble Earl has undoubtedly taken a very wide sweep with his net. One consequence of that is that I am afraid the multitude of topics has been so large that my answers cannot pretend to be anything like exhaustive, and the noble Earl will not, perhaps, expect them to be so. I should like to begin with a word upon the Anglo-Russian Convention. On previous occasions the noble Earl has opposed that Convention, or, at all events, criticised it very severely. Although he insists that the state of things is worse since the Convention, the noble Earl, as he has said before, does not at all mean to intimate that it is in consequence of the Convention. I do not know whether he still holds that view or not, but he talks about hearing the facts and facing the facts. I think that a careful examination of the state of things in Persia before the Convention will show that it is not, bad as it is, materially worse than it was before that Convention and I will say this, further, that while some critics here con-

1429
demn the Convention on the ground that it was not regardful enough of British interests, a similar school in Russia maintains that it has been unfair to Russian interests and disadvantageous to the power and influence of Russia. You will always find remarks of that kind made. There is also a school in England, with which the noble Earl certainly has no affinity, who insist that the right way of dealing with Persia is to leave it alone—that Russian influence and British influence alike should vanish bag and baggage, and that Persia should be left to work out her own constitutional and social development by her own devices. Nobody who has given any responsible attention to the materials that there are in Persia—the social conditions for building a great fabric of Persian freedom and self-government—nobody who has any practical acquaintance with the matter can suppose that such a thing is possible. If any member of that school, of which I want to speak without disrespect, thinks that the materials and conditions that exist in Persia are not unfit to build this fabric upon, I would advise him to turn to Mr. Shuster's book called "The Strangling of Persia," and he will find there evidence enough of the insuperable difficulties, as we think, that any statesmen or rulers will have to meet in building up a constitutional fabric under those conditions.
I will come in a moment or two to the noble Earl's remedial suggestions, but before coming to them and before saying a word or two about his catalogue of the evil doings in Persia at this moment, I would ask the noble Earl and your Lordships to consider what is the policy which I venture to say is as much the policy of noble Lords opposite as it is of His Majesty's present Government. I will venture to sketch what I call the common policy, which I do not believe any Government present or to come would depart from, in seven propositions, enumerating what I conceive to be the conditions and terms of any British policy in Persia. First, maintaining the spirit and the letter of the Anglo-Russian Convention; second, maintaining the independence of Persia and the avoidance of partition or any approach to partition, economical, administrative, geographical, political; third, while faithful to the stability of our present Alliance and to our European engagements we are faithful also in an equal degree to the good of
1430
Persia; fourth, to uphold some form of constitutional Government; fifth, to lose no chance of easing the distracted situation in which the Persian Government now is, by counsel, attention, and such assistance as we may from time to time consider it expedient to give; sixth, to enable Persia by money or otherwise to restore order on the southern roads to which the noble Earl has naturally called serious attention; seventh—I think this is the language of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne—to avoid entangling ourselves in a policy of adventure in Southern Persia. I am inclined to add an eighth proposition—namely, that we must beware of being forced into a position which would offend the opinion and the sentiment of Mahomedans in India. The noble Earl will need no argumentation upon that point. At this moment there is among Mahomedans all over the world, not excepting India, a feeling of soreness at the ill-fate which is befalling Mahomedan communities, and it might eventually become dangerous if that feeling in India were still farther strengthened and made more alive by any transactions of an unfriendly kind, or which they might take as unfriendly, in the reconstitution of Persia, because, although no open sedition might probably occur, yet by unfriendly conduct in policy you would be silently diminishing the capital of good will and loyalty that now happily exists among Indian Mahomedans.
The noble Marquess put the case quite truly, I think, at the beginning of this year—I think a little more fairly, if I may say so, than the noble Earl. The noble Marquess said—
"In all Persian policy we are confronted by conflicting directions of thought and action and by different sets of considerations."
There is the whole of the ease. If you look at Persia in one way the story told by the noble Earl may, of course, seem very disgraceful. But if you look at the other set of considerations you will find that the first set on which the noble Earl has so much dwelt is more than balanced by the conflicting set. I will go over as shortly as I can the items of the noble Earl's inquiry and, in some ways, attack. First of all he undoubtedly exaggerated the condition of trade in Persia. He said—I think he almost used these words—that trade had collapsed; I think he said it was dead. That, my Lords, is not the case.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The words I used were that Persian authority had collapsed, and that in many parts of the country Persian trade was at a standstill. My words were quoted from the Blue-book.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Very well—that Persian trade is at a standstill. It is a great mistake, according to information that we have, to suppose that there is not at this moment a very considerable volume of trade going on with Persia. In the March quarter of this year the report to us was that the condition of the road north of Shiraz was, generally speaking, satisfactory; robberies were reported, but they were few in number and unimportant in substance. The May report from Shiraz is to this effect: His Majesty's Consul reports that there have been no robberies during that month on that road. And to-day from Shiraz we are told that for the first three months of this year—the Persian year beginning in March—the southern Customs receipts exceeded those of the same period in 1912 by nearly £10,000. That is not a very great amount, but it is a sign that trade is not at a standstill, as the noble Earl would have us believe. Then he contrasted the condition of the southern roads with the roads in that zone where there is a large Russian military force; and just as he painted in too dark colours the condition of the trade in our zone and in the neutral zone for British merchandise, so he has painted in too favourable colours the condition of things in the Russian zone, because order is by no means preserved, in spite of the presence of this great force, over the whole of Northern Persia.
Then the noble Earl referred to the despatch of the Central India Horse to Shiraz, and he shares the extreme satisfaction with which we heard that after an extremely trying period of service those troops had returned to India. The noble Earl asked why they were ever sent. I am not prepared to tell him in detail why they were sent. He must take it, I am afraid, that we considered it was due to the requirements of the day, and that the moment we were of opinion that the withdrawal was prudent this force returned to India. It may interest the House to take this further figure. There is a force at Bushire of some 500 of the 2nd Rajputs. They are the only British force now in Persia. The reason for that particular force is the disturbed state of Tangistan.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I think there are some Indian troops at Jask.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: A small part of the same force. But, speaking from recollection, I think that half the force that was there was moved on to Bushire.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: And are included in the 500.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes; they are all included in the 500.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Now about the incident of the murder of Captain Eckford. It was deplorable, as one need not say, but it does not seem that it was a murder committed upon a British officer qua British officer. That does not in the least, of course, extenuate the guilt of it, but it is worth remembering as a political fact that it was not against a British officer as such that they were shooting. We must agree with the noble Earl that this does not make the demand for redress at all superfluous, and the Persian Government—the passages were read by the noble Earl from Sir Edward Grey's Despatch—were addressed on the subject at once, and they have committed themselves, so far as they can, to the discovers of the murderers and their summary punishment after discovery. This, my Lords, is worth remembering, that success depends upon the development of the force of gendarmerie under the Swedish officers, and I was glad to hear from the noble Earl that he approved of the conduct of the Government in recognising that it is more than doubtful whether we should have been nearer success if we had been in great haste to take the business out of the hands of the Persian Government. As the noble Earl approves of that, I do not think I need say more on that point. It is the fact—and I do not believe that the noble Earl has any material to contradict it—that the condition of Fars, the province we are concerned with, has not deteriorated, The information that we have is as follows. Colonel Hjalmarson, the able and competent Swedish commander, has sent two detachments of about 450 men each to Shiraz, and he has himself made a tour up from Bushire to Baghdad, and thence from Kermanshah to Teheran, and during this circuit—this is a reason for our being hopeful as to the utility of this force—he must have acquired

1433
a very considerable insight into the present requirements of the situation and a considerable grip over it. During the summer, I understand, we are not to expect any great manifestation on the part of Colonel Hjalmarson and his force, but as the autumn goes on it is expected that his work will be effective.
I should like to say here, upon the point of order and government in Persia—the noble Earl did not ask me anything upon that, but the House may be interested to know—that the Regent has seen the British Foreign Secretary in London and at St. Petersburg he saw M. Sazonoff. He afterwards expressed satisfaction with those interviews. He is now in Paris, and next month will proceed to Teheran, where on his arrival he will consult his Ministers upon a point which was mentioned by the noble Earl in a quotation—he will consult his Ministers as to the expediency and propriety of summoning the Mejliss. He thinks it will be premature—reasonably so—of him to form any decision as to the summoning of the Mejliss until he has consulted the Ministers who are there. May I add this, that he will find when he gets back to Teheran a Cabinet composed of more practical, clear-sighted, and clean-handed Ministers than have been in power before. So on that side things are not unpromising.
Then the noble Earl talked about troops and forces. What was his recommendation? Of course, we listened to it with great attention, but I declare I thought it a very remarkable suggestion which the noble Earl made. Two points struck me as remarkable. He began by commenting on the desirableness of maintaining our understanding in the Treaty regarding the independence of Persia. But now his suggestion is that we should send British officers out there. That is one of his cardinal remedies—that we should send British officers to take command of Persian forces. I am not sure whether he meant that we should send any military force of our own as well.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Oh, no. I must apologise if I was not quite clear. My proposal was not remarkable at all. It was the proposal of His Majesty's Government made three years ago which I revived and repeated to them to-night. My case was this. As Persia cannot subsist
1434
as a Government unless she restores order, and as she cannot restore order without a military force in addition to gendarmerie, however well they may work, we should encourage her to create and maintain an armed force, and for that purpose European officers will be necessary. I drew attention to the fact that probably the most competent officers to be found anywhere for the purpose are the British officers of the Indian Army.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: It is quite true that three years ago we did take in view as a possibility the sending of officers from India to help the Persians, but further reflexion showed a considerable number of drawbacks to that. One is this: Where are you going to send them? First of all, it would weaken the sense of responsibility in the Persian Government, which you particularly desire to strengthen. There is another point, which I think the noble Earl overlooked. This military force, or force commanded by British officers, would have to operate not only in our own zone but in the neutral zone, and perhaps still further North. I suppose everybody agrees that our desire is to keep on good terms with the great Power whom I may call our partner in the government of Persia. Could they be expected to look with pleasure on our sending officers there any more than we should look with pleasure on their doing the same thing?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I did not contemplate anything of the sort. I never dreamt for a moment that British officers should be employed in the Russian sphere. It would be most unwise to do so. But the Russians at the present moment have a number of their own officers in command of Cossacks in the Russian sphere. We do not object to their doing that at all, and why should they object to the employment of British officers in the British sphere, or to British officers any more than Swedish officers in the neutral sphere?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I do not know whether there are Persian Cossacks with Russian officers in the neutral zone or not. I doubt it. But the proposal of the noble Earl is that we should send British officers into the neutral zone, and there are obvious objections to that, as I think the noble Earl will himself see.

1435
Then the noble Earl put a question to me as to the railroads. So far as the Mohammerah-Khoramabad concession is concerned, the Government have been approached by a British syndicate. We supported their application to the Persian Government, and they have got, as I think the noble Earl knows, an option for two years. They have despatched surveyors for a preliminary survey and other works will be proceeded with the next cool season. The noble Earl put two points to me. He asked, Who will construct this line after the surveys are completed, and who will find the money? I suppose, as it is the British syndicate that is executing the surveys, that it is they who will construct the line. That seems to follow naturally, and it is understood as a matter of fact that they will construct the line and find the money.
Then the noble Earl referred to the British and Russian Governments in connection with a much huger operation than the Mohammerah and Khoramabad line—namely, in connection with the line he described from Baku. The Russian Government are still discussing the question of this Trans-Persian railway- with us, and to put it in a sentence they are discussing it in a perfectly amicable spirit. But the noble Earl referred to India, and here is one point which I think I am free to mention. The Russians would like to go to Kerman with their line. To that from the Indian point of view there is a very strong objection of the kind which the noble Earl himself indicated. But we have now expressed our willingness to apply at Teheran for leave for the construction of a railway from the northwest to the south-east of Persia, that is from Baku, or from that neighbourhood, to Teheran and from Teheran to some point not yet fixed. At present there is no thought of, or at all events no settled desire for, a line beyond Teheran. What ultimate prolongation may take place is to be settled later on. The noble Earl did not ask about the condition of the neutral zone. I thought he might. There are proposals in the air for abolishing the neutral zone and leaving Russia and Great Britain conterminous in their spheres. All we can say upon that is that the two Governments, Russia and ourselves, are working in complete accord, and no change whatever of the status of the neutral zone is under discussion.
1436
On the subject of finance, the noble Earl spoke with gravity. He fell, if he will allow me to say so, into an error there. The two Governments have advanced £400,000 for general purposes, not earmarked for particular objects, but for salaries and the other ordinary expenses of the machinery of a working Government. Then in addition to that His Majesty's Government, including the Government of India, have advanced £100,000 earmarked for the gendarmerie in the province of Fars. This is where the noble Earl certainly fell into an error. He seems to think there is a second sum of £400,000. That, I am informed, is not in the least the case.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No; the sum to which the noble Viscount is referring is, of course, the loan now in contemplation or already given, and I correctly described it. But I was alluding to an earlier loan mentioned in the debates a year ago as having already been given, which is quite distinct from this. This is not the first contribution that has been made.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: During the last two years there has been nothing beyond the old £400,000, and there is nothing in contemplation.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: There have been two sums of £400,000.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: No; it appears to be all the same £400,000, as I think the noble Earl will find if he looks at the Blue-book.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: There was £400,000 two years ago, and this is a second sum of £400,000. That is my point.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Now I turn to Tibet. The Tibetan story is a very long one, and the noble Earl has told a portion of it. I need not go over the details again. Early in 1912 there was a definite forward movement of the Chinese followed by a stubborn resistance by Tibet. The Tibetans were not quite unanimous, but, speaking generally, Tibet resisted, and for a long time there was fighting every day and universal turmoil and disorder. Both the Chinese and the Tibetans made appeals to the Government of India to

1437
mediate. The Government of India, quite properly, rejected those appeals on the ground that we were pledged to neutrality. The Chinese proceeded further to advance into what was indisputably Tibetan territory, and the result of all this continued fighting, the failure of decisive success on either side, was a deadlock. But let me point out one very remarkable indication of the spirit of the Chinese. Actually on the 12th of April last year the President of the new Chinese Republic issued an order to his officers in Tibet saying that Tibetan matters come now within the sphere of Chinese internal administration, and that Tibet is to be regarded as on an equal footing with other provinces of China. This, of course, is boldly saying that Tibet was to be treated as a Chinese province.
A very vigorous protest was made at Peking against this, end it is pleasant to know that the Chinese Government on the 30th of last month revoked this rather preposterous demand and issued a proclamation to the generalissimo in the neighbourhood of Yunan that it has been agreed with the British Government to appoint negotiators for the settlement of Tibetan affairs and that all troops stationed along the frontiers must strictly adhere to their present; positions and not advance pending a definite decision. That so far is a complete withdrawal from what was a complete and rather preposterous advance. The noble Earl has told the House of the communication made by us to the Chinese Government on August 17, and that is in truth the charter. It expresses our views, that China is to have no active intervention in internal administration in Tibet. We demurred to the proceedings of the last two years on the part of the Chinese officers; we especially demurred to that order which has now been withdrawn. We did not dispute the old right of the Chinese to have an officer, an Amban, at Lhassa, with a very small escort, but we could not endure the presence of any large or unlimited number of troops. The House will be glad to know that there is going to be a conference under our auspices, so to say. The Chinese accept in principle those terms of. August 17 that I have just read to the House, but still there are many points open between them and the Tibetans, and our motive for coming forward is that the last thing we desire is to intervene in the internal affairs of Tibet. Our political interest in that quarter is
1438
confined to the maintenance of friendly relations with a neighbouring State, and peace and security along the Indian frontier from Cashmere to Burma. These are important interests, and we cannot consent that they should be endangered. In this conference China and Tibet will be, so to call them, the protagonists. Unless something arises we shall be the honest broker, but an honest broker who will keep his eye open with regard to those interests that I have just described to your Lordships. I want to be quite clear with regard to this. We shall not only be, as we are in the first instance, the honest broker, but it is to be a tripartite contract, and we shall be parties both to the negotiations as they proceed and to the convention which we hope will be the result of those negotiations. For a moment there is a small difficulty. The Chinese are raising a point as to the status of the delegates who are sent to this conference, but any difficulty of that kind will be got over. It may be interesting to add that the Russian Government have been fully apprised of our action and our intentions in all these transactions, and have received that information with entire goodwill and assent.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Where will the conference be held?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The conference will be held at Simla, and it is hoped that it will meet in about three weeks. The noble Earl, not in the least unreasonably, has asked for Papers. It is quite true, as he said, that it is a long time since Tibetan Papers appeared, but the present moment, I think he will see, would not be an advantageous moment for the production of Papers. If they contained all that has happened during the last three years, it might cast a shadow upon the conference, and in any case it is clear that the transactions will not be complete until the conference has been held and come to some conclusion. I think I have now answered all the points raised by the noble Earl.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: There is the Baghdad railway.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The noble Earl gave a perfectly correct account of the Baghdad and Basra transaction. The agreement between Great Britain and Turkey is not quite complete, by the way.

1439
An agreement may be arrived at, the central point of which is that the Baghdad railway shall not proceed beyond Basra. Beyond Basra an agreement with His Majesty's Government will be necessary. His Majesty's Government contemplate that Basra shall be the terminus. His Majesty's Government have waived any question of participation in the branch from Baghdad to Basra on the understanding that the railway shall not proceed further than Basra. The question of having two British directors on the board is not judged quite amiably enough by the noble Earl, because they will, of course, be in such a minority that they will not be able to control the administration. But they are to be there in order to keep His Majesty's Government informed of any action as to rates, tolls, and so forth, and then, if His Majesty's Government consider that the adjustment of rates is unfair to us, they will, of course, then proceed by ordinary diplomatic means. As to Koweit, this, of course, is a very old story. As the noble Earl truly said, the condition of matters in respect of Koweit is an extraordinary illustration of the state of things in the East generally, and in the Persian Gulf and its little islands particularly. The arrangement is that Turkey shall not come beyond a certain point which is named, but I am afraid I have not got it. With regard to Koweit, His Majesty's Government are to recognise the suzerainty of Turkey, and, on the other hand, Turkey will agree that the autonomy of the Sheikh should exist in the future as in the past, complete and unimpaired. Arrangements between His Majesty's Government and the Sheikh made during the last five or six or eight years are to be recognised and to remain in full force. I think I have now answered all the noble Earl's questions.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend who initiated this discussion is satisfied with the reply he has received. I should imagine not; and I cannot imagine the noble Viscount himself being satisfied with his own statement, so far, at least, as it relates to Persia. The noble Viscount laid down in his speech seven, so to speak, heads or principles of policy, to which we ought to adhere. I need not enumerate the whole of them. The first of them was what he called the "maintenance of the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Convention." Now anybody who has taken the trouble
1440
to read this Blue-book cannot have failed to realise that one of the greatest complaints that we have is that the spirit of the Convention has not been maintained. The second cardinal point of the noble Viscount was that our policy should be directed towards "maintaining the independence of Persia." It ought not to be very difficult to show that the independence of Persia vanished some time ago. The third particular was that we should direct our efforts towards the establishment of constitutional government in Persia. Constitutional government in Persia also vanished some time ago. The noble Viscount says that it is going to be restored because the Regent is going to return to Teheran at some not very distant period. I shall believe in the return of the Regent when I see his arrival at Teheran announced and not before; and in the same spirit. I should decline to believe in the restoration of any so-called representative institutions until that act equally is performed.
In endeavouring to carry out the final and cardinal point—namely, the avoidance of entanglement—I am afraid His Majesty's Government can hardly claim success in that particular direction. In fact, in regard to these seven articles, I should be disposed to think that the only one that has been complied with is the principle that loans and doles should be handed out to the Persian Government when they are in inextricable difficulties. I am not surprised that the statement of the noble Viscount is a somewhat inadequate one, because it so happens that there are very few people in this country who take the smallest interest in Persia or in the so-called "Persian question." The appearance of your Lordships' House is an index of the lack of interest taken in the subject. But, in spite of the undoubted apathy awl apparent ignorance which prevail, there are certain essential facts that we ought not to lose sight of and the first and the most important fact is this, that with every desire to be impartial—and I have not the smallest desire to make a Party attack on the Government—nobody who knows anything whatever about the question can deny that the result, no matter what the noble Viscount says, of the Anglo-Russian Convention has been practically to destroy Persia as an independent nation. I am quite ready to admit that I believe implicitly that when His Majesty's Government

1441
entered into this Convention they entered into it in a perfectly sincere and unselfish spirit. I think everybody will be ready to credit them with those intentions. But they seem to have made the mistake of assuming that the other party to that Agreement would look at the Convention in the same way.
I do not want to say too much about this Agreement, still it cannot be repeated too often what it actually consists of. As my noble friend pointed out, Persia was practically divided into three spheres. The largest and most important sphere was allotted to Russia; a large portion of the country was left as a so-called neutral zone; and we contented ourselves with an infinitesimal portion of territory consisting largely of what the late Lord Salisbury would have termed "light land." The Russians on their side have treated the Convention, not only in a serious, but in a really practical spirit—in so practical a spirit that they have practically turned the whole of the North of Persia into an appanage of the Russian Empire; and, as I have seen with row own eyes, the whole of Northern Persia is really treated at this moment more or less as a Russian colony. All foreign trade has been effectually strangled. The Russian Consuls give their orders to the Persian officials, and the country is not nominally but effectively occupied by a very large force of Russian troops. I should like to point out that whereas the noble Viscount seemed to make an attempt to minimise the numbers of these troops, it is almost impossible to obtain real particulars upon the point, and I do not believe that any English official in Persia at this moment can say exactly what the number of these men is. But one thing, at all events, is clear, and that is that there is a very large number and that they continue to conic in, and that there is not the remotest prospect so far as anybody can see of their ever going away.
When I was in Teheran not so very long ago, I came across a young man who seemed to me to afford a very good exemplification of the relative Persian military position. I came across a young gentleman who was a Field-Marshal in the Persian Army and who was a Cossack corporal at the same time—the only instance I have ever come across, so far, of the truth of the adage that every conscript carries a
1442
Field-Marshal's bâton in his knapsack. The position of that youth seemed to me to be typical of the Russian military position in Persia, and I do not think that any greater fiction can be propounded and circulated than to try to make people believe that the Russian occupation of Northern Persia is a temporary one. It is nothing of the kind. It is just as much a permanent occupation as the occupation of Algiers by the French troops is a permanent occupation, or the occupation of Egypt at this moment by British troops.
But to pass to another point. If anybody still believes in the other fiction of an independent Persia, I would ask him to study this Blue-hook which has been commented upon this afternoon. This Bluebook is one of the most pitiful records of helplessness, impecuniosity, and unpunished lawlessness that I have ever come across. It consists largely of miserable appeals to Russia and England to dole out small sums in order to carry out the simplest acts of an ordinary Government. An absent ruler, an empty Treasury, and a suspended Constitution—those are the outstanding features in the present situation. You often hear it said, and I am not prepared to dispute the fact, that the Persians, at all events at present, are not qualified to govern themselves. I confess that when I was in Persia I was not enormously impressed with their statesmanlike capacity, because at the time the Persian edifice appeared to be crumbling to pieces in all directions, they seemed to be intensely agitated by such questions as to whether the future Second Chamber should be composed of the hereditary or the nominated element. Those kind of abstruse questions appeared to carry more interest with them than the actual circumstances of the moment. But whether the Persians are fitted to govern themselves or not, they may, I think, legitimately complain that they have never been given the chance. They had a half chance once when Mr. Shuster was appointed; but with Mr. Shuster's departure vanished any hope of a regenerated Persia on constitutional lines. I should have thought, if His Majesty's Government were ever really—and I presume they were sincere—desirous of forwarding and aiding Persian independence, the last thing they ought to have done was to join in the campaign against Mr. Shuster. I always thought that the excuses which were made in this House and elsewhere for the dismissal

1443
of Mr. Shuster and our action in the matter were singularly inadequate; they amounted to little more than this—that, according to the noble Viscount opposite, Mr. Shuster's manners were not sufficiently good, and he was not a sufficiently tactful person altogether to be placed in that kind of position. I confess it seems to me that a fastidious taste of this kind is not very befitting a Government which professes to be animated by democratic ideals.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I never said anything about Mr. Shuster except that his book would convince people that the existence of material and personages to found a Government upon was not there. I did not condemn Mr. Shuster at all.
LORD NEWTON: I was not referring to what the noble Viscount said to-day. I was referring to what he said a good many months ago, and I think if he will look up his speeches he will find that the gravamen of his charges against Mr. Shuster was that he was an untactful person and unfitted for the position in which he was placed. From all I was able to gather of Mr. Shuster—and I gathered it on the spot—he was an extremely able man, doing his best for the country, and he was got rid of because he was doing too well. The noble Viscount and my noble friend here are not able to speak with the freedom that a person like myself, who holds no office of any kind, can do, and I would say that it is the a b c of Russian foreign policy that Oriental nations on their boundaries should not be permitted to improve themselves if it can be avoided. The plain truth is that Mr. Shuster made himself principally obnoxious because he was doing good, collecting money, and increasing the revenue, and therefore was interfering with the designs of another Power. When Mr. Shuster was got rid of, that seemed to me to mark a decisive step in the rapid fall of this unfortunate country, because when he went, and when the Assembly was dissolved, it was perfectly obvious that the partition of Persia, although it might be denied on paper, was brought very much nearer than it ever had been before.
For my part, I cannot believe that it will be possible for the present state of things to continue. It suits the Russians well enough, but it is perfectly plain that, in spite of
1444
what the noble Viscount has said this afternoon, his Government do not feel satisfied with the present state of things, and if he will refer to the Blue-book he will find Sir Edward Grey complaining, so lately as last September, that what people here felt was that the changes since the Anglo-Russian Convention had been in force had been to our disadvantage. And coming to a still later date I find an even stronger complaint from him. In February of this year he complains, with almost bitter emphasis, that "such inequality of treatment is most regrettable." There is nothing surprising about this. We may as well look facts in the face. If the Russians get more than we do, it is because they are in a position to enforce their claims and we are not. Nothing is simpler than for the Russians to obtain what they want, not only by a display of force, but by using it if necessary. They have an unlimited number of men at their command, and with a minimum of trouble, and, I might almost say, with a minimum of expense, they can apply any pressure that is considered necessary.
Look, on the other hand, at our position. I do not want to say too much about that unfortunate expedition to Shiraz, which was alluded to by my noble friend. But compare that with the Russian proceedings. We send 500 or 600 men, who make their way with difficulty up to this place; they remain there practically prisoners for something like a year or more, and then with some difficulty they are permitted to retire to the coast and are eventually withdrawn. However unpleasant our relative incapacity as compared with Russia may be, it should not blind us to the facts, and the essential fact seems to me to be this, that if some kind of satisfactory government cannot be established before long in what is known as the neutral zone, then it is an absolute matter of certainty that you cannot expect that Russian influence and Russian control will be limited to the portion of Persia where it is now exercised, but that it must eventually spread to those regions where, until recently, British influence has been predominant.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Viscount did me the honour of quoting one or two passages from speeches which I have delivered upon this subject. Some of his quotations I recognised and some I did not, but I have no

1445
doubt he quoted me correctly. I am therefore tempted to add a very few words to this discussion. In the first place, what are we to think of the present situation in Persia? I venture to say that to any ordinary reader the Blue-book convoys a most depressing and most humiliating impression. The noble Viscount made the best of the case. But he will forgive me for saying that his best was a very indifferent best. We find Russia in occupation of Northern Persia; in Southern Persia chaos; and meanwhile the independence of Persia, to which we are committed as a policy, is gradually fading out of existence. The noble Viscount opposite charged my noble friend Lord Curzon with persistently attacking the Anglo-Russian Convention. I think my noble friend has never been opposed, any more than I have been, to a Convention with Russia, so far as the principle is concerned. I, certainly, have always been strongly of opinion that matters of this kind should form the subject of international agreements or understandings. It is impossible for us to go on sparring with our neighbours all over the world. Therefore, in principle, I welcomed the Convention. But I have never concealed my opinion that the Convention was a bad bargain for us, mainly because the sphere allotted to us had no real correspondence with the sphere of our actual interests.
Was it the case that my noble friend behind me was guilty of any exaggeration when he drew a marked contrast between the condition of things in Northern and Southern Persia? If I wanted conclusive evidence upon this point I should look for it in Sir Edward Grey's Despatch to Sir George Buchanan of September 25 last. I think it was the Despatch which my noble friend quoted a moment ago. What does Sir Edward Grey say in that Despatch? He says, to begin with, that he had some conversation with M. Sazonoff on the subject of Persia and pointed out on the map how large the Russian sphere was as compared with the British. I think a good many of us have shared that feeling for a long time past. Then the Despatch goes on—
"I said that what people here felt was that the changes since the Anglo-Russian Convention had been to our disadvantage. Russia was now in military occupation of some portions of Northern Persia; her shadow was thereby thrown right across the North; that inevitably made her influence predominant at Teheran, and ours correspondingly less."
1446
Then he added this most appropriate and significant remark—
"And all this made it more than ever essential that we should be quite sure as regards the rest of Persia, and especially with regard to our commercial interests in the neutral zone."
That seems to me to be an admirable account of the objects to which our diplomacy might well be directed at this moment.
But, my Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount up to a certain point. I do not think it fair to attribute the undoubted predominance of Russia in Persia entirely to the Anglo-Russian Convention. Her predominance there is due to factors that were in existence long before the Convention was thought of. She has a railway system which enables her to go right up to the Persian frontier. She has innumerable opportunities of exercising influence in Northern Persia which are denied to us in other parts of the country. What has happened in Northern Persia is what always happens when a strong and well-organised and wealthy country finds itself cheek by jowl with a poor, badly organised, and weak country. But, on the other hand, it is undoubtedly the case that the Convention has had very embarrassing results for us, particularly in regard to the condition of things within the neutral zone. We find ourselves continually up against the neutral zone at moments when it is most desirable that we should not be hampered in this manner. Take the question of railway construction. We find that we cannot interest ourselves in lines of railway, perfectly legitimate and most necessary for the development of the country, because they happen to fall within the neutral zone; and when my noble friend suggested that we might do in the case of Persia what we have done in other parts of the world, with very good results—that is, to lend British officers to organise a local force—the noble Viscount says that is a course which presents insuperable difficulties, because we are dealing with the neutral zone. Those are both illustrations of the way in which the existence of the neutral zone hampers us at every turn.
I do not suggest for one moment that we should endeavour to countervail the activity of Russia in Northern Persia by a corresponding activity in Southern Persia.

1447
None of us like to have 17,000 British troops locked up in Southern Persia, or that we should spend our money, or, for that matter, the money of India, in a prodigal fashion in those regions. But the present situation has really become intolerable. Look at all the ultimatums we have sent which have passed unheeded. Look at the futile expedition to Shiraz, ending in the death of a British officer. And all the time we are really paying the salaries of Persian officers and Persian gendarmerie out of British or Indian funds. The noble Viscount gave us a sketch of the objects to winch our policy should in his opinion be directed. So far as I was able to follow him, I think I agree with every one of the propositions which he enumerated. But I venture to suggest to him that a policy based on those lines is just as inconsistent with a policy of indifference or retirement as it is with a policy for the partition of Persia, which I for one would greatly regret to see take place.
The difficulty of the problem arises from this, that we have really to reconcile two conflicting sets of considerations. We desire to maintain the integrity and independence of Persia on the one hand, and, on the other, we desire to uphold the Anglo-Russian Convention, which involves a dual tutelage over Persia by the two Powers, a tutelage which, in fact, is hardly consistent with the independence of the Persian Government. I know how easy it is to criticise and how difficult it is to make suggestions, but I would venture to hope that so far as the neutral zone is concerned, we shall look the facts a little more courageously in the face than we have hitherto done. We are assuming responsibilities in the country, and it seems to me that we do not quite sufficiently recognise that the exercise of those responsibilities involves the assertion of certain rights. I still hold the opinion that has been attributed to me, that nothing could be worse in any part of Persia than that we should embark on what I once called a policy of adventure, but there is something quite as bad, and that is a policy of drift, and I am afraid that it is in a policy of that kind that we shall involve ourselves if we are not careful. I understand the noble Viscount to say that proposals had been in the air for getting rid of the neutral zone, but that those had been ruled out of order by those most concerned.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Originally it was quoted by the noble Earl. Reference was made to our sending Indian officers, and I observed that further consideration had put an end to that project.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That was not quite what I meant, but I will not press the point if I did not understand the noble Viscount correctly. Then as to this question of doles, this Blue-book seems to me to contain the annals of an apparently interminable series of doles. We were told just now by the noble Marquess that we were under a misapprehension, and that there was only one sum, I think he said, of £400,000 to be advanced jointly by the Russian and British Governments.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I will explain in a moment how that is.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will tell the noble Marquess in what way I am puzzled. The last Paper in this Bluebook contains an application to the Treasury in respect of an advance of £200,000 by the British Government, and £200,000 by the Government of Russia. Surely that is not the first advance of the kind which has taken place.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: No, it is not.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That is what my noble friend behind me meant. Our point was that you really could not carry on this policy of small advances—what he very properly called "doles"—to an indefinite extent.
I am bound to say that of all the proposals for setting Persia on her legs again, the most promising seems to me to be the construction of commercial railways, which are more likely to bring civilisation and order in their train than any other change or reform we can contemplate, and I do not in the least grudge Russia her commercial railways in North Persia on this condition, that activity in North Persia should be balanced by similar activity in the construction of commercial railways in Southern Persia. There are three railway projects mentioned in the Blue-book. There is the

1449
line from Mohammerah to Khoramabad, and a line from Khoramabad to Ispahan, and the line from Bundar Abbas to Kerman. It is a little remarkable that those two latter lines are at once ruled out, on the ground that we cannot claim the right to give them any encouragement because they fall within the neutral zone.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Not the line from Bundar Abbas.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No; this would not apply to a railway from Bandar Abbas to Kerman; but the principle is laid down that if the line falls within the neutral zone it becomes a question between the two Powers. With regard to the Mohammerah-Khoramabad railway, I should like one word of explanation. There appears to have been most improper procrastination with regard to this line on the part of the Persian Government, a procrastination which stands out in relief against the action of the same Government in dealing with the Julfa line, the Russian line; the Russian Government intimated with perfect frankness that the Persian Government need expect no help from them until the Julfa line was granted. I think the noble Viscount told us that an option had been obtained for the Mohammerah-Khoramabad line.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: For two years.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The last trace I can find of the Mohammerah line in the Blue-book is a strong injunction to the Minister that he was to press the Persian Government for all he was worth, and a reply was received to the effect that the Persian Government was still procrastinating.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: There was an option for two years.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That must have been obtained since the Blue-book was closed.
I will only say a single word with regard to the larger question of lines which are not commercial lines but political or strategical lines. As to them I think we want a little more information. The
1450
Trans-Persian line, of course, very seriously affects the question of Indian defence, and many of us would have been glad if such a line could have been avoided, and if India could have remained with her present desert frontier on the side of Persia. But I have always recognised that one cannot expect considerations of that kind to prevail for an indefinite time, and that where a great international line is really required it is impossible for any Power, merely on the ground that such, a line does not suit its political convenience, to oppose its construction. On the other hand, it does seem to me to be only reasonable that in such a case the Power most interested should insist upon conditions, in this case conditions which would render the construction of the line strategically innocuous and as advantageous commercially as possible.
When this question was discussed here on a former occasion the noble Viscount told us that we had given no support to the project beyond refusing to veto the appointment of the Société d'Etudes, He said that the whole scheme was inchoate and immature, and that the encouragement which we were supposed to have given to it was imaginary. And he added that we should be free to deal with the report of the Société d'Etudes, and that we should have our say as to questions of gauge, alignment, management, representation on the board, branch lines, and the treatment of British trade. Well, my Lords, I think it is clear from what fell from the noble Viscount just now that we have advanced a good deal beyond the position which he then laid down. We rather understood from him that we were now definitely committed to agree to the construction of the line not only as far as Teheran, but beyond Teheran, subject only to the consideration of the point which it would eventually reach. If I am wrong I hope the noble Marquess will correct me, And I should also like particularly to know whether the pledge that the whole matter would come before the consideration of Parliament is a pledge which still holds good. That is all I have to say about the Trans-Persian railway. The only other question which I will ask is a question with regard to the Baghdad railway. We should like to know whether we are to understand that under the arrangement which is now in contemplation the construction of the section between Baghdad and Busra

1451
will revert to the German company. That is a point which I do not think was made quite clear to us just now by the noble Viscount.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Before the noble Marquess, the Leader of the, House, replies would be allow me, to save my speaking again later, to ask him to answer one or two questions which I put to the noble Viscount, and which, no doubt in my flood of interrogations, the noble Viscount omitted to notice. One was as to the alleged Treaty between Mongolia and Tibet and its possible effect upon the relations between ourselves and Russia in Tibet. The other point was whether the agreement between ourselves and the Turks with regard to the Tigris Valley and the Persian Gulf included any withdrawal of the Turkish pretensions to suzerainty in the districts of El Katr and Bahrein which has been a source of trouble in the past. The third point is whether the noble Marquess can give us any information as to the Commission which is to be responsible for the navigation of the river. I asked whether it was to be a Turko-British commission or a commission on which foreigners would be represented, and could be tell us what would be the nature of its powers.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am anxious not to detain the House at any length, so I will merely reply to the few points raised in the debate. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Newton, spoke of the independence of Persia having altogether disappeared; and the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, although I do not think he went so far as that, spoke of it, as becoming more and more compromised as time goes on. But I cannot help asking Lord Newton, who, I think, ascribes most of the misfortunes of Persia, or at any rate a great many of them, to the Anglo-Russian Convention, where he thinks the independence of Persia would have been to-day if no Agreement whatever had been come to between Russia and ourselves? And the noble Lord went on to say that he thought we had missed our chance fatally for the rehabilitation of Persia by not standing up in support of Mr. Shuster when he was working at the Persian finances, and the noble Lord
1452
brought a charge against my noble friend behind me which my noble friend was not altogether prepared to accept. I have no desire to go back to the whole career of Mr. Shuster in Persia, and certainly not to utter any adverse criticism upon that very capable and energetic gentleman, except to say just this, that he almost seems to have placed himself in the position which a European adviser—say a Frenchman or a German—might, who had gone out to look after the financial affairs of one of the Central American Republics, supposing one of them to have required assistance of that kind, and, having arrived there, had entirely ignored the United States as having any interests whatever on the American Continent; and so far as Mr. Shuster ignored existing facts, one of which was the great influence which, as the noble Marquess so truly pointed out, Russia had long possessed in Northern Persia, so far his action tended to make more difficult the task which I quite agree he carried out with the utmost honesty and goodwill.
LORD NEWTON: All that Mr. Sinister did was to endeavour to make people pay their taxes.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I have no doubt he endeavoured to make them pay their taxes, but I think he did some other things beside, The noble Lord (Lord Newton), I am afraid, finds himself in what I can only call the depressing belief that things must almost have come to the point in Southern Persia when there will be a choice simply between the extension of Russian influence into that quarter of the country or of something approaching a British occupation. I venture to hope that things will not come to that pass, because although there is much, as revealed in the Blue-book, which is still depressing and melancholy in the condition of Persia, there are signs of some degree of importance which I think forbid one to despair altogether of the future.
Now on the question of advances, I am afraid that an interruption which I made when the noble Earl opposite was speaking may have misled the House. It is quite true, of course, that there was more than one advance, but at the same time it is not the case that each of those small doles—£10,000, £30,000, and £50,000—which the

1453
noble Earl mentioned as appearing in the Blue-book, represent independent and separate advances. Those figures refer to the two larger amounts, the £200,000, which was advanced half by Russia and half by ourselves, in March, 1912, and the £400,000, also divided between Russia and ourselves—when I say "ourselves" I mean both Great Britain and India—the allusion to which appears almost on the last page of the Blue-book. Those are the two advances that have been made. I quite agree that they do not represent the form of advance to Persia which we should have desired to make. Both Russia and ourselves—and by no means least Russia, because the Russian Government have been insistent on the poiut—have desired to see a large sum, four, five or six millions, as much as it is generally agreed that the resources of Persia can carry, advanced in order that more than a beginning may be made with setting the Government upon a stable footing. I think it would be impossible to say at this moment that there is an immediate prospect of a large advance of that, kind being made. It has been hoped that such an advance might be forthcoming in connection with the railway enterprise of which the noble Marquess opposite spoke towards the conclusion of his observations, and it seems to be not impossible that that channel will be the one which is to provide this large loan.
Now, as regards railways. The noble Marquess spoke of the Trans-Persian railway, and seemed to think that some marked advance had been made since my noble friend behind me last described the position of the project. I do not think it would be accurate to say that any such advance has been made, or that we have entered into any kind of engagement beyond that which was indicated when my noble friend last spoke. It still remains to be seen whether a railway from Russia to India, or to some point on the Persian Gulf, can be regarded as a paying commercial proposition for which money would be found—money, that is to say, raised in the ordinary way from the public, because no regular proposition has been seriously considered of a formal Government guarantee for that line. We still remain in the position of maintaining that the alignment of such a railway, wherever or whenever it is to be made, must be an alignment which has our sanction and approval. All that has
1454
happened is that there is a proposition for the making of a line to Teheran, the whole of which so far lies within the Russian sphere, and the construction of which, therefore, is a matter for the Russian Government. Therefore I think I can disabuse the noble Marquess of any fears which he may entertain that the project has reached a further stage in any sense dangerous to us, or involving any admissions or concessions on our part of which the noble Marquess was not a ware. We are, in fact, no more committed than we were to anything which could be described as a Trans-Persian railway. My noble friend behind me explained what the position was with regard to the Mohammerah-Khoramabad railway, and it is not necessary for me to say more upon that point.
As regards the railway from Bagdad to Basra h, I understand that the line will be constructed by what the noble Marquess describes as the German company, by which the previous sections of the line have been constructed. The noble Earl seemed to think that on our part it was a matter of all give and no take, and that the promoters of the Bagdad railway had in all respects got the best of us in continuing the line thus. But the noble Earl must remember that the two points which caused us to look with equanimity on the continuance of the line are, in the first place, that it stops at Basrah which, when all is said and done, was not by any means a necessity for it, although the point is an extremely important one for us; and the second is, of course, the appointing on the board of two representatives of this country who will be able to keep the Government informed of any movements towards arrangements in the working of the line which may be prejudicial to British interests.
I thought that the noble Marquess at first somewhat overstated the position as regards our railway interests in the neutral zone, but at a later point in his speech he stated quite correctly what the position is. The first phrase that he used was that we were forbidden to interest ourselves in railways in the neutral zone. That, of course, is not the case, and the noble Marquess afterwards corrected himself. Our limitation, I take it, is that we cannot expect in the neutral zone to have the sole construction of and the sole control over

1455
railway lines, as to the importance of which I entirely agree with the noble Marquess, because I too hold that the best hope for Persia is in the construction of these commercial lines. So far as the benefit to Persia is concerned I state candidly that I would far rather see a series of branch lines made than I would the central line which might ultimately become the spine from which they all emerge; and there is no reason that I can see why the fact that agreement has to be arrived at, and probably a certain proportion of the capital divided up among the different parties concerned, should interfere with the construction of railways in the neutral zone. I am afraid I cannot answer the question which the noble Earl last put about the precise composition of the Shat al Arab commission, but I will ascertain what information is available and communicate with the noble Earl. I am glad to think there is every prospect that a satisfactory agreement will be come to regarding all the points on the Persian Gulf, in addition to Koweit and El Katr, of which the noble Earl spoke. There has been a disposition on the part of Turkey to meet us in a friendly spirit, so far as I know, with regard to all those places on the Gulf.
I think it only remains to answer the question regarding the rather strange figure of M. Dordjieff, and the rumours which were prevalent about an arrangement come to by him between Tibet and Mongolia on behalf of the former. The story as it was told was that M. Dordjieff was sent on a mission from the Dalai Lama to St. Petersburg; that he went by way of Mongolia, and at Urga entered into a Convention on behalf of the Dalai Lama, deeply, of course, compromising Tibet., by which each of the two countries recognised the independence of the, other and guaranteed each other mutual assistance. And then the story went on that M. Dordjieff continued his mission to St. Petersburg. What he actually did we are not in a position to state, but we are categorically informed that he had no kind of mission from the Dalai Lama, and no permission to conduct a mission or to enter into any kind of agreement with Mongolia. That is as much as I can tell the noble Earl.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I will not at this late hour trouble your Lordships with any reply, but my Notice
1456
concludes with a Motion for Papers; and before I withdraw that Motion, which probably the noble Viscount would wish me to do, may I ask a question? I withdraw the request for Papers with regard to Tibet and China. I think the noble Viscount gave good reasons why I should not press for them. Be said a conference was to take place, and that it might throw a cloud over their proceedings if the history of the past was too closely revealed. Then there is the question of Papers about the agreement with Turkey, the agreement about the Baghdad railway, the Persian Gulf and Koweit, and so on. I wonder if the noble Viscount would represent to the Foreign Secretary our feeling that we should be very glad if Papers could be given us dealing with those matters. The third point is with regard to Papers about Persia. We have been a little hampered by the fact that we have been dealing with a Blue-book the latest date in which is February of this year, and the noble Viscount sought to counter me by quoting information which is not at my disposal. I wonder, therefore, if he will represent our feeling that a later Blue-book than this may be forthcoming. Upon one small point I would like to know a little more, and that is about the money. We have never really got to the bottom of these doles yet. There was the old £400,000 given in 1912; there are two sums mentioned in the Blue-book of £10,000 and £15,000 given at a later date; there is the third loan of £400,000 to be divided in equal moieties between the Russian Government and ourselves, of which half of our half is to come from India. Then there is a separate £100,000 to be given, half by India and half by ourselves, to the Fars Gendarmerie. Would it not settle the whole question if the noble Viscount would allow me to put upon the Table a Motion for a Return of the loans made to Persia since, say, the Anglo-Russian Convention? I should think there would be no objection to granting that.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I do not think there will be any objection to promising the noble Earl the facts as to the money. With regard to China and Tibet, the noble Earl agrees with me that there are obvious difficulties in producing Papers now. As to Persia, it is quite true that it is rather disappointing to have no Blue-book of a later date than February, but, as the noble Earl is aware, the Persian Papers are

1457
necessarily rather behind date because we have to communicate with various personages and authorities, including Russia. I will, however, speak to Sir Edward Grey on the matter, and do the best I can.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
Read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 140.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.