Sitting of 20 July 1914

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 for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Weston-super-Mare Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Stourbridge Navigation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Beira Railway Company Bill [Lords],
Skegness Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords],
As amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Hesketh Estate (Flood Defences) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Wesleyan and General Assurance Society Bill [Lords], (by Order),
Oxford and District Tramways Bill (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Great Northern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Second Reading [30th June] further adjourned till To-morrow.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 19) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 23) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Return presented relative thereto [Address 14th July; Mr. Ellis Griffith]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the county palatine of Chester (urban districts of Winsford and Marple), and of the urban district of Bilston, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order, dated 13th July, 1914, made by the Insurance Commissioners under Section 40 of the National Insurance Act, 1913, entitled the County Borough of Southend-on-Sea (Insurance Committee) Amendment Order, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 1st July; Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 364.]
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 1st July; Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson];to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 365.]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 15th July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Adjustment of Married Women's Transfer Value) Regulations, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 366.]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 11th July, 1914, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Essex and Southend Insurance Committees) Regulations, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 367.]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 18th July, 1914, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the
4
National Health Insurance (Special Order Inquiry) Regulations, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 368.]

METEOROLOGICAL COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of Ninth Report of the Meteorological Committee to the Lords. Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, for the year ending 31st March, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 16th July; Mr. Montagu]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 371.]
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5354 and 5355 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION ACT, 1906.
Copy presented of Fiftieth Annual Report on Alkali, Etc., Works by the Chief Inspector, being for 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Regulations for Technical Schools, Schools of Art, and other Forms of Provision of further Education in England and Wales (in force from 1st August, 1914) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Minute of the Board of Education, dated 17th July, 19J4, modifying the Regulations applicable to Schools for Blind, Deaf, Defective, and Epileptic Children, dated 19th July, 1909, as already modified by Minute dated 27th June, 1910 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE OF AUSTRALIA.
Copy presented of Report to the Board of Trade on the Trade of Australia for the year 1913 by His Majesty's Trade Commissioner for Australia (Mr. G. T. Milne) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report No. 801 (Seychelles, Annual Report for 1913) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Albania.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information as to atrocities upon Moslems at Teleper and Klisura imputed to the Epirotes during their march towards the coast?
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information regarding the burning of the town of Tepelini by Epirotes, and of the massacre of all the inhabitants, men, women and children, of the village of Batska; and whether the women of the latter place were first strangled and then cut to pieces?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I will reply to this question and to that of the hon. Member for Wirral (No. 4) together. The accounts of what is taking place in Southern Albania are very distressing, but I have received no realiable details, and such reports as reach me are, of course, from unofficial sources and un-authenticated. I have communicated with the Powers on the subject.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information re garding the situation at Durazzo, and can say whether any material or moral sup port is being afforded by his Majesty's Government to Prince William?
  Mr. ACLAND: Durazzo is still invested by the insurgents, but has been for some time free from active attack. Rear-Admiral Troubridge is present with two of His Majesty's ships, and has orders to co-operate with the foreign men-of-war in providing for the personal security of the Prince, his officials, and all European non-combatants, should occasion arise.
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the admission of the Greek Minister at Durazzo that the Cretan criminals are now in Epirus, he can say
  6
  who was responsible for the release of these prisoners; and if he can make repro sentations to the Hellenic Government to ask them to withdraw these criminals from Albania?
  Mr. ACLANDI have nothing to add to the reply given on the 25th June to a very similar question by the hon. Member for Central Hull.
  Mr. GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Conference in London, of which he acted as chairman, signed an agreement for the establishment of Albania as an autonomous State; and if he, as chairman of the Conference, signed the agreement?
  Mr. ACLAND: The creation of an autonomous Albanian State rests on a resolution adopted at a meeting of the Ambassadors' Conference, over which my right hon. Friend presided. The proceedings of that Conference were not embodied in any formal document, and the occasion to sign an agreement did not, therefore, arise. To avoid misunderstanding, I may add that the Ambassadors' Conference acted simply as a means of keeping the Governments of the countries there represented in close touch with one another, and that their resolutions were simply the records of the points upon which these Governments were in agreement.
  Mr. GRETTON: Am I to understand that there is no agreement as to the status of Albania?
  Mr. ACLAND: There is a written agreement as to the boundaries of Albania.
  Mr. D. MASON: Does that agreement entered into amongst the Powers imply any possibility of the maintenance of law and order?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think my right hon. Friend has lately, in answer to a question, said that His Majesty's Government does not admit any responsibility for the maintenance of law and order in Albania.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Epirote Government of M. Zographos has ever adhered to the agreement of Corfu?
  Mr. ACLAND: The agreement concluded with the International Commission in Albania was accepted by Monsieur Zographos on behalf of the Epirote Provisional Government, but I regret to say that it has since been practically repudiated by other Epirotes.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he will ascertain if the Greek Government pro poses to hold M. Doulis, commander of the Epirote forces, responsible for past massacres of Albanians?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have been informed by the Greek Government that Colonel Doulis has been struck off the list of officers of the Greek Army. He is therefore no longer responsible to them.

  Servia.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Servians are now advancing upon Elbasan?
  Mr. ACLAND: A report has reached me that they have crossed the Albanian frontier, but I have no confirmation of it.

  Persia.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will refer the question of the proposed railway across-Persia to the Government of India for their opinion as to whether a change of gauge, made at the Southern boundary of the Russian sphere in Persia, would better fulfil strategic requirements and at the same time offer greater commercial advantages to Indian trade than are offered by the proposed railway on the Russian gauge right through from the North to the boundary of the British sphere at or near Bundar Abbas on the Persian Gulf in the South?
  Mr. ACLAND: The point as to break of gauge was originally considered with the Government of India, and the decision come to was in accordance with their views. The whole question of the railway continues, as a matter of course, to be considered in consultation with the Government of India in all its bearings.
  Colonel YATE: How long ago is it since the Government of India gave their views regarding the proposed break of gauge on the boundary of the British sphere, and is it not possible that they might like to reconsider it?
  Mr. ACLAND: I cannot charge my memory with the exact date, but presumably, as they were quite definitely consulted, if they had changed their opinion they would have let us know.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if the House will be placed in possession of the views of the Government of India, or is there any way of finding them?
  Mr. ACLAND: I will consult with my right hon. Friend as to that, but presumably the communications between His Majesty's Government and the Government of India on this as on other matters are confidential.
  Sir J. D. REES: The substance perhaps will be given?

  Forest of Dean (Deputy-Surveyor).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is now in a position to state who will be the successor of Mr. V. F. Leese as deputy-surveyor of the Forest of Dean; what are his qualifications for the post; and when he will take up his duties in the district?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Subject to the final adjustments of arrangements with the Government of India for securing the loan of his services, it is proposed to appoint Mr. A. D. Blascheck to succeed Mr. Leese as deputy-surveyor of the Forest of Dean, and director of the proposed Forestry Demonstration Area there. Mr. Blascheck is a Deputy-Conservator of Forests in India with thirteen and a half years' service, and has held a post as instructor at Dehra Dun College. He will take up his duties in the district on 1st October next.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether this Indian gentleman will have the same duties and the same salary as the present deputy-surveyor?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would like to have notice of that, but so far as the duties are concerned the responsibilities will not be less.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will He be able to reduce the price of land for building in the Forest of Dean?

  Housing Acts.
  Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOS-CAWENasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state on what principle it was decided to borrow £3,000,000 for building houses in agricultural districts; and whether he expects to build with this sum sufficient cottages to make good the shortage which both he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated at 125,000 last year?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The estimate of £3,000,000 was necessarily conjectural, for it is impossible to foresee to what extent the building of cottages will be undertaken by authorised societies under the Bill, and to what extent the Board themselves will have to build. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative; and I am not aware that I ever estimated the shortage of cottages at 125,000, but I hope that the sum named in the Bill will be sufficient to enable at any rate a substantial beginning to be made.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that 125,000 cottages were urgently needed, and as this Bill will only provide for about 15,000, when do the Government propose to build the other 110,000?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has had experience of building operations, and he knows perfectly well that we cannot start building 125,000 cottages right off. That does not alter the fact that there is a very great shortage in the country, and we must make a beginning some time.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say last week that £3,000,000 was a maximum amount?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I said that the sum in the Bill would not exceed that, but there is no reason why the amount should not be extended if necessity arises.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the houses to be built by the Government in agricultural districts, under the Housing Bill, are to be let at economic rents; and, if so, whether he can state what is an economic rent; and what he proposes is to take place in districts when the labourers cannot afford to pay an economic rent?
  Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what percentage on the capital outlay he will consider an economic rent for cottages to be built under the provisions of the Housing Bill?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A cottage let by the State at an economic rent will be let at such a rent as will be sufficient to pay interest on the

  10
  capital expended and provide for other regular charges on the cottage. In those districts where the wages of labourers are insufficient to enable them to pay an economic rent, the Government's land proposals will provide means for raising their remuneration to the level of a fair living wage.
  Sir. A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Will the Government's land proposals raise wages in time to enable men to pay economic rents?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope they will do so—certainly the vast majority of them.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Will the Government's proposals guarantee annual interest?
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the rent cover the cost of repairs?
  Mr. RUNCIMANYes; it is certainly meant to provide a fund for repairs.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked whether it is intended by Clause 2 of the Housing Bill to give the Government power to house permanent employés of Government Departments or only men employed temporarily on contract work for the Government; and, if the former, whether the Government propose to build houses for postmen in places where a scarcity now exists?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The object of Clause 2 of the Bill is to provide dwelling accommodation for permanent employés of Government Departments, including postmen, where sufficient accommodation is not already available.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Are we to understand that the Bill will not apply to the temporary navvies who are at Rosyth now, where a great deal of overcrowding has been caused by the action of the Government?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is obviously an Admiralty question, and I believe that the Admiralty representatives have already made a statement with regard to the contractors' employés.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is the Bill, or is it not, to deal with the present difficulties at Rosyth?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have answered the question quite clearly. It is to provide the necessary accommodation for the permanent employés.
  Mr. FORSTER: Then why did the Prime Minister say the other day that it was necessary to pass the Housing Bill in order to deal with the difficulty at Rosyth?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is with the object of dealing with the permanent operations. Many of the men who will be permanently employed at Rosyth will have to be provided for next year.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, under Clause 2 of the Housing Bill, it will be competent for the Commissioners of Woods to erect workmen's dwellings on Crown lands in the Forest of Dean, where there is a serious shortage of such dwellings and where the workpeople are the employés of Government lessees?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Clause 2 of the Housing Bill relates to the Local Government Board and the Commissioners of Works, and does not confer any powers upon the Commissioners of Woods. The latter Commissioners already have power, with the consent of the Treasury, to erect workmen's dwellings on Crown lands, in the Forest of Dean or elsewhere, if they think it desirable to do so, and whether such dwellings are intended for the use of workpeople who are employés of Government lessees or not. I have, as Commissioner of Woods, already offered land in the forest to local authorities on easy terms for building cottages, and am treating with public utility societies in a similar way.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Do the Government intend themselves to put up any cottages in the Forest of Dean or elsewhere?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: We do not propose to do so at the present time. Until we see how many cottages are likely to be erected by local authorities and public utility societies I could not make a statement on the subject.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Do I understand that the Government are not prepared to accept the gifts of land which he said last week they probably would accept?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have had no offers of gifts of land in the Forest of Dean.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: But anywhere?
  Mr. WEIGALLasked what provisions in the Housing Bill would deal with the case of urgent need for ninety-two cottages stated in the Report of a
  12
  Local Government Board inquiry at present to exist in the sixty-nine parishes comprising the Horncastle rural district area, where the highest rent which the economic condition of the agricultural industry will allow is 3s. per week and the lowest cost of a labourer's cottage, with garden, is £200?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Clause 1 of the Bill would appear to be applicable to the district in question; I am not prepared to admit that the economic difficulties suggested by the hon. Gentleman are insuperable.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to take the Housing Bill in the present or in the next Session; and whether they propose to deal with the housing question in the towns and industrial districts or to confine themselves solely to the agricultural districts?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to what I said on Friday last. As regards the second part, the Bill does not deal with urban housing except as may be provided for Government employés under Clause 2. I can make no statement as to the business of next Session.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman not say whether the Government intend to deal with the question of urban housing?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; certainly.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister how it is proposed under the Government Housing Bill, bearing in mind that only £3,000,000 will be available for the provision of cottages by the Government in rural districts and the consequent sporadic and piecemeal treatment of the housing problem, to prevent irresistible political pressure being brought to bear upon the Government to erect cottages in certain districts and neglect others equally deserving of their sympathetic activities?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The Government intend to supply the deficiency wherever it has arisen and is un-provided for, and the sum mentioned in the Bill is intended to enable a beginning to be made. I may add that the Board hope to have the assistance of public utility societies and of local committees,

  13
  such as have already been set up in some counties by the Rural Housing Organisation Society, in the selection of the areas in which cottages are most urgently needed.
  Mr. WEIGALLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the advisability of dividing the Housing Bill into two parts in order that the Clauses affecting the housing of employés at Rosyth may not be hampered in their passage into law by the contentious matter contained in other Clauses?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The Government will be prepared, if necessary, to consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion after the Second Reading of the Bill, but they hope that no such necessity will arise.

  Botanic Society (Regent's Park).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the Botanic Society have for several years sublet a portion of their gardens in Regent's Park for a golf school at a minimum rental of £200 a year; whether this rental has been included in the accounts under receipts for admission to the gardens; whether the tropical medicine garden has recently been rooted up and a number of bushes and trees cut down to provide a new golf ground, and whether these proceedings of the society, which purports to have a botanical object, have been taken with the cognisance and previous approval of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the Royal Botanic Society, until recently, sublet a small portion of their gardens for instruction in golf at a minimum rent of £200 a year, which rent I am informed appears as a separate item in the Society's accounts. That part has now been utilised to make better provision for exhibition of flowers, and the Society have recently formed a new small ground (which they are not subletting) for instruction in golf on what was practically waste ground, though it had at one time been used as a "French garden," and some fifteen years ago had been used for growing hardy medicinal and economic plants (not tropical). The new area for instruction in golf has been turfed, and in laying it out a few shrubs were removed or trimmed, and one tree cut down. The Commissioner of Woods in charge (Mr. Leveson-Gower)
  14
  was not consulted before these small alterations were made, but he sees no reason to object to what has been done.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does this society, although called the Botanic Society, take any interest whatever in the science of botany?
  Mr. GEORGE FABER: On whose initiative were these steps taken?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not say without notice. The Commissioners did not hear of these slight alterations until they were completed.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. STANIERasked what sum of money in the current financial year it is proposed to spend in the payment of salaries, or salaries and expenses, to the advisers as to small holdings?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot add anything at present to the answer which I gave to the hon. Gentleman's question on this subject on the 25th June.
  Mr. STANIERasked how many of the occupants of small holdings at the 31st December, 1913, or at any other period, obtained in Norfolk under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, were agricultural labourers?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: On the 31st December, 1912, the number of small holders, tenants of the county council, in Norfolk was 848, of whom 361 were agricultural labourers. Later figures are not at present available.
  Mr. STANIERasked if it is the intention of the Government to refund or to cause to be refunded to the tenants of small holdings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, the amount of the sinking fund charged in the rents pay able by the tenants; whether £4,074,885 is the sum paid or to be paid for the purchase of small holdings under the Act by county councils in England and Wales up to the 31st December, 1913; and whether this amount is being paid by the small holders in their rents, except in the case of Glamorgan and the West Riding?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the sinking fund on land only, the answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part, I am informed that the answer which I gave to a similar question addressed to me on this

  15
  subject on the 25th June last was incorrect, and that the rents now charged to small holders in the two counties named are sufficient to provide for the payment of the sinking fund. I would take this opportunity of thanking the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to correct my reply.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: How is the right hon. Gentleman going to refund the money paid to the Sinking Fund on the land—through the local authorities or otherwise?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Obviously any financial transactions out of the Small Holdings Account must be done through the local authorities.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman call upon the local authorities to refund the amounts they have received, or is he going to provide further money?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Anything that is done in this way will be provided for out of the Small Holdings Account.

  Agricultural Education Conference.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture when he proposes to convoke the first meeting of the reconstituted Agricultural Education Conference; and why so long a period has been allowed to elapse since its reconstitution before the holding of its first meeting?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have not yet been notified of the election of a representative by the Welsh National Agricultural Society, but otherwise the Conference is complete. I regret to have to say that Mr. Henry Hobhouse has not felt himself able to accept the chairmanship, in consequence of the heavy pressure of his other public work, and while the Conference will still, I am glad to say, have the benefit of his wide knowledge and experience, it is by no means easy to find a suitable successor in the chair who has the time to give to the work. I hope, however, to be able to make a satisfactory announcement on this point shortly, and arrangements will then be made for convening the first meeting of the Conference in the early autumn.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: How much longer have we to wait for the Welshman?

  Crown Estate, Romford.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked in what way the purchase of land at Romford
  16
  on the 8th instant was considered desirable for the improvement of the adjoining Crown estate; and was it done with the object of preventing the building of artisans' houses on the land purchased?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The purchase was effected in order to secure an improved approach to other land belonging to the Crown and so render the latter more available for building. The Commissioner has no knowledge of any proposal to erect artisans' buildings on the land purchased.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked whether the land purchased at Romford on the 8th instant for £750 would be let on building lease for the purpose of erecting artisans' houses; if so, whether a ground rent securing a return of 4 per cent. on the money invested would be accepted; and, if not, what rent is asked?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The purchase has not yet been completed, and the Commissioner is not at present able to decide on the precise future disposition of the land, nor the rent that should be obtained for it.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Crown surveyor differed in the auction room to let it on building lease when he found that those who were inclined to buy it for that purpose were disappointed?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the demand, not for artisans' dwellings, but for artisans' small houses?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that when the purchase is complete the Commissioners will make all necessary inquiries.

  Government Offices, Edinburgh.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any sum of money is taken in the Office of Works Estimates for any work in connection with the proposed new Government offices in Edinburgh; and what are the present intentions of the First Commissioner with regard to proceeding with these buildings?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The whole subject is receiving the First Commissioner's consideration.

  Scottish Office of Works.
  Mr. PIRIEasked whether the First Commissioner has consulted with any Scottish Members on the Holmes Report as regards the proposed changes in the Scottish Office of Works; if so, whom; and on what date.
  Mr. BENN: Yes, Sir. The First Commissioner consulted informally with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, who put a question. He was accompanied by the Chairman and Secretary of the Scottish Liberal Members' Committee.
  Mr. PIRIE: Was a decision come to on the part of the Scottish Office of Works or of the English Office of Works to call a meeting?
  Mr. BENN: No such decision was come to at any time.
  Mr. HOGGE: Has the hon. Gentleman proposed a formal conference of Liberal and Unionist Members?
  Mr. PIRIE: And Labour Members?
  Mr. BENN: The Commissioners would be very glad to have the opinion of any Member representing a Scottish constituency.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Are we to understand that Members of one side and not of the other were consulted?
  Mr. BENN: I said that they were consulted informally, and I think properly, on certain matters.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SUBSIDIARY EMPLOYMENTS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in the East, whether he is aware that in many districts the term "potato gatherer" is used to describe those engaged in harvesting the crop and the term "potato-picker" is used to describe those engaged in sorting potatoes at the pie; whether he is aware that both these employments are ordinarily adopted as subsidiary employments only, and not as the principal means of livelihood; and whether, in view of the fact that by Special Order, No. 916, of 1912, persons engaged in harvesting the crop are exempted from insurance if they are not already insured persons, he will advise the National Insurance Commissioners to
    18
    exempt those engaged in sorting potatoes at the pie from insurance if they are not already insured persons?
    Mr. W. BENN: The evidence put before the Commission by the representatives of agricultural interests at the time when the Order referred to was under consideration indicated that persons engaged in harvesting the crop were ordinarily persons who were not at other times employed within the meaning of the Act, but that the work of sorting potatoes at the pie was generally undertaken either by permanent farm hands or by women who engage in the regular series of field employments. As at present advised, therefore, the Commissioners do not consider that employment in sorting potatoes at the pie can properly be regarded as a subsidiary employment only.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in certain parts of the country the facts are precisely the opposite of those he has stated?
    Mr. BENN: Oh, no; I have stated that evidence was secured from persons, competent to speak on behalf of the agricultural interests.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to take steps to ascertain the real facts in other districts so far as they can be obtained?
    Mr. BENN: I imagine that the evidence taken referred to all districts; if the hon. Member has any other evidence perhaps he will lay it before the Commission.

    CHOICE OF MEDICAL ATTENDANT.
    Mr. NIELDasked whether the Insurance Commissioners, or any of the insurance committees acting under their directions, claim to have an arbitrary power to refuse an insured person the choice of medical attendant; if so, is there any appeal, and to whom, from any decision come to; and have any Regulations been made upon the subject of applications by insured persons to make their own arrangements, or any definite directions given as to what circumstances should be taken into account in considering such applications?
    Mr. BENN: Section 15 (3) of the Act of 1911 lays upon insurance committees the duty of deciding in the first instance upon applications from insured persons for permission to make their own arrangements. Regulations have been made in

    19
    pursuance of the Section, and the provisions of Section 67 (2) are applicable to these cases.
    Mr. NIELD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases this permission to make these arrangements is wholly ignored by the Committee?
    Mr. BENN: I have stated that it is within the discretion of the Committee as to whether or not they give permission to persons to make their own arrangements.
    Mr. NIELD: Does the hon. Gentleman know that the policy of these committees, as a whole, openly stated, is to ignore the granting of this permission?
    Mr. BENN: Whether permission is granted or not is a matter within the discretion of the committee.

    MIDDLESEX COMMITTEE.
    Mr. NIELDasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, what the reason is for the Middlesex insurance committee delaying to discharge the claim of Mr. A. W. Leonard, of Ealing, in respect of payments made upwards of fifteen months previously for medical attendance and drugs; why a cheque, which was not forwarded until 4th July, 1914, for a proportionate amount of such payments only, should be dated 6th June, 1914, and why drawn on the insurance committee's petty cash account; whether such amount was not forwarded until after personal communication had been sent to the committee by Mr. Masterman; and, if so, what was the reason for this personal influence being exerted?
    Mr. BENN: For the reasons stated in my previons reply to the hon. Member no calculation of the dividend due, and hence no payment could be made out of the Special Arrangements Fund until all accounts had been received. The case of the person referred to was in no way specially dealt with, the whole of the payments having been made at practically the same time.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, whether the Middlesex insurance committee has yet distributed among the panel doctors any of the surplus funds for 1913; if not, what is the reason of the delay; and, if so, will be say what addition it has made to the fixed remuneration per head of persons treated?
    Mr. BENN: Advances have been made to a total amount in excess of the amounts due in respect of insured persons on doctors' lists only; but the difference between the amounts due on the latter basis and the amount due in respect of the total insured population of the area entitled to treatment by doctors on the panel cannot be ascertained until the completion of the settlement now in progress.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, whether the Middlesex insurance committee have distributed among the panel doctors of their area any sum for tuberculosis treatment; and, if no such distribution has taken place, will he say what is the cause of the delay?
    Mr. BENN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the second does not, therefore, arise.

    MATERNITY BENEFIT.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, why William Deverill, of Chilmark, in the county of Wilts, a poor man with a wife and thirteen children, formerly a member of the Prudential Approved Society, and now a member of the Wiltshire Working Men's Conservative Benefit Society, has failed, in spite of repeated applications, to obtain maternity benefit on the occasion of the birth of his last child from either of the above societies; and whether the Insurance Commissioners will take steps to prevent this insured person from losing the maternity benefit, for the provision of which he has been paying weekly contributions out of his wages, owing to a refusal on the part of each of the above societies to admit its liability?
    Mr. BENN: The Commissioners are informed that doubt arose as to which society was responsible for paying the benefit in question, owing to the fact that the insured person on receiving consent to transfer from his first society failed to inform his new society. They understand, however, that benefit has now been paid.
    Mr. KING: Is not this difficulty a reason why this man should not have gone to this Conservative society?
    Mr. BENN: There was a doubt which society ought to pay, and the society which actually did pay was the Prudential.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the hon. Member aware that there are as many Liberals as Conservatives members of this society?

    AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF TAILORS AND TAILORESSES, MANCHESTER.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether he is aware that a special levy of 2s. per member has been made by the Amalgamated Society of Tailors and Tailoresses, Manchester; whether, if members refused to pay this levy, they will suffer any and, if so, what disadvantages; and what steps it is proposed to take to deal with such societies?
    Mr. BENN: The Commissioners are informed that the levy referred to is a levy for the requirements of the trade union, with which they are in no way concerned. No levy has been made by the society in connection with national insurance.

    INSURED SEAMEN IN HOSPITAL.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if, in cases in which insured seamen are taken ill in a British port and ordered by a doctor into hospital, the expenses which the hospital authorities may require the ship owner to guarantee are in any circum stances recoverable from the insurance authorities; if they are not so recoverable, whether the shipowner can be compelled to pay such expenses; and if, in any proposals brought forward for the amendment of Part I. of the National Insurance Act, consideration will be given to the question of at any rate relieving ship owners of any responsibility for expenses incurred in connection with the medical treatment of insured seamen while in British ports?
    Mr. BENN: The liability of a shipowner to provide surgical and medical advice and attendance and maintenance during periods of illness in respect of the seamen employed by him is determined by the Merchant Shipping Acts, and is not affected by the provisions of the National Insurance Acts. I cannot undertake to anticipate the provisions of future legislation with regard to the liabilities of shipowners to their employés.
    Mr. F. HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman think it either fair or reasonable that British shipowners should be called upon to pay premiums for benefits they cannot obtain, and that it was never intended that they should obtain?
    Mr. BENN: There is no evidence to show that any such state of affairs as that referred to really exists.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the suggestion that I have made in my question correct or is it incorrect? If it is correct are the ship-owners to obtain the benefits they have paid for?
    Mr. BENN: The hon. Member, I think, does not apprehend that these men are dealt with under the Merchant Shipping Acts. Questions of that subject ought to be addressed to the Board of Trade.

    NATIONAL HEALTH (PORT OF LONDON CASUAL LABOUR).
    Mr. YEOasked whether the Insurance Commissioners propose to take any steps to explain to waterside labourers the provisions of the proposed National Health (Port of London Casual Labour) Order, 1914?
    Mr. BENN: Yes, Sir. Before the Order comes into operation appropriate steps will be taken to make known its provisions to all persons who will be affected by it.
    Mr. YEOasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether he has consulted any, and, if so, what representative organisations of waterside labourers in the Port of London as to the scheme for the payment of insurance contributions in respect of casual labour in the Port of London; and whether the scheme has been approved by such organisation?
    Mr. BENN: The Insurance Commissioners called a conference last winter of representatives of all the principal trade unions concerned to discuss the scheme. As a result of this conference a small committee of the trade unions was appointed, with whom the commissioners have been in frequent consultation, and from whom they received a number of suggestions, some of which it was found possible to adopt.
    Mr. YEO: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of having someone in the vicinity of the port to give to these men information regarding this Section of the Act?
    Mr. BENN: Oh, yes, Sir; if the special Order is upheld, proper steps will taken to ensure that the provisions are made known to all concerned.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Does the hon. Gentleman say that this scheme has been approved by representatives of the trade unions?
    Mr. BENN: I said that it had been prepared in consultation with the representatives of the principal trade unions.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Has it ever been submitted to them since it was completed, and has it been approved by them?
    Mr. BENN: I do not think it is part of the duty of the Commissioners to submit schemes for approval by outside bodies.

    SCOTTISH INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (REPORT).
    Mr. J. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether he can say when the second Annual Report of the Scottish Insurance Commissioners will be distributed to Scottish Members?
    Mr. BENN: My hon. Friend can obtain the Report referred to on applying at the Vote Office.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I mean the Scottish Report bound by itself?
    Mr. BENN: My hon. Friend can obtain the Report from the Vote Office.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can I get the Scottish Report bound separately, as last year?
    Mr. BENN: No, Sir, the. Scottish Report is not bound separately this year.
    Mr. HOGGE: When is it to be bound separately?
    Mr. BENN: It is issued to Scottish Members as to other Members.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why was it bound separately last year?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of such important questions.

    NATIONAL AMALGAMATED APPROVED SOCIETY.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the agents employed by the National Amalgamated Approved Society, in carrying out the provisions of the National Insurance Act, Part I., cannot get the rules of that society; if he has power to compel
    24
    the production of rules; and can he take some steps to get better conditions of service for a body of workers but little removed from Government servants?
    Mr. BENN: Any member of the society referred to can obtain a copy of the rules at the price of 2d. The nature of the documents or instructions issued by approved societies to their employés, and the conditions of employment, are matters to be settled between the societies and their employés themselves; the Commissioners have no power to interfere in the internal government of societies in the manner suggested.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ARMED MERCHANT VESSELS.
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the case of merchant vessels now armed by the Admiralty, the commanders are officers under the Admiralty; whether the crews are under naval discipline; and, if not, whether any conditions are enforced that a certain proportion of officers and crew of the armed merchantmen should have served in the Navy?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer to all three parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. KINGasked whether, in the case of merchantmen armed for use in warfare, inspections are made and experiments are attempted to see whether the guns mounted on these ships can be safely and properly handled; whether, in the course of their voyages, occasions are found for firing these guns; and whether the results of such gun trials or inspections have given satisfaction?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply to all three parts of the question is in the affirmative, except that no such tests have been made outside Home waters.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there have been any difficulties of vibration because of the firing of the guns on merchantships?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have no information to that effect.

  Elementary Education.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Paul's Parochial School,

  25
  Hampstead is held under a lease from the Provost and College of Eton by which the lessees covenant not to alter or add to the schoolhouse and buildings without the licence of the lessors, and that on 20th July, 1887, Eton College gave such licence to the trustees to erect a parish room on part of the site; whether he is aware that the Board of Education inspectors reported on 4th March, 1914 that none of the rooms are well lighted or ventilated, the difficulties being accentuated by the building of the parish room against a wall which should contain windows, and that the noises in this room disturb the work of the school; whether the Board of Education have decided that there are other substantial defects prejudicial to the efficient conduct of the school; and whether he will represent to the Provost and College of Eton the desirability of withdrawing the licence for the parish room and in other ways making the school suitable and worthy of the estate?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The facts are substantially as stated in the question. The Board have drawn attention to the defects of the school, which are now under the consideration of the local education authority and the managers. I do not think that it would be proper for me to interfere between the landlord and tenant or to make any such representations as are suggested.
  Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Eton, the richest school in the world, is getting its money from the rent of a thoroughly ineffective school for the poor?
  Mr. PEASE: All I have to say at present is that the defects are engaging the attention of the local education authority, and the managers' attention will be drawn to them. At the moment I do not propose to take any further steps.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the President of the Board of Education, whether his attention has been called to a summons heard before the Feltham magistrates on Monday last, when the head mistress of the Woodthorpe Road School, Ashford, was charged with assaulting a thirteen year old girl named Ivy Cooper by severely punishing her with a ruler or pointer three feet in length and heating the child on the hands and legs; whether he is aware that the medical man
  26
  who examined the girl deposed to finding a lump as large as a walnut on the back of the right hand, a livid mark five inches long across the throat, and marks on the left hand, knuckles, and left arm, and across the body down to the thigh; that the accused admitted that she had caned a boy from the workhouse with a sugar cane with knots in it; whether her punishment book recorded twelve corporal punishments on recent dates; what notice will be taken of this case; and how far does the Education Department exercise control over school punishments?
  Mr. PEASE: I gather from reports which have appeared in the Press that when the case was heard the magistrates were unable to agree. I understand that the parents are applying for a fresh summons, and as the case may become the subject of further legal proceedings it would obviously be improper for me to express any opinion on it at the present stage.
  Sir W. BYLES: What about the latter part of the question?
  Mr. PEASE: In regard to how far does the Board of Education exercise control over school punishments?
  Sir W. BYLES: Yes.
  Mr. PEASE: The Board of Education have the power to inspect the punishment book, and they have power in extreme cases to withdraw the teacher's certificate. The dismissal of the teacher is a matter for the local education authority, not for the Board of Education.
  Sir W. BYLES: Do they ever exercise that power?
  Mr. PEASE: The local education authorities have the power to dismiss any of their servants if they think they have given excessive punishment. I am not aware of any precedent in regard to the withdrawal of a teacher's certificate for abuse of powers in connection with corporal punishment. I will look into the matter if the hon. Member desires.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is not this a good case?
  Mr. PEASE: I am not able to express any opinion upon it as it is sub judice.

  Finance Act (Education Grant).
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked for the names of the new participants in the necessitous areas Grant and the amounts which each will receive?
  Mr. PEASE: I am afraid that I shall not be able to give the names of the new participants and the amounts they will each receive for at least three or four months. We have issued a circular to all local education authorities and now await their replies.

  School Inspector (Retirement).
  Mr. F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been called to the case recently reported in which an inspector of the Board of Education in 1908 had his salary increment withheld by the secretary to the Board, although the usual increment certificate had been duly signed by the inspector's superior officer; if the inspector in question was subsequently retired on a small pension; if the secretary gave instructions and, if so, to whom, that the inspector should be informed of the reasons for stopping his advance; if such instructions were carried out; if, early in 1913, five years after the matter first arose, an inquiry was opened into the case; by whom such inquiry was ordered and of whom the Court consisted; if the inspector was given an opportunity of stating his case to the Court; if the Court made a report, and, if so, to whom; and if a copy of such Report can be laid upon the Table?
  Mr. PEASE: The case referred to is that of an inspector who was removed from his office as from the 30th September, 1911, on account of his inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office. He had then served nine years, and under the provisions of the Superannuation Act of 18ST, the Treasury awarded him a lump sum of £175 11s. 1d. and a pension of £62 8s. per annum. In April, 1912, I received a statement, made on behalf of the inspector by his father, alleging grievances in respect of the circumstances which led up to his removal from the service. I directed an inquiry to be held into all the circumstances and into the grievances alleged, and requested Sir Thomas Milvain, K.C., Judge Advocate-General, to hold the inquiry. At the request of the complainants the inquiry was postponed until February, 1913. The case on both sides was conducted by eminent counsel instructed by solicitors, and the matters mentioned in the first eight lines of the hon. Member's question were all included in the reference to Sir Thomas Milvain. Sir Thomas Milvain reported to me that upon the eighth day
  28
  of the inquiry the inspector, while under examination, expressed a desire to confer with his father and with counsel, and that a conference then took place between counsel on both sides, at which an agreement was reached and terms drawn up rendering further inquiry unnecessary. The agreement, of which a copy was furnished me by Sir Thomas Milvain, contained a withdrawal of all charges contained in the petition. In these circumstances, I see no advantage in now giving particulars of allegations, all of which have been withdrawn.
  Mr. HALL: Was it not part of the agreement that the charge should be withdrawn in return for the lump sum paid as compensation?
  Mr. PEASE: I think there was no condition of that sort, but an undertaking was given by the Board of Education to use their best efforts.
  Mr. HALL: The charges hanging over this man's head for five years were all withdrawn by the Board of Education?
  Mr. PEASE: The charges and allegations were made by an inspector; it was these allegations that were withdrawn.

  Merthyr School Teachers' Salaries.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Board of Education whether the local education authority at Merthyr have acquiesced in the decision of the Board of Education and will pay the salaries of the Roman Catholic school teachers held by the Board to have been illegally dismissed; and, if not, will the Board apply for a mandamus to compel such payment?
  Mr. PEASE: I understand that the authority are taking counsel's opinion with reference to the Board's decision. I am unable to make any statement as to the action the Board may take until the authority have had sufficient opportunity of considering their legal position.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask if the local authority are not in receipt of a Grant in respect of this school which they are not keeping efficient?
  Mr. PEASE: The matter is one on which the opinion of counsel is being taken, and I do not think I ought to commit myself in regard to any course I may take until I know what the attitude of the local authority is in regard to the matter.

  Baby Clinics and Schools for Mothers.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister if it has now been decided what Departments are to be responsible for the administration of Grants to baby clinics and schools for mothers; and whether he can say what the arrangement is?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Any funds available for Grants to institutions of the nature of baby clinics and infant dispensaries whose primary object is to provide medical and surgical advice and treatment for infants and little children will be administered by the Local Government Board. Grants to institutions of the nature of schools for mothers, the object of which is primarily educational, which provide training and instruction for mothers in the care and management of infants and little children, and which may include systematic classes, or home visiting, or infant consultations (the provision of specific medical and surgical advice the treatment, if any, being only incidental), will be administered by the Board of Education Any cases of doubt or difficulty will be investigated by a Joint Committee of officers of the two Boards, which will include women medical officers.

  East India Revenue Accounts.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister when the East India Revenue Accounts will be taken?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot yet name a date.

  Returning Officers' Expenses.
  Mr. J. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he has abandoned the suggestion of making the returning officer's expenses a charge on the public as in all other elections; and, if so, will he say why in elections for the House of Commons candidates should be asked to provide all the machinery for enabling the electorate to record their votes?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative. The Government are fully aware of the desirability of the change suggested by my hon. Friend.

  Milk and Dairies Bill.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister if he will state when it is proposed to take the Report Stage of the Milk and Dairies Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope at an early date.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a rather more precise answer?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF THE FORCES.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been come to with respect to the appointment of a new Inspector-General of the Forces; and, if not, whether he will be able to give some information as to the proposals of the Government before the close of the present Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to make a statement upon the matter before the close of the Session.

    ARMY PENSIONS (QUARTERLY PAYMENTS).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for War whether frequent representations have been made that quarterly payments of pensions to Army pensioners is not only inconvenient but objectionable; and whether he will consider whether it is possible to make these payments at more frequent intervals, so that the men and their families may better enjoy the pension benefits?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Such representations are made from time to time, and the question of more frequent payments has more than once been thoroughly considered, but, for reasons which I am explaining to my hon. Friend more fully than is possible in an answer to a question, the Army Council are unable to introduce a universal change in the direction of more frequent payments.

    CANTEENS COMMITTEE.
    Sir ALFRED MONDasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the fact that no member of the Canteens Committee has had any practical experience of the canteen system; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing two-additional members to this Committee, one of whom shall have had an extensive experience in catering and the other of whom

    31
    shall have served in the ranks as a private soldier and has knowledge of his wants and grievances?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I see no need to alter the constitution of the Committee, which has already met. I am satisfied that its members have the necessary experience to enable them to deal with the question referred to them. Representatives of all the interests concerned will, no doubt, be able to lay their views before the Committee.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would not be advisable to have private traders represented on this Committee besides catering companies and large firms like Harrods Stores?
    The PRIME MINISTER: All these points have been very carefully considered.

    REDFORD BARRACKS.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War if a date has now been fixed for the occupation of Redford Barracks and whether the Scots Greys are being removed there this year; and, if so, could he name a date?
    Mr. TENNANT: The Scots Grays will move to Redford Barracks during the coming winter. No date has yet been fixed.

    ARMY RIFLE MEETING, PIRBRIGHT.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether, with one exception, no senior general officer went to the Army rifle meeting recently held at Pirbright; and, if so, what steps he pro poses to take in future to remedy the lack of interest displayed?
    Mr. TENNANT: Such a fact as that mentioned would not be reported to the Army Council, who do not propose to take any action in the matter. Attendance at this meeting is not compulsory.

    QUEEN ALEXANDRA NURSING SERVICE.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, under the Regulations of Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service, it is compulsory for a staff nurse or sister to hold a certificate of three years' training in a recognised hospital?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.

    DESERTIONS (PERCENTAGE).
    Mr. AMERYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the net loss from desertions during the five years from 1904 to 1908 amounted to 6,086, or 3.22 per cent. of the total number of recruits enrolled during the same period, and during the five years 1909 to 1913 amounted to 7,002, or 4.72 per cent. of the total number of recruits enrolled during the same period; and, if so, to what cause does he assign the higher percentage of loss from desertion to men enrolled in the latter period?
    Mr. TENNANT: On the basis taken the hon. Member's percentages appear to be approximately correct. But if the desertions in the first year only be considered there has been a slight diminution in the last four years. Similarly, the last four years show a slight decrease in the total struck off for desertion, without counting those who have rejoined. As regards the second part of the question it is difficult, especially within the limits of an answer to a question, to deal satisfactorily with the causes of desertion, but it may be due to the general causes which have affected recruiting, namely, increased emigration facilities and greater attractions of civil life.

    SPECIAL RESERVE.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Secretary of State for War if he can explain why the deficiency of first and second lieutenants actually serving in the Infantry of the Special Reserve is 1,194, seeing that the total deficiency in the Special Reserve is only 370?
    Mr. TENNANT: My reply to the hon. Member of the 26th ultimo took account of all the officers on the strength of the Special Reserve, namely, those in units and those on the supplementary list.
    Mr. AMERY: Does the right hon. Gentleman include in those figures the officers of the Infantry of the Special Reserve actually serving in the Regular forces?
    Mr. TENNANT: Those who are on the supplementary list are ready to go up on mobilisation, but they do not go into training or into camp.
    Mr. CROFT: Are officers ever counted twice over in the Special Reserve and the Regular Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: I hope not.

  Revenue and Insurance Act Amendment Bills.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to introduce and pass into law the Revenue Bill and the National Insurance Act Amendment Bill in the Winter Session before Christmas?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I fear I cannot add anything to what I have already said with regard to next Session.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Did the right hon. Gentleman not say on Friday the Bill should be dropped and reintroduced?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I was referring to the statement I made the previous week.

  Provided School Managers (Norfolk).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that out of the six local managers of the Burston and Shimpling, Norfolk, provided school, two are clergymen, the rectors of Burston and Shimpling, respectively, and one the wife of a clergyman, the rector of Burston and his wife both being managers, thus giving two votes from one house and family in the case of the dismissal of teachers; whether he has considered the legality or otherwise of the appointment of the parish manager of the school as representing Shimpling; whether, on the last occasion of his appointment, April, 1913, any public notice had been given of his proposed appointment or election; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. PEASE: I have no information as to the persons forming the body of managers at this school, or as to the manner in which the parish meeting of Shimpling appointed their representative. The Board have no power to decide questions relating to the legality of the appointment of managers of council schools, and in the circumstances I do not propose to take any action in the matter.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Education, in view of the convictions held in the parishes of Burston Shimpling, Norfolk, and in the surrounding localities in regard to the dismissal of the teachers, Mr. and Mrs. Higdon, from the Burston and Shimpling provided school as being uncalled for and unjust, and of the suspicion of church and political partisanship as being the real reasons underlying these dismissals, and in view of the present position of affairs in
  34
  Burston, where the parents have since 1st April persistently refused to send their children to the council school as a protest against the dismissal of these teachers, if he will consider the possibility of the Board of Education interviewing at this stage and either advising the reinstatement of the teachers concerned or instituting a thorough public investigation into the causes leading up to and culminating in their dismissal; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. PEASE: It would, I think, be inconsistent with the relations which Parliament has established between the Board of Education and responsible local education authorities that I should intervene in a matter of this kind. I understand that the action of the local education authority was taken after an investigation at which the teacher was legally represented.

  Mines Inspection (South Wales).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the report of the inspector of mines in the South Wales division for 1913, which purports to describe the care, condition, and treatment of 17,744 horses used underground in that division, occupies, apart from statistics, only six lines; whether the report made to the inspector of mines for that division by the special horse inspector for that division for 1913 contained fuller information, and whether the same will be published; and whether he will ascertain and inform the House how many separate mines in that division were inspected in 1913 by the special horse inspector, how many mines were so inspected more than once, and how many horses were actually inspected?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The inspector for the South Wales district is a man of few words but great administrative ability, and the hon. Member must not measure the amount of work done by the brevity of his reports. I find that between February and December, 1913, in addition to inspection by the general staff, 219 mines were inspected and 6,264 horses individually examined by the horse inspector. I am not, however, satisfied that in South Wales the ground has been adequately covered, and the chief inspector who visits South Wales next month, will advise me whether additional staff or better arrangements are required. Fuller reports will be made in future.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the inspector for the South Wales division to send in a further report describing the result of his inspections?
  Mr. McKENNA: Fuller reports will be given in future years.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I mean for the past year (1913), the inspections which the right hon. Gentleman said were frequent.
  Mr. McKENNA: I will consider that point, but I could not promise hastily to issue another report.

  White City (Indian Reservation Performances).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that some days ago it was announced that a dog would be killed, stewed, and eaten in public as a quasi-religious sacrifice, but that, on the intervention, not of the Home Office, but of the National Canine Defence League, the dog was at the last moment removed from the menu and a lamb killed by a local butcher was substituted; and whether his Department will keep a vigilant eye on the performances in the Indian reservation at the White City with the object of preventing uncivilised practices?
  Mr. McKENNA: I find that a statement to the effect that a dog was to be killed and eaten appeared in the Press, but it is very doubtful whether anything of the sort was really intended. Immediately on the publication of the report the police, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the National Canine Defence League represented to the authorities of the exhibition that such a proceeding ought not to be allowed, and the secretary of the exhibition forbade anything of the kind taking place. I am informed that it is not the fact that the dog was removed from the menu at the last moment and a lamb substituted. No dog was killed or obtained for the purpose mentioned. The police will do their best to prevent any objectionable practices of this sort at the exhibition or elsewhere.

  Convict's Licence (John Clare).
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the considerations which influenced him in granting a fresh licence to John Clare, a convict on ticket-of-leave, who pleaded guilty to stealing a gold watch; whether he had
  36
  official information to the effect that Clare had made a genuine attempt to earn an honest living as a bootmaker, but was driven from his employment because his shopmates refused to work with him; and, if so, whether such a situation frequently occurs; and whether he will consider the advisability of instituting some form of inquiry as to the employment of discharged prisoners?
  Mr. McKENNA: My attention was called to this case by the Deputy-Chairman of Quarter Sessions, who informed me that the prisoner had pleaded guilty to larceny, that in his opinion he had worked hard during the interval between his release and reconviction, that his relapse into crime was due to sudden temptation, and that he proposed to deal with the case under the Probation Act if the prisoner could be granted a fresh licence. I felt it right to comply with the Deputy-Chairman's recommendation and granted prisoner a new licence. My information shows that the licence-holder's relapse into crime was not due to the cause stated in the question, but to an entirely different one. The Central Association for the Aid of Discharged Convicts inform me that they know of few instances of a licence-holder being driven from his employment by his shopmates refusing to work with him. The employment of the ex-convicts under their care is carefully watched by the association; and if any such case occurred, they would endeavour to find fresh employment for the man. I do not think there is any ground for any special inquiry.

  Loftus Bench (Indictable Offences Act).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Home Secretary whether he has made inquiries as to the recent proceedings before the Loftus bench, which formed a Court at a private residence, tried a charge of attempted suicide, called evidence, discharged the defendant, and conducted the whole proceedings with the utmost secrecy, representatives of the Press being refused admittance; whether he can say what is the result of his inquiries; and whether he proposes to take any action to prevent discrimination between persons charged?
  Mr. McKENNA: This was not the case of a criminal charge being heard, tried, determined and adjudged by justices within the meaning of Section 20 (7) of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879. The

  37
  justices were engaged under the Indictable Offences Act in considering whether a certain charge should be sent for trial or not, and for this purpose it is not necessary that they should sit in open Court (see Section 19 of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848). There does not appear to have been any discrimination between persons, or any occasion for action on my part in the matter.

  Mental Deficiency Act (Medical Inspectors).
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Home Secretary whether he can state the names of the medical inspectors lately appointed under the Mental Deficiency Act?
  Mr. McKENNA: The names of the inspectors, in order of seniority, are: Dr. R. W. Branthwaite, Dr. A. E. Evans, Dr. S. E. Gill.

  Metropolitan Police (Pay).
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to state when he will lay upon the Table of the House the Minute required by Section 1 (6) of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1912, with reference to the increased scale of pay of the Metropolitan Police, in order that the matter may be dealt with before the House rises for the summer vacation?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, not yet.
  Mr. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to do so?
  Mr. McKENNA: I hope to be able to do so shortly.
  Mr. HALL: Will it be possible to do it during this Session of this Parliament, in order that these men can obtain the relief which is necessary?
  Mr. McKENNA: In answer to questions put to me by my hon. Friend I have already given the fullest information. I will make a statement as soon as I can.

  POST OFFICE.

    WAGES AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT (COMMITTEE).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Postmaster-General whether the Board of Trade figures upon which the cost of living in the various towns is settled for the purpose of classification of Post Office
    38
    wages remain those of 1908; whether more recent figures show increases of cost of living in places like Leicester; and whether he proposes to reclassify towns according to the more recent figures?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): The figures adopted in 1908 are still in use. I am aware that figures which have since been obtained indicate an increase in cost of living at Leicester and elsewhere, and the question of adjusting the existing scheme of classification is under consideration.
    Mr. WILES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether the Chairman of the Committee which is to examine the recommendations of the Holt Committee has yet been selected?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that on the nomination of the President of the Board of Trade, Sir George Gibb has been offered and has accepted the post of Chairman.
    Mr. WILES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Committee will begin to sit?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: So far as it lies with me, I shall certainly ask them to sit at the earliest possible moment.

    MALE NIGHT OPERATORS.
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Postmaster-General whether it is his intention to adopt the recommendation of the Holt Committee in respect of the hours of male night operators, namely, forty-eight a week; and, if so, when the staff at present working fifty-four hours may anticipate the change?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The recommendation of the Holt Committee that the hours of duty of night telephonists should be fixed at forty-eight net per week was not adopted because its adoption would have involved in London an increase in the net working hours previously in force. Although the authorised gross attendance in London, as elsewhere, was fifty-four hours a week, the reliefs from duty which were granted for purposes of refreshment, etc., reduced the normal net hours of work to forty-six a week. These reliefs are still allowed. Generally speaking, the night telephone work in the provinces is slacker than in London, and, although the attendance of fifty-four hours a week is maintained the operators as a rule have ample opportunities for rest and refreshment.

    MARCONI PATENTS
    Captain WEIGALLasked the Post master-General whether the Marconi master patent, the 7777, expired in April of this year; whether it has been renewed; and whether, in the event of its expiration and non-renewal, His Majesty's Government can claim compensation from the Marconi Company?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The patent referred to by the hon. and gallant Member expired in April last and has not been renewed. I am not aware of any circumstances Tinder which His Majesty's Government can claim compensation from the Marconi Company in respect of the non-renewal of the patent.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Has any application been made for a renewal of the 7777 patent?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That question had better be addressed to the Marconi Company and they will probably inform the hon. Member.
    Captain WEIGALLasked what liability, if any, is incurred by His Majesty's Government under their con tract with the Marconi Company if the action between the Helsby and the Marconi companies invalidates some of the chief Marconi patents?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: His Majesty's Government are protected from liability arising for actions such as that referred to by the hon. and gallant Member by clause 22 of the agreement with the Marconi Company of the 30th of July, 1913, which indemnifies the Postmaster-General against all claims arising out of the exercise of the powers conferred by the agreement.

    IMPERIAL WIRELESS CHAIN.
    Mr. CAMPIONasked the Postmaster-General whether he can state the progress made under the contract ratified a year ago between His Majesty's Government and the Marconi Company for the erection of an Imperial wireless service; whether any difficulties have recently arisen involving delay; (2) whether he is aware that the Marconi Company are completing a long-distance station for themselves at Carnarvon; whether any Imperial station under the company's contract with the Government is nearing completion; whether he will ensure as great an expedition in the completion of the Imperial wireless stations
    40
    as of the station at Carnarvon, and provide that the Marconi Company does not give priority of construction or equipment to their private work at the expense of the long-awaited Imperial service; and (3) whether, having in view the strategic importance of the Imperial Wireless Chain, he can state when the first three stations, for which the contract with the Marconi Company was ratified a year ago, will be completed?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As regards Nos. 81 and 83, I would refer him to the reply given on the 16th inst. to a similar question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Finsbury. I am aware that the Marconi Company are completing a longdistance station at Carnarvon, but I find no reason to think that the Company have delayed or will delay their works on the Imperial wireless stations in consequence of their private work.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it true to say that the delay in completing the wireless chain is due to the Marconi Company or to the Post Office?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would not like to say that. It is undoubtedly the fact that they have within a comparatively recent period—during the last two or three months—addressed to us a request which, if we had acceded to it, would have involved some alteration of some of the apparatus to be used for messages, and' that has caused some delay.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Is it true that this company has made a complaint as to the delay, which they claim is not owing to their action at all?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There are always complaints between the Post Office and the Marconi Company, and I should be very sorry to try and apportion the blame, if blame there be, between the two authorities.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Is this matter still considered to be as urgent by the Government as it was considered to be a year ago?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It may be urgent and yet not possible to bring it to a completion.

  Motor Spirit Duties and Motor-Car Licences.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why, in estimating the revenue yield from Motor

  41
  Spirit Duties and motor-car licences, no allowance was made for the probable growth in the number of cars in use?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The hon. Member is no doubt referring to the Estimate given in House of Commons Paper, No. 316, of 1909. At the time this Paper was issued the Treasury were aware that the number of cars would largely increase, but they had not sufficient data on which to form anything like a reliable Estimate of the increased yield of these two taxes which might result in future years from such increase.
  Mr. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the figures that were given then have not more than trebled in the case of motor-car licences and more than doubled in the case of motor spirits since the Return was applied for, and is the House to understand that they are the Estimates placed before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  Mr. MONTAGU: That may be so, but in the Debate in 1909 there were no data on which to form a more accurate estimate.
  Mr. HALL: Is any reliability to be placed upon the figures given?

  Customs and Excise Department.
  S7. Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total number of unattached officers of Customs and Excise and how many of these have been lent to the National Health Insurance Department; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction that exists in the Customs and Excise with regard to private leave, he will undertake that these officers shall be returned without delay to the Department to which they belong?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The numbers are 1,278 and 12, respectively. The Board of Customs and Excise are not aware of any general dissatisfaction in regard to private leave, and I see no reason for the return of the small number of unattached officers temporarily lent to the National Health Insurance Department before the completion of the duties for which they have been assigned.

  Super-tax.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
  42
  the approximate number of people who escaped payment of Super-tax for the years 1909–10 and 1910–11 by reason of an allowance for life insurance premiums exempting them from liability, and the approximate amount of Super-tax which would have been payable in each of these years but for such an allowance?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Estimates of the numbers and amounts are being framed and will be available in the course of a few days, when I will circulate them with the Votes.

  Street Motor Traffic (Mud-Guards).
  Mr. DENNISSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has any power, by means of Order or Regulation or otherwise, to prevent or diminish the nuisance resulting from the splashing of mud in the streets of towns by the wheels of heavy and other motor vehicles; and whether, in view of the repeated complaints to his Department during the last two years of the Oldham and other corporations and district councils and chambers of trade and commerce of the country, he can say whether there is any prospect of anything being done in the matter at an early date?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): A Regulation requiring the provision of a mud-guard would not be beyond the powers of the Local Government Board under the Motor Car Acts. I understand that no suitable device has yet been found.
  Mr. DENNISS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very efficient mud-guards are being used in Paris?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The efficiency of that device is being investigated at the present time.

  Cow-pox.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the reports of the medical inspectors of the Board who investigated the outbreaks of cow-pox at Frome in 1909, Sudbury in 1909, Oundle in 1911, and Ash-ton in 1911, have been published; if not, will he explain why this has not been done; whether the inspectors traced the cause of any of the outbreaks; if so, what was such cause; whether any experimental investigations were carried out for the purpose of ascertaining if any of the cows had been infected by milkers suffering

  43
  from syphilis; and whether the outbreaks were taken advantage of to add to the strains of vaccine lymph manufactured by the Board?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Of the outbreaks referred to in the question only one (namely, that at Frome) was investigated by an inspector of the Local Government Board. The origin of this outbreak of cow-pox could not definitely be ascertained, and it was not considered necessary to publish the report. There is no basis for the suggestion that the cows had been infected by the milkers, and I may mention that the affected cowmen were attacked subsequently to the cows on which they attended. No fresh strains of vaccine lymph were obtained in connection with the outbreak.

  Merchant Vessels (Crew Spaces and Pood).
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the speech of the medical officer of the Port of London at Blackpool, on 10th July, with respect to the feeding and accommodation of men on merchant vessels; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply which was given on the 15th July to the hon. Member for the Devizes Division of Wilts., of which I am sending him a copy. The opinions expressed at the Blackpool Congress will be carefully considered as soon as an official report of the proceedings is available.

  Cardiff Tide Field.
  Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that attempts have been made to fence off parts of the foreshore at Cardiff Tide Field; and whether, in view of the fact that the land adjoining the actual fore shore is tidal land, he will say what steps he proposes to take to restore to the people the full right of access to the fore shore?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Cardiff Tide Field is above high-water mark of ordinary tides, and therefore is not foreshore over which the Board of Trade have jurisdiction. If the fence referred to by my hon.
  44
  Friend is below high-water mark, and he will give me particulars regarding its erection, I will look into the matter.

  British Shipping (Foreign Competition).
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulty on the present commercial basis for British ships trading with East Africa to run against the German ships which have a very heavy subsidy, while there is no British subsidy; and what he proposes to do to give British shipping a fair chance?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am aware of the position, but as at present advised I do not see my way to take any action in the matter
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that Sir Owen Phiilips, speaking as chairman of a shipping company, said that it was impossible for his company to run against German ships with a very heavy subsidy, whilst there was no British subsidy?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware of that statement; perhaps the hon. Member will send me a copy.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  POWERS OF IRISH PARLIAMENT.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether procedure will be provided for determining at an early stage the legality of measures promoted in the Irish Parliament so far as regards the power of such Parlament to legislate on the matters dealt with therein, and in any case before Bills are submitted for the approvel of the Crown; and what will be the nature of the machinery to be employed for this purpose?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 29 of the Government of Ireland Bill.

  AMENDMENT BILL (LORD MORLEY'S STATEMENT).
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if the statement made by Lord Morley elsewhere to the effect that the Amendments made by the House of Lords in the Government of Ireland (Amendment) Bill were tantamount to the rejection of the measure, expressed the views of the Government as a whole; whether such statement applied to all and,

  45
  if not, which of the Amendments; if, in the event of it not being possible to proceed with the Amending Bill on agreed lines, it will be dropped; and if, in that case, the main Bill will be brought into force in its present form?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This is a matter that I think could only be properly dealt with in Debate.
  Mr. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, it is a matter for Debate.

  NATIONAL VOLUNTEERS.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the name of the commanding officer of the 5th Battalion Leinster Regiment, formerly the Meath Militia; whether he is aware that on the annual training of the men instructions were issued on their separating that they were not to join the Irish Volunteers, and that anyone so doing would be dealt with by the military authorities; whether such threats were issued with the sanction of the military authorities; and what instructions, if any, have been issued to officers with regard to their attitude towards men who wish to join the Irish Volunteers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The name of the commanding officer is Lieut.-Colonel Farrell. He reports that the statement is wholly incorrect and that he has issued no such instructions. As regards the last part of the question, I am not aware that any instructions have been issued on the subject.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord E. TALBOT: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-day, and what the business will be for the rest of the week?
The PRIME MINISTER: To-day we shall proceed with the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Administration Bill, to be followed by the Second Reading of the Diseases of Animals (Ireland) Bill, County and Borough (Qualification) Bill (No. 3), the Mall Approach Improvement Bill, and the Osborne Estate Bill.
To-morrow and Wednesday we shall take the Report stage of the Finance Bill, and on Thursday the Third Reading.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND (AMENDMENT) BILL.

  CONFERENCE SUMMONED BY HIS MAJESTY, STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
  The PRIME MINISTER: By the indulgence of the House, before we proceed to the ordinary Orders of the day, I should like to be permitted to make a very brief statement.
  I am authorised by the King to announce to the House that in view of the grave situation which has arisen he has thought it right to summon representatives of parties, both British and Irish, to a Conference at Buckingham Palace, with the object of discussing outstanding issues in relation to the problem of Irish government. Invitations have been issued by His Majesty to, and have been accepted by, two representatives of the Opposition, two representatives of the Ulster Unionist party, two representatives of the Irish Nationalist party, and two of His Majesty's Government. I am glad to add that at the King's suggestion Mr. SPEAKER has consented to preside over the Conference, which I hope may begin its proceedings tomorrow. In the meantime, we shall not proceed to-day with the Second Reading of the Irish Amending Bill, but ask the House to deal with other Orders which appear upon the Paper.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In view of the announcement which has just been made by the Prime Minister, I think that at this stage it is neither necessary nor desirable that I should say more than that we have loyally accepted the invitation of His Majesty—the command of His Majesty—to attend the Conference to-morrow.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Perhaps I may be allowed just to say one word. I would like to say that my colleagues and myself have no responsibility for the policy of the calling of this Convention, and I do not think that I am called upon to express any opinion as to whether in the result it will prove useful or the contrary. The invitations to attend this Conference came to my hon. Friend the Member for East
  70
  Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and myself in the form of a command of the King, and, as such, of course we at once accepted it.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister offer any explanation as to why it is information in regard to the announcement which he has just made was communicated only to a portion of this morning's Press, and whether it is the case that the parties to it were asked to treat the matter as secret?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I very much regret—I do not know how it was—that there should have been any anticipation of the announcement which this House had first title to hear. All I can say is that neither I nor anyone for whom I have any responsibility made any communication of any sort or kind.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will you allow me as an independent Irish Nationalist—
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no Motion before the House, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask a question he can do so.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will you say it is a point of Order? I wish to know why am I not allowed to utter a sentence like other hon. Members on this important occasion for my country?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. and hon. Members who spoke represented considerable sections of the House, and are parties to the Conference.
  Mr. GINNELL: You in that Chair are not supposed to know about that. I shall not detain the House long if you will allow me—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot do so, because there is no Motion before the House to be debated, but, as I say, if the hon. Member wishes to ask a question of the Prime Minister, of course he can do so. Now—
  Mr. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what precedent he has and what authority he has to advise the King to place himself at the head of a conspiracy to defeat the decision of this House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Members desiring to take their seats, will please come to the Table.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Frederick Leverton Harris, esquire, for the County of Worcester (Eastern Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911 (PART II. AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), deferred till To-morrow.
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Signature of Summonses, etc., by Justices Not to be Required.)
    (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts or in the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, or any other Statute, requiring justices to sign informations, complaints, summonses, convictions, orders, and certificates, it shall be lawful for all or any of such processes or documents of a like character (except warrants of apprehension, warrants of distress, and warrants or orders of commitment) to be issued under the official seal or stamp of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
    (2) The provisions of Section twenty-nine of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, as to rules to be made thereunder, shall extend to this Section and to the alteration and adaptation of forms for the purpose thereof.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
    It has been suggested to me, partly by my own experience and partly by representations made by those who have special connection with the administration of justice. The object is to make it unnecessary for summonses issued by direction of a justice to
    72
    be signed by that justice. Many Members of this House will know that the necessity for signing summonses often leads to a considerable waste of time and some misapprehension. It may happen that a large number of summonses, say a hundred, may be issued for rates at one and the same time. They are issued in the ordinary course by the direction of the magistrate, and he has to sign every one. It means a great waste of time and trouble, and it would be just as well if the justice could sign a general authority for the whole of the summonses, and the clerk could then affix the seal of the Court to the different summonses. There is also this inconvenience: The recipient of a summons very often fancies that the magistrate who signs it is personally responsible, and he writes to the justice whereas he should write to the Court. This is a matter of ordinary machinery, and I hope this opportunity will be taken of adopting this Clause and thereby saving a good deal of time and temper without the least loss of efficiency.
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to second the Motion.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): This Clause was moved in Committee. It was there discussed, and it was eventually withdrawn. The objection then raised to it, which I venture to repeat now, is a very simple one. It is to the signature being affixed by a stamp. If such a stamp were used by the clerk it might be used by anyone, and any clerk employed by a clerk to the justices might affix the stamp. If this signature were of the nature of a mere ministerial act, I do not think it would be a very serious matter to allow the stamp to be affixed by the clerk, but it is very far from being so. The magistrate has to exercise discretion, and it is only proper that such discretion should be exercised by the person on whom the duty is imposed of issuing summonses, because unless a magistrate did exercise the discretion it might happen that a person might be continuously worried by the issue of summonses on most trivial matters. As a matter of fact, some people complain of the annoyance to which they are subjected by the issue of summonses, and this provision is some protection for the magistrate who has to sign them. If it were a mere ministerial function performed by affixing a stamp, the objection which now exists would be done away with. These reasons satisfied the Committee, and I trust they

    73
    will also satisfy the House, that the existing law should be continued. However inconvenient it may be on certain occasions, it does not, on the whole, constitute a very serious difficulty.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. CAVE: Clearly the right hon. Gentleman has not fully apprehended the effect of this Clause. The effect would be that the magistrate would still direct the issue of the summons as now, but the mere ministerial act of putting a signature and seal at the foot of it would be performed by somebody else. I do not propose for a moment that the duty of directing the issue of the summons should be performed by anyone but the magistrate. It is a question of signing or affixing the seal when once the issue has been directed. That, surely, is a mere ministerial act which might very well be performed by a clerk, and the right hon. Gentleman is not right in as suming that the seal might be misused or affixed by anyone in the office. I am not convinced in the least by what the Home Secretary has said.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The point as put by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) in his explanation seems to be a very simple one, and I do not understand what harm the right hon. Gentleman can do if he accepts the new Clause. It does not relieve the magistrate of the responsibility of issuing summonses, but merely relieves him from signing all the summonses. That is an exceedingly good thing to do, and I cannot see any harm in it. Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that the clerk to the magistrates will put the seal upon the summonses without having previously obtained the sanction of the magistrate? Unless the right hon. Gentleman fears that that may be the case, I see no reason why the new Clause should not be accepted. No doubt, in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the actual signing of the summonses does not generally take up very much time, but at times, especially in boroughs, there is a good deal for the magistrates to do in signing large batches of summonses and a variety of documents. Speaking as a magistrate, I have often seen things signed without anybody knowing what they are signing, but I always ask myself what I am doing before I sign anything. Sometimes documents are put before us by the clerk and signed without proper inquiry as to what is taking place. I do not say the seal should be affixed without
    74
    the authority of the magistrates, but that authority can be obtained without putting the magistrates to the inconvenience of signing a large number of documents. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman cannot reply again, but the right hon. Gentleman beside him (Mr. Ellis Griffith) is also learned in the law and quite qualified to speak on this subject, and perhaps he can tell us why such a very simple Clause as this is rejected.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The next proposed Clause (Abolition of sentence of death in case of persons under the age of eighteen years) is beyond the scope of the Bill. That objection also applies to the next one (Amendment of 35 and 36 Vict., c. 65, s. 4, with respect to weekly payments), to the next (Service of process on soldiers of the Regular forces), and to the next (Power to clear Court and proceedings in camera).
    Sir A. B. MARKHAM: On a point of Order. Which of the Amendments on page 38 are in Order?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have not come to them yet. This matter has come up rather suddenly, and I have not had time to look into all of them. I do not think any of the new Clauses relating to amendments of the bastardy laws would be in order on this Bill, as the bastardy law is a separate law from this.
    Mr. KING: May I call your attention to the fact that various Amendments which would have the effect of altering the bastardy law very materially were accepted in Committee? Some were discussed and some even put into the Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Then we may have to strike them out. The Clauses (Abolition of privilege of peerage) and (Meaning of "man" in certain enactments) are also beyond the scope of the Bill. Mr. Wedgwood.
    Sir A. B. MARKHAM: As my hon. Friend is not here, may I move this Clause?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members are not entitled to move Clauses standing in the name of another hon. Member.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Obligation to allow Time for Payment of Fines.)
    (1) A warrant committing a person to prison in respect of non-payment of a

    75
    sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction shall not be issued forthwith unless the Court which passed the sentence is satisfied that he is possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the sum forthwith, or unless, upon being asked by the Court whether he desires that time should be allowed for payment, he does not express any such desire, or fails to satisfy the Court that he has a fixed abode within its jurisdiction, or unless the Court for any other special reason expressly directs that no time shall be allowed.
    (2) Where any such person desires to be allowed time for payment the Court in deciding what time shall be allowed shall consider any representation made by him, but the time allowed shall not be less than six clear days:
    Provided that if before the expiration o£ the time allowed the person convicted surrenders himself to any Court of Summary Jurisdiction having jurisdiction to issue a warrant of commitment in respect of the non-payment of such sum as aforesaid, and states that he prefers immediate commital to awaiting the expiration of the time allowed, that Court may forthwith issue a warrant committing him to prison.
    (3) Where a person so allowed time for payment as aforesaid appears to the Court to be not less than sixteen nor more than twenty-one years of age, the Court may, if it thinks fit, and subject to any rules made under this Act, order that he be placed under the supervision of such person as may be appointed by the Court until the sum adjudged to be paid is paid, and in such case before issuing a warrant committing the offender to prison in respect of non-payment of the sum a Court of Summary Jurisdiction shall consider any report as to the conduct and means of the offender, which may be made by the person under whose supervision the offender has been placed.
    (4) In all cases where time is not allowed for payment, the reasons of the Court for the immediate committal shall be stated in the warrant of commitment.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "possessed of sufficient means to enable him," and to insert instead thereof the word "able."
    This is merely a matter of drafting, and I think the word I suggest is better than the words which emanated from the Home
    76
    Office. There are many difficulties a man might experience which might be held to disqualify him from receiving the benefit of this Clause. It might very well happen that, although he had not the means himself to pay, there would be other persons who have means and who would be willing to assist him. There are also other circumstances which would naturally suggest themselves at once to the minds of hon. Members to meet which the words in the Bill might be made a little more elastic.
    Mr. RENDALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not sure that my hon. Friend's words would have the precise effect which he intends. If the words were "able to pay the sum forthwith," it would presumably be construed as meaning that the man had the money in his pocket. That would not cover all the cases in which he would be able to pay. If he had "sufficient means to enable him to pay," distress could be levied on his goods. If you insert the Amendment you would exclude from the operation of the Clause those cases in which the person did not happen to have the money in his pocket to pay. As my hon. Friend's Amendment is of a purely drafting character, and would not have the effect he desires, he would be well advised to leave the Bill as it stands.
    Mr. KING: May I exercise my right to reply? There is obvious substance in the contention which I pat forward, but I will withdraw if the Home Secretary will promise to consider these words with a view to moving an Amendment in another place.
    Mr. McKENNA: Certainly, I will do that if I find further arguments to support my hon. Friend's contention.
    Mr. CAVE: I do not think the Amendment would be a wise one to make. I hope the Home Secretary will consider both sides of the question.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. King) availing himself of another place. I thought he did not like that place. On this occasion I should be inclined to vote with the hon. Gentleman, because I think the effect of the words will be to strengthen the Clause and make it more difficult for a prisoner who has money to escape payment.
    Mr. NIELD: I do not think the Clause will bear the interpretation put upon it. It only makes the practice in the Petty

    77
    Sessional Courts analogous to the proceedings in a superior Court—for instance, the County Court. As drawn, it requires the Court to satisfy that a person is possessed of sufficient means to pay before it makes an order, which is precisely the line the Legislature took up in regard to the Debtors Act, and made the question of means one of proof before the Court can make the order. Here the person asking for the order will have to satisfy the Court that the prisoner is possessed of means, and not merely that he is able to pay. It is desirable that the practice should be like that of the County Court. This is merely the case of a man collecting a civil debt, which is a fine, and it ought to be met, and the Clause as it stands ought to go.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: On a point of Order. Is your ruling, Sir, with regard to the bastardy laws final, because I would draw your attention to Clause 32?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are now on line 14 of Clause 1.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection 1, to leave out the words "its jurisdiction" ["a fixed abode within its jurisdiction"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the county or county borough within which he is tried."
    It is obvious that if a man is summoned in one Petty Sessional district but lives perhaps in the next, he ought to be allowed the advantage of this Clause. There is a good deal of substance in this Amendment, and I hope the Home Secretary will accept it.
    Mr. MORRELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is not under a misapprehension as to the necessary functions of a county borough. I understand him to mean such county boroughs as have a separate commission of the peace. But by no means all the county boroughs have a separate commission of the peace, consequently his words would not have the effect he desires. The borough police would be able to obtain information as to the abode of the person fined within the borough, but they would have no means of ascertaining whether he has a fixed abode outside the borough. That is the objection in
    78
    principle to accepting the Amendment. As a matter of fact, the Amendment would not read in the Clause, for the simple reason that a great many county boroughs have no separate commission of the peace.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "but the time allowed shall not be less than six clear days."
    The Bill provides that when time is allowed for payment not less than six days shall be allowed. I see that the Home Secretary has a proposal on the Paper to make some concession altering the six days to seven. My own view is that it is not desirable to draw a hard and fast line of this kind at all. When time is given—and, of course, it is given every day—the bench has some regard to the question when the person convicted is likely to have the money to pay. The magistrates know quite enough about those who come to the Court, and are told quite enough to be pretty confident as to when money will come in sufficiently to enable the defendant to pay. It often happens that a conviction takes place on Wednesday, and the bench knows quite well that by Friday or Saturday the man or woman charged will be receiving money quite sufficient to pay the fine. Under this provision the bench must give time until the following Wednesday or Thursday, and when that day comes along the money will have been spent absolutely and the funds available to pay will have gone. In most cases the best thing to do is not to have a hard and fast minimum line at all, but to leave it to the Court to exercise its own knowledge and discretion to give, if they think fit, three or four days, and not necessarily six or seven. I speak from great experience of these cases, and I think that the better thing is to leave out the words altogether and not insist on a minimum.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment. My experience is the same as that of my hon. and learned Friend. As far as I know, magistrates nearly always give time unless they happen to know that the person in question has that money and can produce it that afternoon or evening or in a day or two. As far as I know, the tendency on the part of magistrates is always to be extremely lenient over this question of time. There are times when people who are given to intemperance are brought before the bench. It may

    79
    be within the knowledge of the magistrates that these people will be receiving the following morning a certain sum of money. If they have six days before they have to pay, the result will be that they will spend the money in drink, repeat the offence, and be brought before the magistrate again. These hard and fast rules are a great mistake. If confidence cannot be reposed in the magistrates they should not have been appointed, but having been appointed a certain amount of latitude and discretion must be left to them.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): This is a proposal to abolish the minimum now laid down by the Bill. Magistrates have now a discretion, and according to the hon. Baronet, the bench to which he belongs exercises that discretion wisely. They allow seven or fourteen days always.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I said lenient, and not wise.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I think lenient is wise in this connection. At any rate, seven or fourteen days allows the man to spend the money in drink, according to the hon. Baronet's argument in this Amendment. I submit that to abolish the minimum altogether will be in effect to abolish Sub-section (1)—that is to say, we want to bring all benches up to the standard of the bench to which the hon. Baronet belongs. All justices are not equally wise or equally lenient, but if this Clause stands as it now is in the Bill, it would compel magistrates to give six days, or under my right hon. Friend's Amendment seven, in which to pay the fine. That is a reasonable proposal and I hope the House will adopt it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not often differ from my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), but I am not a magistrate, and I look perhaps at this matter rather from the point of view of what I see in the Courts below the magistrate than from the magisterial seat. I should like to give the House one or two figures in regard to the imprisonment of people for non-payment of small fines. The object of this Clause, I understand, is to ensure that there shall be a minimum time given before a person should be committed to prison for non-payment of fines. This is to carry out a very distinct pledge given
    80
    by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, who, on 20th July, 1910, promised that he would bring in this Bill, the main principle of which should be to secure for everyone who commits a minor offence a short time to pay any fine which may be inflicted upon him. I have some very remarkable figures for the ten years ending 1910. In England and Wales alone 958,000 people were comitted to prison for non-payment of fines. That averages 9,000 people a year, and since 1910 the figures are approximately the same. In 1912, 82,000 out of a total of 160,000 prisoners were people who were convicted of such very small offences that a fine was considered an adequate remedy. In a very large proportion of these cases their friends came after they had been committed to prison and paid the fines, or a portion of them, and got them out of prison.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Sometimes this happens. A prisoner asks for time and the bench refuses, and the prisoner puts his hand in his pockets, holds out two or three pounds and pays the fine.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know that is sometimes the case. But if the law gives time, when the expiration of the time comes I think the hon. Baronet will find that the people who have the money will pay it rather than go to prison. The object, surely, of our criminal administration is not to get people into prison, but to keep people out of prison. So far as the law can be made to be obeyed, if it can be done by a system of small fines and time given to enable men to pay, it is infinitely better than committing to prison. In London alone, in the year 1911, 10,380 youths under twenty-one years of age were sent to prison. Of these 3,000 were imprisoned for breaches of by-laws and other non-criminal offences—playing football in the street, playing pitch-and-toss, bathing in a canal, or riding a bicycle without a lamp. They are not crimes, and I would certainly appeal to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave), who has a great part in the administration of the criminal law as a Recorder, whether more criminals are not made by the first sentence than by other means. These young fellows, who are only guilty of high spirits in many cases, are condemned to a fine with immediate imprisonment in default of payment. They go to prison for the first time in their life, and they find that

    81
    imprisonment is not as bad as they thought. Imprisonment is a very grave deterrent before you have been there.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have not been there.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I trust my hon. Friend never will, but if he goes there once, I should be prepared to prophesy that he might go there two or three times again. He would find, as everyone finds, that it is the first imprisonment that counts. After that the hon. Baronet would get amongst bad companions, instead of those with whom he is in daily contact here, as these young fellows do, and they find more and more ways of crime, and I suggest that the House should support the Bill in its original form, and do all they possibly can to keep our young men out of prison rather than let them get in.
    Mr. RADFORD: I hope the House will not accept the Amendment. The early Clauses of the Bill, up to Clause 6, deal with the subject of fines, and the object which this part of the Bill has in view is, in my opinion, a very important one. It is to prevent the unnecessary imprisonment of men who are living on weekly wages. If it is made obligatory on any bench whatever, however wise and lenient, that there should be not less than seven days for payment of a fine, it is quite certain that a very large number out of the 80,000 who are annually committed to prison every year will not go to prison, and a good object will have been served by the Clause. I am quite aware that magistrates generally are to be trusted and use their discretion wisely, but this Clause does not impose any stigma upon those magistrates who exercise their functions wisely, and it prevents a possible misfortune, and it is a great misfortune that a man should be sent to prison unnecessarily. I hope the House will reject the Amendment.
    Mr. NIELD: I differ entirely from the last two speakers, and I think I am entitled to claim some knowledge of the subject. Nowadays magistates, whether in Petty Sessions or in Quarter Sessions, never send a man to prison for a first offence, even though it be a relatively serious offence, if they can possibly see their way to prevent that happening, and in Petty Sessions I am certain that in all matters with regard to fines every possible latitude is allowed for payment,
    82
    if the magistrate is able to be assured that the money will be forthcoming, and that his leniency will not be abused for the purpose of escaping punishment. I should advise my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) not to pay too much attention to statistics the like of which he has quoted, because they are not always reliable. If and so far as he finds upon analysis of these statistics that there have been cases of people, notably boys, being sent to prison for the first time for a first offence, I am afraid the offenders are the stipendiary magistrates, who do not and cannot, because of the work that involves upon them, pay the same detailed attention to the cases that come before them. One has only to go to a Metropolitan, Stipendiary Court to see the speed with which the cases are dealt with. But in very few cases are they sent for non-payment of fines. I have visited for some years His Majesty's Prison at Wormwood Scrubs, and I always make a point of seeing definite classes of prisoners, and I find that an enormous number of them are there for non-payment of fines, sent by stipendiaries. I think with my hon. and learned Friend that if their discretion is left unfettered magistrates are better able to judge of the truth of the story that is told as a reason for time being given. There is a certain amount of pressure, and if that pressure can be given effect to by a short order at the time when the money is said to be coming in there are far more chances of that money coming in than if they are given a long period, by which time the defendant may have made arrangements to get out of the jurisdiction. I am quite sure that if the benches who administer the law with regard to these matters, apparently to the satisfaction of the Home Office, were left unfettered rather than have a week put upon them, it would certainly have the effect of getting the law respected and getting the fines enforced.
    Mr. MARSHALL: I hope this Amendment will be accepted, for I have in mind the case of a man who may have committed an offence on Thursday and is tried on Friday. If the magistrate was allowed jurisdiction as to the payment of the fine, that man would almost certainly pay, but if the payment is deferred over the week he may get drunk again, with the result that the fine will not be paid. I am sure that the magistrates everywhere in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction will desire to fully carry out the spirit of the Act.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: This is one of the Clauses which applies to Ireland, and I hope the Government will retain the Clause as it stands. In Ireland in eases where the fines are under 40s., there is no appeal whatever. It would be most undesirable that the Clause should be changed in any way. There is no chance for an offender whose fine is under 40s. going to Quarter Sessions to get his trial reviewed, and, therefore, it is extremely desirable that a longer period should be given. The draftsman regards one section of a Bill at a time, overlooking the fact that the laws are different in different countries. Therefore, unless we get an appeal, I should be in favour of the Government sticking to their own words.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: Leave out the word "six" ["shall not be less than six clear days"], and insert instead thereof the word "seven."
    Mr. KING: I am very glad that this first Amendment brought forward by the Home Secretary is on the lines of enlarging and making more generous the scope of the Bill. That Amendment will rule out one of which I had given notice.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, to leave out the words "not to include the day of imposition nor the day of payment of fine." I hope the Home Secretary will not resist this Amendment. It merely makes the word "clear" a little more definite, and it goes further in the direction of giving greater consideration to the prisoner.
    Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. The words "seven clear days" have a definite meaning which is thoroughly understood in the Courts of law. My hon. Friend proposes to introduce some other meaning.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I ask the Home Secretary whether the word "clear" does or does not include the days of imposition and payment.
    Mr. McKENNA: It excludes those days.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: In view of the Home Secretary's explanation, I desire to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "may" ["that
    84
    Court may forthwith issue"], to insert the words "if it thinks fit."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "person" ["supervision of such person"], to insert the words "not a police constable." In the case of an offender between sixteen and twenty-one years of age the Court might place him under the supervision of a police constable. I move the insertion of these words in order to secure that the person shall not be a police constable. We have heard from the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) that in many cases the offenders are merely youths of high spirits who are offending against by-laws. One desires to keep them out of the criminal vortex. If the person to whom they are committed is a police constable, that may more seriously interfere with their career than if they were committed to a probation officer, or some friendly person. If an offender is committed to the supervision of a police officer he is under police supervision. I believe there might be an officer for these cases whose duties would be analogous to those which a probation officer performs in other cases.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am sure we all sympathise with the object which the hon. Gentlemen has in view. Obviously the proper and most suitable person would be a probation officer or the Court missionary. Still, he is not available in all cases, and there might be cases where a police officer would be not only the best but the only person capable of doing the work. In a country district there might not be a probation officer, and if we accepted these words the provision would become a dead-letter. Therefore I ask my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert,
    "(4) Without prejudice and in addition to the foregoing provisions of this section, where any person desires time for payment of any sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction the Court shall take any representation made by him into consideration."

    85
    These words would make it imperative on the magistrate to hear what each prisoner had to say on being convicted. I think that is only fair.
    Mr. RENDALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that by imposing a duty of this kind it would be implied that the magistrates had failed in the exercise of their duty. In the whole of this Bill, where we have made directions to the magistrates to exercise their discretion in a certain way, we have only put the duty upon them when we have found that they did not act in that way. I could not say that we would be justified by experience in saying that magistrates have not taken into consideration representations made by prisoners. It may have happened in individual cases that they have not done so, but generally experience is not of that kind. Therefore, although there is no harm in the Amendment, and although it does not alter, add to, or vary the law, still I think it would be undesirable to put in print in an Act of Parliament such an obvious direction to the magistrate.
    Mr. KING: I do not think that the objection to my Amendment is at all valid, but as I want to get on with this Bill I ask leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Reduction of Imprisonment on Payment of Instalments of Fine.)
    (1) Where an offender is liable to be imprisoned in respect of the non-payment of any sum of money adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and the offender before the issue of a warrant of commitment pays, to any person authorised to receive the same, any sum in part payment of the sum adjudged to be paid, the period for which he is liable to be imprisoned shall thereupon be reduced by a number of days bearing, as nearly as possible, the same proportion to the total number of days for which the offender is sentenced to be imprisoned as the sum paid bears to the sum adjudged to be paid.
    (2) Where a person is sentenced to imprisonment or committed to prison in respect of the non-payment of any sum of money adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, there shall be stated in the
    86
    conviction order or warrant of commitment the amount, omitting fractions of a penny, the payment of which represents an abatement of one day's imprisonment, and no part payment shall be accepted under this Section, or under Section nine of the Prison Act, 1898, unless the amount of the part payment is the amount so stated in the conviction or order, or, as the case may be, in the warrant of commitment, or some multiple thereof.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move to leave out the words from the word "imprisoned" ["to be imprisoned shall thereupon"] in Sub-section (1) to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "may thereupon be reduced by the Court by such period as the Court may think fit."
    The Clause provides that, when the magistrates impose a fine with the option of imprisonment and part of the fine is paid, you are to reduce the amount of imprisonment by a certain number of days or hours, and also that on every conviction you are to do a sum in proportion. You are to put on the back of the conviction, or somewhere upon it, the information that for every shilling the prisoner pays he is to get off so many hours or minutes in prison. Whatever the fine is, you have to work that out on the back of the conviction. The meaning of a sentence is this: "We think your offence deserves a fine of, say, 10s. If you do not pay that fine, we think you ought to go to prison for a week, or whatever the time may be." It does not mean that if he pays 5s. he will get off for four days. There is one fine which he has to pay, and if it is not paid he mast go to prison. He must pay the whole fine or go to prison for the whole time. What is proposed here would impose a great deal of work on clerks and others if fines are to be cut up in this way, and if the document is to show how much imprisonment the man is to get off in respect of the payments made. I am sure if the Clause passes in this form, the amount paid in fines will be enormously reduced. You are making it difficult to administer justice, and the alternative I suggest is that instead of this elaborate system you should enable the bench to do what, of course, they are fairly entitled to do, namely, to reduce the period as they think fit. I think that would be much simpler, and it would save a great deal of trouble.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.

    87
    I really do not know what would happen if the magistrates, in addition to having clear brains to hear the evidence, are also to be expert mathematicians. My opinion is that the hon. Member for Stirling, who on the Finance Bill gave us an Amendment which was a problem in mathematics, would have to be appointed to every Court to work out what these fines would come to. My hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is much simpler, and I hope the Home Secretary will accept it.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment has, I think, omitted from notice the fact that this Clause is already the law after commitment. All we propose to do is that where a defendant is liable to be imprisoned in respect of the non-payment of a fine, and that he pays a certain amount before his imprisonment, the period of imprisonment shall be reduced in proportion to the amount which he has paid. Under the existing law, if, after the commitment warrant is issued, and the prisoner is taken to prison, a payment is made, say, of half a fine, he will then get a reduction of his imprisonment in proportion to that amount. What we ask is that the same law shall be applied before he goes to prison as exists now after he goes to prison. It is most desirable that a prisoner should know how much his sentence shall be reduced by paying a certain amount. A prisoner's friends may be able to find something for him. It is a small change in the law, and is most desirable.
    Mr. DENNISS: I do not see how the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston could work. If a man is sentenced to seven days' imprisonment in default of paying a fine, and, after serving portion of it, pays part of the fine, the Court is to have power to reduce the period of imprisonment. But the Court may not be sitting at the time. Under Clause 3, Sub-section (1), the reduction is automatic, and requires no sitting of the Court, which in many cases sits only once a week, so that in its present form the Amendment would not work.
    Mr. CAVE: The answer to the hon. and learned Member for Oldham is that Courts are constantly summoned at short notice to deal with matters requiring attention.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions for Enforcement of Payment of Fines, etc.
    (1) Where a person has been summarily convicted of any offence any sentenced to pay a sum of money the court by which he is convicted may order him to be searched and any money found on him when so searched or which may be found on him when taken to prison in default of payment of the sum so adjudged to be paid shall, subject to any directions given by the court, be applied towards the payment of the sum so adjudged to be paid, and the surplus, if any, shall be returned to him.
    (2) Where a warrant of distress is issued by a court of summary jurisdiction it shall authorise the person charged with the execution thereof to take any money as well as any goods of the person against whom the distress is levied, and any money so taken shall be treated as if it were the proceeds of sale of goods taken under the warrant, and the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts shall apply accordingly.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move to omit Sub-section (1).
    The Sub-section which I desire to omit is one which is likely to cause great hardship, and, in some cases, even injustice, because frequently the money found upon a prisoner does not belong to him. I am well aware that my right hon. Friend has put down an Amendment which goes some way to meet the objections to this Clause; but it really does not meet them, as it might be very difficult for a prisoner to prove at the moment that the money found upon him was not his.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: This Sub-section raises the whole question whether a prisoner summarily convicted of an offence should be searched at the time, or whether we should wait to search him until he is taken to prison. When he is taken to prison he can be searched, and if he has the means of paying his fine the fine would be paid and he would be immediately discharged. We should then have incurred the expense of taking him from the court to the prison, and searching him there, and of bringing him back from the prison on his discharge. That would be a quite unnecessary expense and a waste of time.

    89
    I quite recognise the point brought forward by my hon. Friend that great injustice might be done if, on searching a prisoner in court, money was found upon him which was taken in payment of a fine, and which was found not to be his. Therefore, I propose later in the Clause to insert words dealing with this: "Unless that person proves that the money found on him is not his property." If the prisoner made a declaration that the money was not his, and stated to whom the money ought to go, steps would be taken to verify his statement that the money belonged to somebody else. Undoubtedly it would be a great injustice to take from a prisoner money found on him which was not his, but in view of the Amendment which is to be moved, I trust that my hon. Friend will not press the omission of the whole Sub-clause, which, I think, does offer a convenient and easy manner of making convicted persons pay fines.
    Mr. CLYDE: This is one of those parts of the Bill which are not excluded from application to Scotland. Exclusion, so far as Scotland is concerned, I understand would be appropriate under the Clause which deals with the Scottish law. But unless I am under a misapprehension with regard to the situation either here or in Scotland—let us put it at once here, in England—I should be disposed to support the omission of the Sub-section altogether from the Bill. I admit that I am speaking from Scottish experience. Our practice always has been, and I understood that it was so here, that the prisoner has the option between fine and imprisonment.
    Mr. McKENNAindicated dissent.
    Mr. CLYDE: If the option of imprisonment can be accepted by the prisoner, it would be extremely hard to enact by this Sub-section that this option would be of no value, because if a sentence giving an option is pronounced, and then a man's money is to be taken, that option ceases to be of any value at all. I should imagine that the cases are comparatively few where the prisoner would have in his pocket money which was not his, though, no doubt, such cases might arise and ought to be provided for. But if the law at present is that the prisoner has an option and you are going to take that away from him in the case of any sentence including a fine, then I should be disposed to support the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am quite unable to say what the law in Scotland is, but in this country, in the majority of cases, though not in all cases, a distress can be levied, and, consequently, the prisoner has no option, but, in default of payment of a fine, the Court has the power of awarding imprisonment. We propose, by this Sub-section, to give the power of enforcement by distress in all cases.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: By the proposal in the Bill you are taking away an option which has always existed except in certain cases, such as rents and things of that sort. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has a certain class of prisoner in his mind in introducing this particular Subsection. But the proposal is one which is likely to cause extreme hardship, not merely in cases where the money in a man's pocket is not his own, but also in cases where it is his own money. Imagine the case of a man who is paid a weekly wage, and exceeds the bounds on his way home with his wage in his pocket. He may have a wife and family dependent on that wage for the coming week. Is that money to be taken, so that while he is relieved from imprisonment his family shall be left without support during the following week? Or take the case of a man who has a child at home which has to be buried. Is the money to be taken and the child to be buried at the expense of the parish? To put provisions of this sort into an Act of Parliament is to go a great deal further than is required. It can be perfectly safely left to the Court and to the prisoners to consider whether they would rather give up their liberty or give up their money, which may be required to make the necessary payment.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: This Sub-section seems to me to lead to a most extraordinary result. As unamended it amounts to embezzlement by form of law, because it provides that a man may have somebody else's money in his pocket and that that money may be applied in payment of a fine. Has the right hon. Gentleman cured that defect by his Amendment? I think not, because who is to protect the money which does not belong to the prisoner? Obviously the owner But the right hon. Gentleman provides that the prisoner shall be the person to protect the money that does not belong to him. All the prisoner has to do is to hold his tongue, and he shall thereby secure that that embezzlement will be

    91
    committed by form of law. He will not in anyway apply the money himself. The law will apply the money, and secure that the fine imposed on him shall be paid, say, out of his employer's money, or anybody else's money which he may happen to have in his pocket at the time.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir F. LOW: The case mentioned by the hon. Member is that of the penalty of imprisonment, which can only follow from default or from the admission that the prisoner has no goods to distrain; whereas, in the other case, the imprisonment is simply at the will of the magistrate in default of payment. This Sub-section has the effect, as I understand it, that money found in the pocket of the prisoner may be extracted from his pocket, and he must pay and forego the right, which prisoners have hitherto had in cases of this sort, either of going to prison or paying. If he does not pay you can exercise the power of distraint. If there are no goods on which to distrain, or if it should so happen that for the particular offence there is no question of distress at all, then I submit that the defendant has the right to go to prison or pay, as seems best to him under the circumstances, and why on earth he should be deprived of his money I cannot for a moment understand. It really comes to this, that you are going to substitute for the present law upon this subject a sort of right for the magistrates summarily to distrain upon any money that may be found in the prisoner's pockets. Whether it is that when the man gets to gaol and the money is found upon him that money is to be appropriated by the governor and the man that ejected from the gaol I do not know, but I should think that would be extremely unlikely. However that may be, it seems to me than an injustice would be done, and that there is no reason why this provision should be included in the Clause.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I entirely agree with what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend opposite. The position is this: A man is fined, say, £1, and, if he does not pay, he is liable to be sent to prison or to have his goods distrained upon. He is not in the position of the man who either pays or goes to prison in the direct sense. If he has no money to pay, or if he has no goods to distrain upon, then
    92
    he goes to prison. It seems to me that this Sub-section is entirely inconsistent with Clause 1 of the Bill. That Clause gives the right to ask the man whether he can pay. If it happens that he is not able to pay, there is the right to ask him whether he would like postponement. If he says, yes, then they can postpone it for some days. But under this provision, if a policeman who happens to be in Court finds a sum of 5s. upon the defendant, although he desires a postponement of payment, it gives the right to the magistrate to cause the 5s. to be taken out of his pocket and applied to payment of the fine. That seems to me to be entirely inconsistent with the first Clause, which allows time for payment. Supposing the man is fined £1, and he has 5s. in his pocket, he might want that 5s. to provide for his wife and children at home, but under Sub-section (4) the magistrate could order him to be searched and could estreat that sum. I agree that this provision is not at all satisfactory.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I have become so confused by the arguments of learned counsel on either side that I am absolutely incapable of recording my vote, and therefore I wish to ask the Home Secretary what the law really is? I understand from what has been said that the Sub-section takes away from the prisoner a right which he at present possesses to go to prison if he chooses. The case of a suffragette is an illustration in point, and the question is of considerable importance. I understood from the Home Secretary that he disputes the statements made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwich and other hon. Members, but I should like to be sure that we are not taking away from the prisoner any ordinary right which he at present possesses.
    Mr. NIELD: This Sub-section would destroy the effect of the Cat and Mouse Act if suffragettes, on being convicted, could be promptly searched and fined, but there is another class of people who, I think, the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary are far more anxious to look after, namely, the passive resisters. If a passive resister were tried and the money were found upon him, he would be deprived of the cheap advertisement of a sale of his household goods by auction. I venture to commend that consideration to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
    Mr. McKENNA: I propose to reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend. In almost every case after conviction of an offence, the magistrates have the right to distrain in order to enforce payment of fines. There is no right on the part of the prisoner, except for very few offences under 24 and 25 Vic, and one or two other Acts, to go to prison instead of paying the fine.
    Mr. NEWTON: Is there not right of distraint?
    Sir F. LOW: Is it not the fact that where a fine is inflicted, the magistrates ask if defendant has any goods, but if the man does not want them distrained, and does not want to pay, he prefers to go to prison?
    Mr. McKENNA: Of course, in the case of a certain class who prima facie, are not the kind to have any goods, no doubt that procedure might save time, but in every case when the offender has got goods and does not pay a distress is levied. Therefore we are not dealing with the question whether the prisoner has some right which is taken away from him. My hon. and learned Friend said we were taking away from the prisoner a right which he now has. The only question at issue is whether we shall in effect distrain upon money as well as upon goods. I submit that it is perfectly reasonable and quite consistent with the objects of this Bill, that we should use what means we can to keep prisoners out of the prison. That is the object of the Bill. We want them to pay the fines instead of going to prison, because we wish to keep out of prison obstinate persons who prefer to go there, and we do not want to maintain them at the expense of the country, nor do we want to bring them into contact with prison life. In his irritation and temper a man, though he has got the means, may refuse to pay the fine, but, if he has money or goods, he ought to be made to pay.
    Mr. NEWTON: The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps thinking too much of a particular class of person. His answer certainly suggests that he has a particular class in mind, persons who are comparatively wealthy. But I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, in the case of an ordinary workman, the magistrates ask, "Will you pay or go to prison?" In the majority of those cases the right hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary that the right of distraint should be practised. There is very great difficulty in
    94
    believing that in the case of poor prisoners, such as working men, that the right of distraint is exercised. I feel very strongly that if the provision is passed as it stands you will take from the working man an option which is of value to him. Surely it is of importance that the working man who has enough money in his pocket for the immediate needs of his family should not be subjected to its being arbitrarily taken away from him if he prefers to sacrifice his own liberty by going to prison, rather than sacrifice the health of those dependent upon him.
    Mr. BECK: I hope my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will reconsider his position on this point. I think that this Sub-section would be a great hardship on a prisoner, and, above all, upon his family, if the money is to be taken out of his pocket whether he wishes it or not. There may be cases where the rent is due, or a debt is to be paid, or in which the furniture might be distrained upon, or something of that sort, and I think that if a man has money in his pocket, and voluntarily goes to prison rather than pay the fine, it is ipso facto an argument, and a very good argument, for his not paying the fine. I think it is a very reactionary Amendment to introduce into the Bill at this time of the day, to take away from the prisoner the right to decide for himself whether he will pay the fine or go to prison. I strongly urge my right hon. Friend to drop the Clause.
    Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: The object of this Bill is to diminish the number of people going into our prisons. Here is a case in which the prisoner, if he has money on him, may be searched, and at the discretion of the magistrate that money may be applied to his fine. The Clause itself provides for cases of hardship. If the prisoner has a few shillings in his pocket, and he says they are necessary for the upkeep of his wife and family, there is no magistrate who would for a moment think of directing that money to be taken out of his pocket. The Clause provides for all these hard cases which have been suggested by hon. Members. The object of the Bill is to keep men out of prison, and I suggest that it would be ludicrous that a magistrate should not have the discretion to order that money found in the pocket of the prisoner should be applied to the payment of the fine—thereby saving the taxpayer the expense of his upkeep—simply because the prisoner obstinately wishes to become a martyr.
    Mr. HILLS: I do hope that the Home Secretary will give way. Unless he does there will no longer be option or a fine. All option is gone and the only person who can choose is the magistrate. No doubt you want to keep people out of prison, but if a man prefers to go to prison and use the money for his family, then in Heaven's name why do you want to take the money from him? He is the best judge. Even a prisoner has certain rights and why should the magistrate be the only person who can settle that question. The prisoner may have very good reason for wanting to keep his money, and he may desire to sacrifice his liberty and incur all the unpleasantnesses that attend a term of imprisonment for the sake of his family. It is a monstrous thing that any magistrate should have the power of ordering a man to be searched and to have taken from him against his will money which he wishes to apply to his family. Distress has been spoken of, but in the London Police Court, for instance, no distress is ever thought of. If a man can pay and wants to pay, he does so, and if not, he goes to prison. In practical effect that is the way the thing works. I think it is a rather formal objection to say that no further burden is cast upon the prisoner because you can now distrain. I do make a plea for the rights of prisoners. It is a rather curious thing that in a Bill which is supposed to alleviate the sufferings imposed on prisoners you are now imposing a very heavy additional burden.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I see no reason why the prisoner should be given a choice as to whether he is to pay the fine or to be kept at the cost of the State. Is it not a much greater hardship on his family to take the man himself away and keep him in gaol for, say, a week, than to take his money? If you are going to give him a choice, you ought not to give him a choice which will involve a burden on the State and the taking away of the man from his family. I am under the impression that the process now is when the Court imposes a fine, if it is not paid the man is imprisoned for Contempt of Court because he refuses to obey the order of the Court. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am quite sure of this, that it is no greater hardship to take the man's money than it is to take the man away from the support and companionship of his family. Here we have the case of a man who says, "I prefer to be in gaol rather than give up the money in my pocket." I would not encourage
    96
    him and give him that choice. If the man has dropped so low as to prefer to be in gaol, then I say that is the kind of man I would take the money from.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: It seems to me that we have all the Liberal speeches coming from the other side and reactionary Tory speeches from this side. That is the worst of legislation ad hoc, because they have got into a difficulty on account of the suffragettes, they rush away and pass legislation which takes away the liberties of the people. Hitherto, a man has been fined with the option of imprisonment; that is his elementary right. It is true that the magistrates have the power to distrain, but they never do it. People are tried and fined, with the option of imprisonment, and now the Home Secretary proceeds to take away that option and hands it over to the magistrate. We have men professing Liberal principles getting up and saying that the magistrate is a much better judge of what is good for the man than the man himself. It is a typical example of this double bureaucracy. The magistrate and the hon. Members for Stirlingshire and York are far better judges of what is best for the working classes than are the working classes themselves, and therefore the man who goes to prison ought to be thankful, we are told, to hand over the power of option to magistrates who know nothing about his case, and who allow them to decide whether he is to be searched by warders and policemen. In spite of what the hon. Baronet opposite has said, the option is one which the prisoner now possesses in practice. Not only are you proposing to take away the option, but you are also, it seems to me, proposing to commit a deliberate offence against the person by empowering the magistrate to order a man to be searched. No one likes to be searched, and you are adding that indignity. You are, therefore, introducing into this legislation principles which are thoroughly undesirable and which no Liberal ought to vote for.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member and other hon. Members are under a misapprehension. There is no option except in very few cases. I have sat for a good many years on the bench, and the procedure is this: A man is fined, say, 7s. 6d., and says he cannot pay. The magistrate asks the clerk, "Has he any goods?" and if the clerk says, "Yes," the magistrate then says to the prisoner, "If you do not pay your goods will be distrained," and

    97
    it is only in the event of the goods not being found to realise the money that the man is committed to prison. The idea that everybody has got an option is really a mistake. It is much worse for the man to have his goods distrained upon than to have some shillings taken from his pocket, and shillings which he might probably spend in the nearest public-house. If there was an option at present there might be something in what has been said, but there is no option, and I shall certainly support the right hon Gentleman.
    Mr. M'CURDY: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should make some modification in this Clause in order to meet the views so powerfully expressed on both sides. I put aside at once any suggestion that this Clause is intended to meet the case of a particular class of offenders. I am quite sure if this Clause is passed that neither the passive resister nor the woman who may have used a hammer is likely to carry any bank notes to Court. I look upon this Clause solely as one which affects the ordinary individual. If the Clause as drafted were passed there might be a very serious doubt as to the proper construction of Clause 1, Sub-section (1), which would have to be construed in the light of this Clause. That Sub-section provides that henceforth a man is not to be sent to prison unless the Court which passes sentence is satisfied that he is possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the sum forthwith or unless he desires that time should be allowed to pay. The question will arise at some time, what does the Bill mean when it says, "the man must be possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the sum forthwith." Does that mean that he is in physical possession of as many shillings as may be the amount of the fine, or is the Court to take into account that man's necessities? Suppose the man has just drawn his weekly wages, and that his wife and children are absolutely penniless unless some portion of the wages can go to their support, would the true construction of that Section be, if a man is fined, say 30s., that if he has 30s. upon him that therefore he has got ample means in order to satisfy the fine, and that unless he pays it he must go to prison, or could the Court rightly take into consideration the man's necessities, whatever they might be? He might, as was mentioned, have a dead child awaiting burial, or something of that kind. In construing the Section the Court would be bound to take into
    98
    consideration what they found in a subsequent Clause, providing that if you find the money in the pocket of the man you can take it straight away subject to any directions the Court may give. The Court would be bound to be influenced in the construction of the Clause, that in Clause 4 are omitted the vital words which appear in Clause 1, namely, "If the Court is satisfied that he is possesed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the sum forthwith." I do suggest that if those words are repeated in Clause 4 it would make it quite plain that it is not merely the physical possession of the money, but that the Court must also be satisfied that having the amount in cash the man is also in a position to pay. Then the views of those who are opposed to this Clause would be legitimately met, and a number of my hon. Friends who have been in very great difficulty as to what should be their attitude on this Amendment would be satisfied. I hope that suggestion will commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. CAVE: I was going to make a suggestion somewhat on those lines. I am not against the Sub-section as a whole, in spite of what has been said, because I think one ought to apply a certain amount of common sense to these matters. I do not understand why a man who has been fined, say, a sovereign, and who has £5 in his pocket, should be allowed to go away with the £5 without paying the sovereign. I do not see any grievance in it. I do not see that there is any great difference between taking the money in Court and distraining on the man's goods. I do not object to the principle at all. I do not think, with great respect to what has been said, that there is an option. The Court orders the man to pay, and that unless the money is recovered by distress the man is to go to prison. It is the magistrate who is to judge what the penalty is to be, and although you may think that the prisoner is the better judge of what he likes best, that is not the question. The question is, what is the penalty to be? May I suggest that instead of putting in the Clause that the money shall unless otherwise decided be applied in this way, you should give the Court a discretion, and say that the Court may direct that the money found, or any part of it, may be applied towards the payment of the fine. If a change like that were made then the circumstances suggested by the hon. Member opposite

    99
    would be taken into account, and if the man required the money to meet some necessity it would not be taken.
    Mr. McKENNA: I will gladly accept both suggestions. I will not commit myself to the exact words now, but I will substitute "may" for "shall," so that it will read, "may be applied." I will also bring in at their appropriate place the words suggested by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. M'Curdy), which I quite agree ought to be inserted. It ought to be made quite clear that the man is of sufficient means to enable him to pay the sum or any part of the sum.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: "May"?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will make it more clear that it is in the discretion of the
    magistrates—that the magistrates should be satisfied that the man has sufficient means to pay the sum or part of the sum forthwith. I will ask to be allowed to make these alterations in another place. On that understanding I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has met us in a very substantial way by accepting these proposals together with the Amendment he himself has put on the Paper. I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'summarily' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 286: Noes, 103.

    Division No. 185.]

    AYES.

    [5.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Crooks, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Agnew, Sir George Croydon

    Cullman, John

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Delany, William

    Hayward, Evan

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Barnes, George N.

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon C. Scott

    Hewart, Gordon

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Dillon, John

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Doris, William

    Hinds, John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duffy, William J.

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Hodge, John

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Hogge, James Myles

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Black, Arthur W.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Boland, John Plus

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Bowden, G. R. Harland

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Field, William

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Forster, Henry William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Kelly, Edward

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Ginnell, Lawrence

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Glanville, Harold James

    King, Joseph

    Cave, George

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Leach, Charles

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gulland, John William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Clough, William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Clynes, John R.

    Hackett, John

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Lundon, Thomas

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Compton-Rickett. Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hancock, John George

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    McGhee, Richard

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Maclean, Donald

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

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

    Stanier, Bevilie

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Sutherland, John E.

    Mckenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Sutton, John E.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Radford, G. H.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Tonnant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Meagher, Michael

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Thomas, James Henry

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

    Reddy, Michael

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Molloy, Michael

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Wardle, George J.

    Mooney, John J.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Morison, Hector

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Webb, H.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Neville, Reginald, J. N.

    Robinson, Sidney

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Nield, Herbert

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Rowlands, James

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    O'Dowd, John

    Scanlan, Thomas

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

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

    O'Malley, William

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

    Yeo, Alfred William

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

    Sheehy, David

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Shortt, Edward

    Younger, Sir George

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Ganzoni, Francis John C.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Pratt, J. W.

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

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Barnston, Harry

    Goldman, C. S.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gretton, John

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hall, Marshall (Liverpool, E. Toxteth)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Bird, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

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

    Blair, Reginald

    Harris, Leverton (Worcester, East)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Boyton, James

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton)

    Butcher, John George

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hunt, Rowland

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Chambers, J.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Clyde, James Avon

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Currie, George W.

    M-Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Moore, William

    Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green, S. W.)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dixon, C. H.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    Newman, John R. P.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

    Wedgwood and Mr. Hills.

    Fell, Arthur

    Question, "That the word 'person' be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. RENDALL: I beg to move to leave out the words "summarily convicted of any offence and sentenced," and to insert instead thereof the words "ordered by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction."
    The effect of this Amendment would be to enable the Court to deal with the money referred to for making good arrears under maintenance and bastardy orders. These are generally bad cases, and if this extra jurisdiction is to be given to magistrates at all, it is only fair—in fact it is essential—that it should be applicable to cases of this kind.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: This seems to me to be a perfectly clear case. If you are entitled, as the House has decided, to take money out of a man's pocket to pay a fine, a fortiori, if a man is had up for non-payment of arrears under a maintenance or bastardy order, and, having the money in his pocket, practically flaunts it in the face of the unfortunate woman who is the prosecutor and says, "I will go to prison rather than pay the money," I think even the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme will admit that such a case would not come within his opposition to the earlier part of the Clause. I understand that the matter has been brought before the attention of the Home Office, and that they will probably accept the Amendment.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH (who was indistinctly heard): I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment. There has been much opposition to the Clause, and I think the House would hesitate to extend it in this way. It would go a good deal further than the two classes of orders referred to. The words of the Amendment are, "ordered by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction." Simple debts are recoverable in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. Arrears of rent and many other matters would come within this Amendment. I think that after a moment's consideration my hon. Friend will realise that the House could not accept such a wide extension of the Clause. I hope therefore that he will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept an Amendment limited to maintenance and bastardy cases? The Amendment was not intended to cover arrears of rent, industrial orders, and that kind of thing. But these particular cases are perfectly relevant. If the man has been guilty of conduct of that kind, and is adjudged by the Court to pay;
    104
    if he goes to the Court with the money in his pocket, and says, "I will not pay those arrears: I would sooner go to prison," I say that the money found on the man ought to taken and applied to those arrears.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: There is no definition of conviction in this Clause. The first Clause talks of the conviction by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The second Clause speaks of a conviction or order of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The first and second Clauses seem to apply to the same class of order. The third Clause, again, repeats the expression "order and Court of Summary Jurisdiction." The third Clause has a fresh terminology, the use of the term is again limited, and different words are used as to a person summarily convicted of any offence. The lack of definiteness and verbiage in the Clauses is a reason for not accepting the Amendment in its present form. Certainly, if there is any justification in the Amendment at all, it ought not to be applied to a case of the kind referred to. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that when he comes to deal with the matter later he should introduce an amending Clause defining what a conviction is.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his suggestion. In regard to the second appeal that has been made to me about bastardy and maintenance orders, everyone that has heard the discussion that has gone on for the last forty minutes will have come to the conclusion that the House is rather chary in any case of giving the right to get hold of the money under the circumstances stated. I do not think the Government will take the responsibility of extending this limited and exceptional procedure in regard to the two classes of cases referred to.
    Mr. RENDALL: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that there is a difference between ordinary cases, similar to drunkenness, and the cases that we want to bring in. There is the case of a man who has run away and not been heard of by his wife for months. At last a warrant is issued for his arrest, and he is brought back. The magistrates are not to have the same power to make him pay! They have to allow that man to go away, though, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said, he may actually have the money in his pocket. I think

    105
    benches all over the country will be very much surprised if they are not given this power. They have been expecting that they will be given it. The magistrates' Clerks' Society have specially urged this upon Members of the House as a very important part of jurisdiction which ought to be granted.
    Mr. KING: I appeal to the Home Secretary in support of the plea which has been so ably put forward on both sides of the House. I very sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will use the opportunity that he has for further Amendments in another place to extend this Clause in the direction of the two kinds of arrears asked for—that is, bastardy and maintenance orders.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "sentenced" ["any offence, and sentenced to pay"], to insert the words "or ordered by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction on a summons for the payment of arrears for maintenance or bastardy."
    This is a verbal Amendment which, I think, will cover the points we have been discussing, and I should like to move it in order to test the feeling of the House. It will, I think, meet the views which have been put forward by hon. Genttlemen opposite. I quite admit that the proposed Amendment was too wide, but it does seem the general feeling of the House that in cases of arrears of maintenance or bastardy orders—I will not trouble the House by repeating what has been already said—where the man appears in Court with money in his pocket, where he gloats over the fact, and says, "I will not pay these arrears," power should be given to meet such a case. A friend of mine told me that only a little while ago at his Court they had to send a man to prison for a month because he gloried in the fact that he would not pay. There are cases of that kind: cases of men who refuse to pay under maintenance orders to their wives. Surely if these men have the money in their pocket when they appear in Court—at least after the decision of this House as to a criminal conviction—and refuse to pay rather than send them to prison—which can be no possible use to the unfortunate wife or the mother of the illegitimate child—we ought to take the money
    106
    out of their pocket. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. RENDALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: As far as I am concerned, I should personally be very glad to see these words inserted in the Bill. But I have introduced this Bill as a non-controversial measure. All I can say is that if the House will accept these words without controversy I shall be glad to accept them, but I am bound by my pledge, and do not desire to have a long-Debate upon words which may be found objectionable by the House.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "him" ["found on him when so searched"], to insert the words "on apprehension or."
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "shall" ["to be paid shall, subject to any direction given by the Court"] to insert the words "unless that person proves that the money found on him is not his property."
    Dr. CHAPPLE: Would it not be better that the words should read "unless it is proven"? The man may wish to prove that the money belongs to somebody else. Moreover, the fact may be proven by his wife, or by his employer, or by the person from whom the money was stolen. To insist that the proof must be given by the person seems to me greatly to restrict the operation of the amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think the words will stand in their present form. I propose to insert later and in an appropriate place the words: "Is possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the same, or any part of the same." Consequently, when I insert these words, the whole of the construction of this Clause will be changed, and it will not appear that the person is to prove the ownership of the money.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: If these words are included now, why not include them correctly instead of incorrectly?
    Mr. McKENNA: I should not like it to appear that I commit myself ultimately to

    107
    retaining these words at all in the Clause. I shall be quite willing to drop this Amendment if the House accepts it so, on the assurance that subsequently it may be moved in the form suggested by my hon. Friend below the Gangway and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Before this Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is necessary to restrict the time in which proof is to be given? Injustice may be done if this rule is applied on the spot in relation to the money.
    Mr. McKENNA: There is something in what the hon. and learned Gentleman says.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words:—
    "Provided that nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorising a male person to search a female person."
    I understand it is the practice in almost all the Courts that no female prisoner shall be searched by a male person. I am sure it should be universal, at any rate, now, and under this Section.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment; but I want to suggest to my hon. Friend that he ought to make the Amendment clearer. I cannot understand why the sex is put in this way at all, and I should be glad if the hon. Member will make it read, "provided that nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorising any person searching one of the opposite sex."
    Mr. KING: I am prepared to move the Amendment in that form.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The Government cannot accept this Amendment. It is objectionable in substance and most objectionable in form.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Amendment made: In paragraph (b), leave out the words, "on conviction" ["which may be payable on conviction under the table of fees"].—[Mr. Rendall.]

    CLAUSE 6.—(Uniform Scale of Court Fees as Respects all Courts of Summary Jurisdiction.)
    (1) The table of Court fees set out in the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect in all Courts of Summary Jurisdiction,
    108
    and shall be substituted for any table of fees in force at the commencement of this Act in any Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and references in any enactment to any table of fees for which the said table is so substituted shall be construed as references to the said table.
    (2) Notwithstanding any provisions in any other general or local Act enabling fees to be charged by clerks to justices the fees set out in that Schedule, and the fees authorised to be charged by the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, and no other fees, may be charged by clerks to justices:
    Provided that nothing in this Section shall affect the fees chargeable in Metropolitan Police Courts or the Police Courts of the City of London, or in respect of assessment appeals under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, or in respect of formal investigations of shipping casualties.
    (3) The Secretary of State may, in the event of new or additional duties being imposed on Courts of Summary Jurisdiction or clerks to justices, by order make such variations in the said table of fees as may seem to him to be proper, and upon such order coming into operation the table shall have effect subject to the variations made by the order:
    Provided that before any such order is made a draft of the proposed order shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during which the House is sitting, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those thirty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft Order or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of a new draft Order.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "in" ["the Table of Court Fees set out in the First Schedule"], insert the words "Part I. of."
    In Sub-section (2) after the word "in" ["fees set out in that Schedule"], insert the words "Part I. of."
    Leave out the words "Schedule, and the fees authorised to be charged by the Licensing (Consolidating) Act, 1910, and no other fees."
    Leave out he words "assessment appeals under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, or in respect of formal investigation of shipping casualties."—[Mr. McKenna.]
    Probation.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Power to Recognise and Subsidise Societies for Care of Youthful Offenders on Probation, etc.)
    (1) If a society is formed having as its object or amongst its objects the care and control of persons under the age of twenty-one whilst on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, or of persons whilst placed out on licence from a reformatory or industrial school or Borstal institution, or under supervision after the determination of the period of their detention in such a school or institution, or under supervision in pursuance of this Act, the society may apply to the Secretary of State for recognition, and the Secretary of State, if he approves of the constitution of the society and is satisfied as to the means adopted by the society for securing such objects as aforesaid, may grant his recognition to the society.
    (2) Where a probation order is made by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in respect of a person who appears to the Court to be under the age of twenty-one, the Court may appoint any officer provided by a recognised society to act as probation officer in the case.
    (3) Where a probation officer provided by a recognised society has been appointed to act in any case and it is subsequently found by the society expedient that some other officer provided by the society should be substituted for the officer originally appointed, the society may, subject to the approval of the Court, appoint such other officer to act, and thereupon the probation order shall have effect as if such substituted officer had originally been appointed to act as probation officer.
    (4) There may be paid to a recognised society out of moneys provided by Parliament towards the expenses incurred by the society such sums on such conditions as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury may recommend.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move to leave out this Clause.
    Under 7 of Edward VII. probation officers were for the first time appointed by the Court direct to look after persons allowed out on probation. I do not think I need trouble the House with the details of their work. They were, in fact, to take up the work of the Court Missionaries under a previous Act of 1007. I want to speak on behalf of the Church of England Temperance Society whose Police Court
    110
    missionary work is well known to every Member of this House. Prior to 1907 there were no probation officers at all, but in every Police Court the Police Court missionary appointed by the Church of England Temperance Society did the work unofficially which the probation officers now do officially. He was the one man in Court unconnected with the administration of justice to whom the prisoner could pour out his grievances and explain his own point of view. The magistrate in nearly all cases, or in many cases, used the missionary in order to do the multifarious kind of work which the Court and the police could not do. In cases of separation of husband and wife sometimes arrangements were made by him. Tools were got out of pawn, money was collected in order to pay fines, children were got into homes, and other kinds of work which everyone knows could not be done by the police was done by the missionary of the Church of England Temperance Society. Under the Probation Act of 1907 I had the honour of being on the committee of the Church of England Temperance Society, and as chairman of the committee for two dioceses I have personally come into very close contact with those missionaries and the work they do, and it is for the maintenance of their position that I am now appealing to the Home Secretary.
    Under the Act of 1907, when it came to the question of who should be appointed as probation officers, the magistrates, who knew the missionary and the work he did, in nearly all cases said we will appoint the agents of the Mission of the Church of England Temperance Society as probation officers under the Court. There are to-day 153 missionaries of the Church of England Temperance Society who were probation officers in 1907–133 men and twenty women. And there are 153 men in England and Wales, and they visit regularly 415 different Police Courts. I think I am right in saying in the county of Kent, which probably I know better than the other counties, every single Police Court in the whole of that county borough and county is visited regularly by one of those attached to the Church of England Temperance Society. I will not give more statistics than I can, but I want to tell the number of cases placed in the hands of these probation officers during last year. I have got the total number. In my own diocese of Canterbury and Rochester 516 cases have been definitely handed over to the missionaries by the magistrates. In

    111
    London 1,294 cases have been so handed over, in Manchester 266, and in St. Alban's 331. I have got altogether the return from sixteen different dioceses, and I find that 3,830 cases in these dioceses were last year handed over by the magistrates to these missionaries in order that they might minister to them in a way that the police and the magistrates could not possibly do. I do not know whether it is necessary to read to the House the encomiums passed on the work of the Police Court missionary time and again by magistrates both in London and the country. I should like to refer to two. Everyone who has taken up the report of the Church of England Temperance Society in various dioceses, which is published year by year, will see reported remarks of the local magistrates saying that they could not get on with their work without the aid of the Police Court missionaries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] Then I will only read two cases, quite recent ones. One is from Lancashire by Mr. Philip Birley, chairman of the Office Committee of the Manchester City Justices. He says:—
    "In my position on the Office Committee of the Manchester City Justices, I have come into close contact with the work of the C.E.T.S. Police Court Mission. That is particularly so in connection with their probation officer, and it has been my duty to examine his work closely for the last eighteen months, I wish to say that I am certain that great good is done in the majority of the probationers by the work of the officers, particularly in his success in finding employment for those under his charge. This has been largely helped by the fact that the officer is also a servant of the society, and he has thus many ways of helping his cases during the period of probation. It will, I am sure, be a great gain to the probation work if this society is one of those approved by the new Act."
    The reason I am dealing with this point is that there is grave doubt as to the position which the Home Secretary contemplates under Clause 7 of this Bill, and I am bound to confess that the Church of England Society do not think it satisfactory. I desire to quote one other reference from Sir John Dickinson, who is the chief magistrate in London. In a speech a short time ago, at the Southwark Chapter House, he declared that
    "Police Court missionaries, male and female, were of the greatest possible assistance to the magistrates, and in no sense was this more true than in regard to the Probation of Offenders Act. In this matter, the Police Court missionaries has been of the utmost assistance to the magistrates; indeed, but for their co-operation and valuable reports in regard to offenders on probation it would have been an impossibility for the Act to have been so successfully administered."
    What is the position? I have told shortly the House what has been done in reference to this Court work. Under the provisions of this Bill the Home Secretary is going
    112
    to have power to take away that work which the probationary officers of the Church of England Temperance Society are doing. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I do not want to take up the time of the House, and if the right hon. Gentleman will get up and say I am wrong I will not continue.
    Mr. McKENNA: As the hon. Gentleman challenges me, I may say to him that I propose to accept his first two Amendments.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: And as the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the first two Amendments on the Paper, if the House will allow me I will withdraw the Motion to omit the Clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "formed" ["if a society is formed having as its object"], to insert the words "or as already in existence."
    The difficulty which the Church of England Society found was that if the Home Secretary was going to form a new-society that would take over the formation of probation officers and that all the work would be given to the new society. In justice to myself I should tell the House that we had a letter from one of the Home Secretary's officials, which we considered of a dangerous character in regard to the work that the society has been doing so-long. However, if the Home Secretary will say to the House that the words "or is already in existence" will be included, and the very great work which the Church of England Temperance Society are doing so long will be preserved, we will be satisfied.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: I think it is very unfair to the Committee that the Church of England Temperance Society did not bring this matter forward during the Committee stage. Surely that was the time to have Brought it forward, and not at this period of the Session when we want to get this Bill through. I sat through all the sittings of the Committee, which were very prolonged, and we had long discussions, and I think it is rather unfair to come down to the House with a point of this sort, which the society knew all about long ago. I hope hon. Members will not find it necessary to take up a lot of time on points of this kind.
    Further Amendment made: After the word "Act" ["In pursuance of this Act"], insert the words "or some one or more of such objects."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "officer" ["any officer provided by a recognised society"], and to insert instead thereof the word "person." I hope the Home Secretary will not insist upon the retention of the word "officer." There is a good deal of voluntary work done in these cases, and if the powers of the magistrates are limited to officers of a recognised society, I think the usefulness of this provision will be very much restricted. Frequently the officers of these societies are fully occupied and have not sufficient leisure to undertake the duties of a probation officer. Again, their work may not be quite of that kindly nature which a voluntary worker might give to it. I hope the Home Secretary will allow an opening for the voluntary worker in this connection.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to second this Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am quite in sympathy with the object of my hon. Friend, but I am not so sure that the word which he has proposed to substitute will have the effect he desires.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: The Clause reads at present, "the Court may appoint any officer provided by a recognised society," so that it must be an officer of some recognised society.
    Mr. McKENNA: That does not in any way interfere with the discretion of the Court to appoint a probation officer, and it does not interfere with the powers of the magistrate. Our intention is, by giving the society financial assistance, to enable it to provide persons who might be appointed as probation officers in every town. It would not be of any use, however willing the magistrates might be to appoint them, if they were not on the list, and we wish to have them available in order that societies supplying officers of that kind may receive a State subsidy. The Court may appoint anybody, and the Clause does not withdraw any existing power which the Court has got.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: Do I understand that a person who is not really an employed officer of a society, but who is nominated
    114
    by a society, may be appointed by the Court?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, or anybody else. The Court has to be satisfied as to the status and character of the probation officer. A society can recommend suitable persons, and the discretion of the magistrates is left unfettered.
    Mr. BOOTH: I have listened to the special pleading rather carefully, and I feel certain that if this Amendment were adopted there would be a little more freedom on the part of the Court. It is no answer to the argument in favour of freedom of choice to say that they have fairly good freedom of choice in electing probation officers. A suitable person might turn up in the Court eminently suitable for appointment, but unless they were on the staff, and unless they had previously been put on the list and selected, they could not be appointed in a particular case. I think this Amendment can do no harm, and the magistrate would have an additional choice.
    Mr. HILLS: I think there is a risk of the word "officer" being read in too narrow a sense. I am rather afraid that some magistrate would think he only had the power to appoint a person who is an officer. The changing of the word "officer" to "person" may do good and cannot do harm, because the discretion of the Court remains, and we can assume that the Court will not appoint an improper person. This Amendment would give a little more flexibility to the Clause, and I hope the Home Secretary will accept it.
    Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: The word "officer" in this Clause is a term that may be construed as it is at present construed in the case of the Probationer Offenders Act. In that case it is strictly construed as a person who is on a list for a given Petty Sessional Division. The flexibility could be met and the area of selection widened if, instead of using the word "officer," the Clause read, "The Court may appoint any person provided by a recognised society to act as probationer officer in the case." I know that would not meet all the views which have been expressed, but it would make certain that the person provided would be a person of integrity and known to some recognised society. The word "officer," as it now stands, is too strict and should not remain.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no particular objection to this word, and I will accept the substitution of the word "person" for "officer" now, on the undertaking that I must be given an opportunity for reconsideration of this point, in case I find that it restricts the complete freedom of choice of the magistrate.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words "Provided that in the case of a probation order made in respect of a female the probation officer so appointed must also be a female."
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: This Amendment would have a much wider effect than is generally imagined, and I think it would be most undesirable to put a provision of this sort in the Bill.
    Mr. CAVE: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, because it is very often very difficult to get a female probation officer.
    Mr. HILLS: I think this Amendment contains a principle which ought to be extended. There are reasons why in certain cases the probation officer should be a female. This is a question of a far reaching character, and I believe this Amendment is in line with certain other reforms in which the House has recently agreed to extending the use of women in various directions in work of this kind. Though I think it is perhaps too wide a proposal to insist upon a woman being appointed in all cases, I think some modified form of this Amendment might be accepted.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the figures I gave just now show the impossibility of carrying out an Amendment of this sort. I pointed out that out of 133 probation officers under the Church of England Temperance Society only twenty of them are women.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Tower to send Youthful Delinquents to Borstal Institutions.)
    (1) Where a person is summarily convicted of any offence for which the Court
    116
    has power to impose a sentence of imprisonment for one month or upwards without the option of a fine, and—

    (a) it appears to the Court that the offender is not less than sixteen nor more than twenty-one years of age; and

    (b) it is proved that the offender has previously been convicted of any offence or, that having been previously discharged on probation, he failed to observe a condition of his recognizance; and

    (c) it appears to the Court that by reason of the offender's criminal habits or tendencies, or association with persons of bad character, it is expedient that he should be subject to detention for such term and under such instruction and discipline as appears most conducive to his reformation and the repression of crime,

    it shall be lawful for the Court, in lieu of passing sentence, to commit the offender to prison until the next Quarter Sessions, and the Court of Quarter Sessions shall inquire into the circumstances of the case, and if it appears to the Court that the offender is of such age as aforesaid and that for any such reason as aforesaid it is expedient that the offender should be subject to such detention as aforesaid, shall pass such sentence of detention in a Borstal institution as is authorised by Part I. of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1908, as amended by this Act; otherwise the Court shall deal with the case in any way in which the Court of Summary Jurisdiction might have dealt with it:
    Provided that if the offender consents, the Court by which he is convicted, instead of so committing him for sentence, may itself pass such sentence of detention in a Borstal institution as aforesaid.
    (2) A Court of Summary Jurisdiction or Court of Quarter Sessions, before dealing with any case under this Section, shall consider any report or representations which may be made to it by or on behalf of the Prison Commissioners as to the suitability of the offender for such detention as aforesaid, and a Court of Summary Jurisdiction shall, where necessary, adjourn the case for the purpose of giving an opportunity for such a report or representations being made.
    (3) Where a person is committed to prison under this Section his treatment in prison shall, so far as practicable, be similar to that in Borstal institutions, or he may, if

    117
    the Secretary of State so directs, be transferred to a Borstal institution.
    (4) The Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908, shall apply in the case of a person committed to prison by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under this Section as if that person were committed for trial for an indictable offence.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move the omission of this Clause, which gives large additional powers to magistrates dealing with juvenile offenders. I am in a difficulty in moving this Amendment, because by far the larger number of the hon. Member.; of this House are magistrates and have had great practical experience, which I have not had in these eases, because I am not a magistrate. For that reason they have a sort of vested interest, which, I think, they ought to wipe out from their minds This Clause gives them, not judicial powers, but I must call them grandmotherly powers. Every magistrate naturally thinks he is not only gifted with judicial powers, but has the power of knowing far better than the person in the dock what is good for him, knowing far better than the parents of the person in the dock what is good for that prospective criminal. I must, therefore, ask the House to clear their minds of the idea that they are heavenly gifted or heavenly inspired with the knowledge of what is best for the prisoner. A bench of magistrates ought to be judges, pure and simple. That was their original business, and that is still, in my mind, their principal duty. It is to decide whether a person is guilty or not guilty, and what the punishment for guilt is to be. Gradually more and more we are converting benches of magistrates into sort of philanthropic institutions, who are trusted, not to punish, or not to let off, or not to fine the innocent, but to decide, after having heard a sort of smattering of evidence, generally from the police, and without knowing anything in detail as to the case, what is the interest of the person before them. You have put into their hands powers over these people brought before them which are enormous. Clause 10 gives to benches of magistrates powers to deal with persons between sixteen and twenty-one, or people whom they believe to be between sixteen and twenty-one. The Clause in effect says as follows: "Where a young person, that is between sixteen and twenty-one, is summarily convicted of any offence, and the offender has previously been convicted of any offence,
    118
    or has been discharged on probation and has failed to observe any condition of his recognisance, and if it appears to the Court that it is expedient that he should be subject to detention for such term and under such instruction and discipline as appears most conducive to his reformation," then they may send him to a Borstal institution for two years. [HON. MEMBERS dissented.] Well, they may send him to Quarter Sessions, and the Quarter Sessions may then do it instead of the magistrates. If the unfortunate youth consents, the Court by which he is convicted, instead of sending him to Quarter Sessions, may immediately send him to this institution. Put a boy of sixteen up there, and ask him whether he will elect to go to Quarter Sessions or to be dealt with on the spot. You are going to give this youth, who knows nothing whatever about the law, an option which he is not in a position to exercise. In effect you are giving to these Courts of Summary Jurisdiction powers to deal with youthful persons between sixteen and twenty-one who have been once convicted of a crime. It may be stealing apples. Associating with bad characters is a crime in the eyes of magistrates, but that is not the crime that has got to be proved against him. If it appears expedient to the bench that he should be subject to detention, and if he has been convicted of a crime previously, then they may send him for two years to a Borstal institution. This is done because the House and the Home Office believe that the Borstal institutions are admirable institutions for reforming boys. I dare say that they are. I do not know anything about them, but I do not believe that we have any right, when it is a question of some small crime, to give to the magistrates the power of sending these youthful people for two years away from their parents and their families to these institutions. It seems to me that you are giving them powers which you have no right to entrust to them. At present these cases would be dealt with by perhaps a, fortnight's imprisonment, and the alternative provided for them under this Bill is two years in a Borstal institution. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones) thinks that it would be much better to send them to a Borstal institution for two years. Supposing he were the parent of a boy, would he think it would be better to send him there for two years?
    Mr. E. JONES: Most of the parents agree.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I dare say, but is it not hard upon those who do not agree? I should like to know if our constituents have heard of this provision. I undertake to say that this provision is unknown to ninety-nine out of every hundred parents in the country. We are merely passing this Bill and making this provision, because we know it will not affect our own children. We pass a good deal too much legislation for the lower orders which does not apply to ourselves. I will take another case. Take a youth between sixteen and twenty-one who has got into difficulties with the police over a picketing case. At the present time he might be sent to prison for a week or a fortnight, but under this Clause you give the magistrates power to say that he has been associating with undesirable characters, because he has got into touch with these labour agitators, and he would be much better in a Borstal institution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is all in the Clause. "Where any person is summarily convicted of any offence." [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] Have hon. Members looked at the Amendments of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Steel-Maitland) who is so influential when these Bills are being drafted? His Amendments are to leave out all the subsequent qualifications. But even supposing the hon. Member for Birmingham does not carry his Amendment, then what is the Clause? "Where any person is summarily convicted of any offence for which the Court has power to impose a month's imprisonment without the option of a fine"—I suppose the Court has power to impose a sentence like that upon people who break the picketing law, people who come into contact with the police and are convicted of assault—"he can be sent to a Borstal institution for two years."
    I dare say that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 it would be better to send him to a Borstal institution, but I do not think that you have any right to make a bench of magistrates the judges whether something is in the interest of the prisoner. They are merely judges of what is right or wrong on the particular charge for which the prisoner has been brought before them. It is very desirable that this Section which gives these large additional powers to magistrates should be eliminated from the Bill. Certainly, if the Home Secretary wants a non-contentious Bill, he will pass it without this Clause. Simply because a lot of Members have been impressed with the idea of keeping
    120
    boys between sixteen and twenty-one out of prison, they are going to do far worse by sending them for a long period to a Borstal institution. I dare say that it is an admirable institution, but still it is imprisonment in the sense that those who are sent there cannot escape, and that you are marking them for life from the very fact that they have been in the institution. I do not think that we ought readily to give to any body of men, however well intentioned, the power to inflict this stigma on people who would otherwise serve a small period of imprisonment.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to second the Amendment. I quite agree that the duty of magistrates is to inflict punishment sufficient for the offence which has been committed. Under this Clause a young person, between sixteen and twenty-one, instead as at present getting one month's imprisonment, could be sent to a Borstal institution for two years, unless the Court of Quarter Sessions decided that he was only to have the punishment that he would get under the present law. Those are very drastic powers to entrust to a bench of magistrates. It would be very hard on a young man to be punished with two years for an offence for which under the present law he would only get one month. I, therefore, have much pleasure in seconding the Amendment, and I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to accept it.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend's statement that he knows nothing of the Borstal institutions shows that the good work which has been done in those institutions during recent years is to him a closed book. We should never have dreamed of putting this Clause into the Bill had we not experience and knowledge of individual lives of so many hundreds of youthful offenders who have been redeemed. My hon. Friend has entirely left that out of the account. The sole object of the Clause is to deal with young persons under twenty-one who, on account of their past history and surroundings, have no chance in life. We take them out of criminal surroundings, we give them education, better habits of life, health, and vitality, and in the great majority of cases when they have passed from Borstal they become honest citizens and earn their own livelihood. This Clause is founded on experience, and on the basis of experience I commend it to the House.
    Mr. BOOTH: That, of course, sounds all very well, and, as far as it goes, I do not

    121
    challenge the views of the Home Secretary, but that is not the ground of opposition to this Clause. It is quite a secondary question whether the Borstal Institution is good or bad, and if my right hon. Friend had listened to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment he would have discovered that. Many of us are seriously alarmed because you are undermining parental authority and seeking to raise up a State-nourished and institutioned race, and whenever you do that Old England will go to the dogs. It is all very well to say that particular boys may be better treated in certain institutions, but it does not at all follow. There has not been time with regard to these institutions to judge, and I am perfectly certain that when our Home Secretary preaches the doctrine that we are to look for our honest boys among those who have been in institutions like this it is a negation of Christianity and simply acknowledging that this is a pagan country.
    I have been listening to this Debate for an hour or more, and I have never noticed the slightest recognition of the Sermon on the Mount or the fundamentals of Christianity. The whole idea is that if we can get people into some kind of State machine, beneficent, of course, and bearing a very nice title, with some very kind ladies belonging to it—I grant all that—and beneficent Home Secretaries admiring them, it is all to the good. The idea is that unless we can get a large part of humanity into these admirable institutions, and so turn them out fit and meet to become taxpayers and soldiers, we are not on the right lines. Members come to this House determined to pass Acts and Clauses of some kind, and these must go in with the rest. I say quite candidly, as one who has given as much time as anybody else in working for the street urchins, both in town and country, that I have little hope of Clauses or schemes of this kind. There is no recognition in the arguments of the contra account. You may have one boy in ten who goes to this institution and is benefited, and you may worsen the lot in life of the other nine who do not go. As long as it is the doctrine that institutions, law, magistrates, enforcement by probation officers or people in uniform make for manhood and womanhood, so long shall we pass Clauses like this. I have no faith in them. I would very much prefer giving magistrates more latitude, and not limiting them to any particular kind of institution, if these young people
    122
    are to go to institutions. I regret the whole tone of this legislation, and, if it comes to a Division, I shall vote against the Clause because I think it has a wrong tendency.
    Mr. NIELD: I think the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) has done his share to bring about the institution of State regulation and State officialism.
    Mr. BOOTH: How?
    Mr. NIELD: I rise in order to give the Home Secretary an opportunity to repeat his undertaking given in Committee with regard to the restrictive regulations enforced at Borstal, which now shut out a great many of those whom it is desirable to send there.
    Mr. BOOTH: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to intervene. He made a statement with regard to myself and I wish him to particularise it. He suggested that I was responsible for this Borstal institution.
    Mr. NIELD: No; what I said was that the hon. Member has assisted in the creation of State officials galore since he had been a supporter of the Government, and this, in my opinion, is a far more useful institution than many of the branches of State officialdom which have been set up in recent years. I wish to direct attention to what I would call the too strict administration of this institution. I gave the Home Secretary instances in Committee, and on looking up the report I find it is perfectly true that over and over again, as the result of the stringent regulations which the Home Office has prescribed for this institution, a number of boys for whom its treatment would be most desirable have had to be excluded. Indeed, it is very difficult, when looking at the regulations, to find a case that can be considered really suitable for admission, and, so far as my experience goes, only one in four or one in five who are thought suitable by the magistrates are regarded as eligible for admission by the prison authorities. I have in mind the case of a boy who, be cause he had a narrow chest, was declared physically unfit for admission to Borstal, whereas that is just the place where his chest might have been developed. In another case a boy was objected to because one of his feet was shorter than the other. Surely that dfficulty might easily have been got over by giving him proper boots! These are matters which the Home Secretary

    123
    promised to inquire into with a view of making the regulations sufficiently elastic to prevent these boys being shut out in the future. I hope he will be able to tell us that something is being done in that direction. So far from desiring, as this Motion does, to cut this Clause out, I would like to give my testimony to the value of this institution. An hon. Member opposite has interjected a remark to the effect that I am a magistrate, and therefore in favour of such an institution. But I would like to say that I know something about the working of this institution, and have come in personal contact with the administrators. I have also seen the report of the good work done, and I am aware that in at least 80 per cent. of the cases in which boys have been sent to Borstal they have, as a result, become perfectly good citizens.
    I have seen letters from across the sea from former inmates who are now occupying excellent positions, and only a little while ago I was assured by the director of Borstal Prison that he had just received from a former inmate who prior to his committal there was in a bad way, and, owing to his past likely to degenerate into a confirmed habitual criminal, and who through the treatment had got a fresh start on the other side of the Atlantic, and is now earning substantial money. This is only one of a great many cases. The boys are not treated as though they are in a State institution or in a reformatory, but they are made to feel their responsibility, and they are taught a trade. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to extend this system, and will provide more opportunity for outdoor pursuits, and for teaching these lads trades, thereby largely increasing their usefulness. So far from objecting to the Clause, I support the maintenance of the Borstal Institution because I am convinced of its value to the community at large.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I am rather sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) has not had some experience of the Borstal Institution. I was not on the Committee which dealt with this Bill, and therefore I am at some disadvantage in considering the effect of this Clause. I do not speak as one who desires to restrict in any way, but rather as one who would extend the influence of the Borstal Institution. Keep boys out of prison if you can. I expect
    124
    this Bill will do something towards effecting that, and when there is a criminal taint, when a boy shows he has a tendency to become an habitual criminal, then, I am quite sure, the Borstal Institution, with its longer sentence, is very much better than a short sentence to be served in a prison. I cannot think anyone can be worse off under the Clause, and I feel that frequent short sentences are a step towards paganism rather than from paganism. But I am inclined to criticise the Clause from the fact that it rather increases the amount of imprisonment not under Borstal conditions. It is proposed to send juvenile adults to prison for an indeterminate period until the next Quarter Sessions takes place. That may frequently mean quite a number of weeks, and surely that detention for a crime or offence which is punishable with a limit of one month's imprisonment, and for which, in fact, only a week's or a fortnight's imprisonment might be imposed, cannot be beneficial to the boy. It might be a boy had committed an offence for which under ordinary circumstances he would be awarded seven or ten days' imprisonment. I know he must have been previously convicted, but you are actually putting him under the conditions which you actually want to save him from. Your object is to save him from becoming an ordinary prisoner. I would like to ask the Home Secretary why it is necessary to interpose Quarter Sessions in this matter? Does he think the Court below is not to be trusted with the committal? I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the necessary reference to Quarter Sessions, and that would avoid this intermediate sending of the boy to prison until next Quarter Sessions, and until inquiry has been made.
    Mr. McKENNA: It is optional.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I know that if the boy agrees his case can be dealt with by the Court below. You do not think it advisable that that Court should be able to send him to Borstal without his consent, and it will involve his being in prison for, it may be, four or eight weeks, and on the top of that he may have two years' imprisonment added.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I do not want to prolong this Debate, but I do desire to say a word or two in favour of a Clause which I think is one of the most important in the Bill. I happen to have had a good deal of experience of the Borstal Institution. I have watched the progress of

    125
    youths there, and nothing has more impressed me than the fact that the place is not a prison at all. It is merely a teaching and training institution. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, I am sorry to say, insists on using terms which are really not applicable. These boys are no more in prison than army recruits can be said to be in prison. They are merely under training, teaching and discipline. There are certain conditions of admission. The first is youth. In the second place, there must have been a previous conviction, as showing that the former punishment had failed to have a deterrent effect. In the third place, he must have criminal tendencies, and must be known to associate with bad characters. What is the use of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) complaining that the Bill takes away parental responsibility when dealing with a boy like that.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I think that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The word between "criminal tendencies," and "associate with bad characters" is "or," and not "and."
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I am not going to bandy words with the hon. Gentleman. The consensus of opinion, and the good sense of this House, I am quite sure will be found to be in favour of this Clause. The question is, whether we shall punish boys or teach them? These are cases in which punishment has failed to act as a deterrent, and therefore we want, not two years' imprisonment, but two years' training in Borstal, in order that these lads may be protected against themselves.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I hope the Home Secretary will accept my Amendment depriving the magistrates of the power to deal with offenders by consent. I have seen a good deal of this practice of asking prisoners to give their consent. As a rule, the boy really knows very little of what is going on, and he is very much inclined to say, "I consent." If he does so he can be put away for three years. He gives his consent in ignorance of what the bench is going to do. I am strongly in favour of this Clause as a whole, because if a case goes to Quarter Sessions, it gives the boy a right to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, sitting in London, against the sentence imposed, whereas if he is persuaded to say, "I consent, and I will allow the magistrates in Petty Sessions to deal with my case," he loses that right of appeal. I am very strongly in
    126
    favour, too, of the Borstal system. I have had the privilege of seeing it working, but I really must dissent, as I did on the Second Reading, from what has been said by the last speaker. A number of people connected with the Borstal Institution have written thanking me for the remarks I then made. It is a delusion to say that Borstal is not in any sense a prison. It is a place of punishment, as well as a place of detention. It is meant to be so, and there is not the slightest doubt about it. I think it is wrong to give power to magistrates in Petty Sessions to deal with cases of this kind. One object of this Clause is to commit to Quarter Sessions in order that further inquiry may be made. These are not cases which should be dealt with offhand. You may have a couple of boys brought before the Court for an offence for which, under ordinary circumstances, before the Borstal system was instituted, a sentence of a month or two's hard labour might be given. One does it still if you think the boys have respectable parents or people who are likely to give them a fresh chance in the world after they come away. In certain cases you find that the boys have a good home and are strong, but need discipline and punishment. In those cases you use the Borstal Institution.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: What is the punishment inflicted upon them?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: If the hon. Member underwent the first six months of the treatment in a Borstal institution, it would certainly alter his appearance very considerably. I do not want to go into these details. There is not a person who, having been in a Borstal institution, and who comes before you again who will not tell you that the first six months in a Borstal institution is no joke and is not meant to be. It is a serious thing. Before you make up your mind to send a boy to one of these institutions, you have to make-inquiries of those who know the boy and his tendencies. It is a thing which requires careful inquiry of the governor of the gaol where the boy has been, and other persons. The sentence should not be passed by a magistrate in Petty Sessions. It is a very serious responsibility before you take upon yourselves, although no doubt it is for the good of the boy, and you have to think twice before you pass a sentence of two or three years' incarceration on any human being for an

    127
    offence for which the ordinary person gets six months' hard labour. I have frequently gone into the Police Court and seen the way in which it works. I am frequently shocked by the way these matters have been conducted. The Police Court is not the atmosphere in which persons ought to be asked to consent to three years' incarceration in a Borstal institution. Although I am strongly in favour of this Clause, I am also of opinion that if a magistrate thinks a case is one for Borstal treatment, he should commit the boy to Quarter Sessions. I suggest that the words "provided that if the offender consents, the Court by which he is convicted, instead of so committing him for sentence, may itself pass such sentence of detention in a Borstal institution as aforesaid," should be omitted.
    Mr. McKENNA: May I suggest that we should first dispose of the Motion to omit the Clause, then we can discuss that matter?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I agree. I hope the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) will support me when I come to move that Amendment, and will allow the Clause to go through in a form in which it will be of use to the country, instead of being, as it now is, a great danger. It would be easy to bring Borstal institutions into disrepute if you have hasty sentences passed in this way, and once you get public opinion against you, you will experience great difficulty in getting people sent to them. I shall support the Clause.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: While agreeing with a great deal which my hon. and learned Friend has just said, I would point out to him that the consent of which he speaks is not a consent to be tried but a consent to a sentence, which is a very different kind of consent from that with which we are used in the Courts. It is not a question of being asked, "Do you agree to be tried by this tribunal or do you desire to go to Quarter Sessions?" The young person is actually tried and convicted, and then the question arises whether he will consent to being sent to the institution or to being committed to the Quarter Sessions for sentence.
    Mr. McKENNA: May I suggest that we should discuss that later? We shall have all this discussion over again. We are only now on the question whether the Clause be omitted from the Bill.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: It has a bearing on whether or not we should accept this Clause in its substantial form. There is the question whether magistrates should have this power. I am inclined to think that that power should not be granted on the consent of the boy, not because of the difficulty in which the prisoner is placed because of that election, but because the atmosphere is unsuitable. As to the interval between Petty Sessions and Quarter Sessions, the hon. Member for Bury (Sir G. Toulmin) spoke of it as if it were passed in an atmosphere with habitual criminals. That is not so. It may be desirable or undesirable that the period should be long or short, but the remanded prisoner is not sent to be associated with the habitual criminal. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) attributes to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Nield) partiality in dealing with great social questions merely because he has had the benefit of experience in dealing with the administration of criminal justice. One would have thought it was rather an advantage to have an hon. Member who could bring to a question of this sort experience as to whether or not it was desirable in the interests of the people. Apparently, because my hon. and learned Friend knows something about the subject, therefore he is prejudiced. What are the qualifications of the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme to deal with the Clause? On his own statement his qualification is that he knows nothing about it. He criticises the Member who knows something about it because he is prejudiced, and then admits that he has no knowledge of the subject with which he is occupying the time of the House. The statements of those who are familiar with the working of the Borstal system should be of greater value to the House than the opinion of an hon. Member who brings forward a Motion to delete a Clause on the confessed ground that he is entirely ignorant of the subject. Those who have experience of the working of the Borstal system know that it is a very valuable one, although there may be respects in which it could be amended. I shall certainly vote against a proposal which means the limitation of a possible benefit to young society, a benefit which is too limited already, and which should be more widely distributed.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: It is not necessary for me to reply to the hon. Member who has just sat down. It is possible to know

    129
    why we should not send people to prison without ever having been in prison ourselves, and in the same way it is possible to object to give power to magistrates far in excess of what they have already without ever having suffered from them. I listened to the hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) with great respect. He, as a magistrate, has had dealings with these cases. He, and the hon. Member for Bury (Sir G. Toulmin), and the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple), one after another told the House that a Borstal institution was an ideal place, and that they all wished to send more people to such institutions, in fact, the Borstal institution was so admirable that they fancied the whole of the working classes could not do better than go through them and be trained. [An HON. MEMBER: "They said nothing of the kind."] None of them went so far as that, but they all meant it. The hon. Member for Ealing and the hon. Member for Stirlingshire certainly said it was desirable that more people should go through these institutions than actually did so. There is no limit to the desire and aspirations of these State bureaucrats.
    Mr. NIELD: What I said was that owing to the rules of the Home Office, boys who were otherwise eligible were too closely excluded.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: The whole of the arguments of those who support the Clause go to show that Borstal institutions are so good that more ought to go through them. If that is not the basis of the hon. Member's argument, I fail to understand what it was. I realise, to my great regret, that there are certain classes of people who believe that the ideal prospect to put before the country is that of the State looking after children and straight-waist-coating them from their cradle until they reach manhood. I am up against them all the time, even if they are magistrates themselves. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that three Members of this House, all of them magistrates,
    have declared that the Borstal treatment is so good. Does the House think that people who believe that a Borstal institution is an ideal institution are the sort of people who ought to have given to them increased powers to send children to these institutions? They are the people who believe in the admirable education given, and who are to decide whether a youth of sixteen should be sent for seven days to a prison or for three years to a Borstal institution. I know these people are actuated by the very best of motives, but I differ from them. We are handing over to the people who have these powers the liberties of the young man of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Criminals!"] If we all had had the opportunities they had had, how many of us would be criminals? We happen to be well off and can escape these Courts. The one thing in this Debate which affects me is that the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) is not against this Clause. When I listen to him I always feel that the Universities should have a representative in this House. I always listen to him with the greatest possible respect and gain great advantage from his arguments, but, although he proved conclusively that part of the Clause was thoroughly bad, he said ho was going to vote for it, although he did not give one reason in favour of it. That was a little weakness on his part. I do not think he is a magistrate who has a vested interest in increasing their powers. A bulwark of the liberties of the subject, such as the hon. and learned Member, ought to be with us in the Lobby when we are defending the rights of the people of this country, and protecting them from the servile state to which they are being committed by the Home Secretary and those behind him.
    Question put, "That the words, 'Where a person is summarily convicted of any offence,' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 299; Noes, 36.

    Division No. 186.]

    AYES.

    [7.14 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Bryce, J. Annan

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

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Buxton, Noel

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Barnes, George N.

    Boland, John Plus

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Barnston, Harry

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Barran, Sir John (Hawick Burghs)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Cassel, Felix

    Barrie, H. T.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Cave, George

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Hemmerde, Edwkard George

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hewart, Gordon

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hibbert, Sir Henr F.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

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

    Clough, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Clyde, James Avon

    Hills, John Waller

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Clynes, John R.

    Hinds, John

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hudson, Walter

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Radford, George Heynes

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    John, Edward Thomas

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Crocks, William

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Cullinan, John

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Reddy, Michael

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Delany, William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Kelly, Edward

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    King, Joseph

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

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

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Dillon, John

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Doris, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Rowlands, James

    Duffy, William J.

    Leach, Charles

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lewisham, Viscount

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

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, S.)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

    Shoehy, David

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Falconer, James

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Shortt, Edward

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    McGhee, Richard

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Ailsebrook

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Stanier, Beville

    Field, William

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Steel-Maitland. A. D.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Stewart, Gershom

    Forster, Henry William

    Malcolm, Ian

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Sutherland, John E.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Glanville, Harold James

    Millar, James Duncan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Molloy, Michael

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Goldman, C. S.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Goldstone, Frank

    Mooney, John J.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Morrell, Philip

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Morison, Hector

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Watt, Henry A.

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Webb, Henry

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

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Gulland, John William

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hackett, John

    Nield, Herbert

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Nolan, Joseph

    Whitehouse, John Howard

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hancock, John George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

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

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Dowd, John

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Ogden, Fred

    Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green, S. W.)

    Haslam, Lewis

    O'Malley, William

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    132

    133

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Worthington Evans, L.

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton)

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

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Bird, Alfred

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Sutton, John E.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Thomas, James Henry

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wardle, George J.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Pratt, J. W.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Hodge, John

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hogge, James Myles

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

    Wedgwood and Mr. Goldsmith.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Question, "That these words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "for which the Court has power to impose a sentence of imprisonment for one month or upwards without the option of a fine, and."
    The effect of leaving out these words will be to enable the Court to deal with certain classes of cases which, as the Clause stands, will not come within its purview. The classes of cases are really two, one general and one special. There is a general class of case which I think most people, at any rate, with certain exceptions, know really require treatment of this kind, and that is the class of boys or girls, as the case may be, who as they are growing up are of an entirely unsettled character, commit petty offences and are quite distinct from the boy or girl who may commit one more serious offence for which they may be sent to prison for punishment and come out again. It is almost the invariable experience that where you get boys of a criminal tendency who are always unsettled—continuous small lapses and continuous irregularities—they are really the boys on whom treatment of this kind will in the end confer more benefit than upon any other class of case. There is one special case which ought to be dealt with in this way and which at present, under the Clause as it stands, cannot be dealt with, and that is young girls from the age of sixteen up to the limits of the Bill who solicit in the streets. At present under the Bill they cannot be dealt with, and yet almost every police magistrate and every authority, I think, is of opinion that this is really a particular class of case which more than almost any other wants to be trained in regularity of habits, and not to be exposed to the continual temptation of going and soliciting in the streets day after day and week after week. The
    134
    extension which I propose really enables the Court to deal with these two cases. I wish to say one thing, especially to hon. Members who share the opinions of the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood). I should be willing to agree to any Amendment which would carefully hedge about the power of dealing with these cases. I think any Amendment might well be made which would see that if these cases are dealt with they should only be dealt with after scrupulous care, and where it is quite certain that it is really for the good of the person whom it is proposed to put into a Borstal home under treatment.
    I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson) that we have to regard a Borstal home as a home which is not necessarily an easy and a light case of detention. Of course it is a strict place of detention, and of course the detention there is in the nature of punishment. It is not exactly like a prison, because on the whole education there forms a much more prominent feature of it than it does in a prison, and punishment forms a less prominent feature; but still, there it is, a strict place and a place of detention and punishment, and therefore I should be only too glad for any provision to ensure that these cases are not dealt with loosely. In the first place, the two paragraphs (b) and (c) that follow make it clear that if these cases are to be dealt with at all or sent to a Borstal institution, there must be some added characteristic besides the actual offence which has been committed and for which they are sentenced. If the hon. Member moves an Amendment later on I should be perfectly willing to have the power of dealing with these cases confined to Quarter Sessions only. There may be certain benches of magistrates which deal with such cases very carefully and in every

    135
    way that could be desired, and it is quite possible that with other magistrates dealing with the cases quickly, or without sufficient care, you may not get the best results, and therefore hedge about the treatment with every care that is possible, but once you hedge it about with care I think the two cases which most need this kind of treatment are the two that I have just stated. My experience, although perhaps not as great as that of other Members of the House, has been considerable. I have lived and worked with them, and so also have some of my friends, and our experience has been that what is more a curse to boys when growing up than anything else is not the commission of a single grave fault—that may be punished and done with—but the tendency to get into irregular habits, and to commit many minor offences. Under our modern system of industry there is more chance of that in the case of a boy than in almost any other circumstances. It is by enabling the boy to be put to training that I think this Bill may have the best results, and it is for that reason I ask the House to enable this class of offences to be dealt with. I, in my innermost conviction, believe that it has not for its tendency the curtailment of individual liberty. You put a young boy or girl under these temptations, and the whole tendency of modern industrial occupation is to give them opportunities of committing offences. It is precisely that kind of boy who may go from bad to worse. It is really from knowledge of the case, so far as I have been able to analyse it, that I say we are not really interfering with individual liberty. We are enabling these persons to get real liberty afterwards as independent citizens.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment spoke with his accustomed lucidity and precise-ness. We can appreciate the importance of the demand he has addressed to the House. The hon. Member has three Amendments put down by which he proposes to extend the power of committal to Borstal institutions. This Clause, as it now stands, restricts the power of committal to those who have been committed to prison for one month without the option of a fine. The object of this Amendment is to enable the magistrates, in the first instance to suggest a Borstal institution in respect of an offence, however trivial, provided the other part of the Sub-section
    136
    has been complied with. I am sure the hon. Gentleman must have observed from the trend of the discussion that there is considerable difference of opinion as to how far we can trust the magistrate. We thought, and the Committee thought, that where the offence was one for which imprisonment could not be imposed, a Borstal institution was not suitable for such a case, and that we must wait until the offender had committed an offence for which he was liable to a month's imprisonment without the option of a fine. I appreciate what the hon. Member said about boys or girls who commit a series of small and trivial offences. As regards girls, under the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, there is a specific provision introduced to deal with that class of case. Whether that is satisfactory or not, we shall consider in due course; but I submit to the House that when you commit to a Borstal institution for two years or three years, as the case may be, the sentence ought not to be imposed unless the young person has committed an offence for which he is liable to a month's imprisonment without the option of a fine. Let us draw the line somewhere. I submit that we ought to leave the Clause as it is.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I would like to point out in opposition to the Amendment that it would render boys liable to be sent to a Borstal institution for playing football in the streets and for other offences of an equally trivial character. It seems to me that this is the wrong way to proceed. We ought first to have a development and extension of our educational system, for I believe that in that development and extension is to be found the true solution for many of the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred in moving the Amendment. It is because I think the remedy proposed by the Amendment to be a very serious departure in social science that I trust the House will reject it.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I wish to point out that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment is acting strictly on Conservative views. He believes that the State ought to mould the individual in the best form to serve the State. My own point of view is that we should look after the individual and give him the best possible chance without paring him down to make him suit the classes of this country.
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move to leave out the words—
    "Provided that if the offender consents, the Court by which he is convicted, instead of so committing him for sentence, may itself pass such sentence of detention in a Borstal institution as aforesaid."
    This point has already been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). Perhaps it will interest the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) if I state that I do not ask that the magistrates of Petty Sessions should have this power. I think it is undesirable. In cases of committal to Quarter Sessions it is not always possible that the information required by the Section could be forthcoming without a remand. Take the case of offenders brought up on night charges at Courts next morning. You want to avoid a remand, and you ask under this Section power to send a child to a Borstal institution. After all, in sentencing a child it is difficult to get satisfactory conditions, because I am perfectly sure that in most cases the parent, if consulted, will not consent to the child being sent away. I therefore think that on the original charge you will not have got the information as to previous convictions, and still less likely are you to have got the information on which to act with respect to a criminal's character. You could not get that in a few hours, especially if the case arises at night. There seems to be a misapprehension as to the method in which remand prisoners are treated. They are not allowed to exercise in the same yard with convicted prisoners. The rules which appertain to recreation and other matters in the case of remand prisoners are wholly different from the rules which apply in other cases. They are detained in different compartments, not necessarily cells, and everything is done to prevent the prisoners from feeling that they suffer anything but restraint of liberty. It is a total misapprehension to say that you are bringing these prisoners into contact with convicted criminals. Inasmuch as you must remand for some time in order to get the information which alone qualifies for getting an order, it can be no objection to the remand extending to Quarter Sessions. From Quarter Sessions you can appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, but from Petty Sessions you cannot.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to second the Amendment. I have already indicated
    138
    strongly my reasons for putting my Amendment before the House. I wish to make it quite clear that in regard to Petty Sessions, and certainly in regard to Police Courts, where matters have to be done with a great rush, the magistrates should not be allowed to pass a sentence of more than three years under any circumstances. The Government will spoil the Clause if they put in these words. It is a dangerous precedent. It is a step in the wrong direction to give magistrates this tremendous power of committing to a Borstal institution for three years persons between seventeen and twenty years of age. I say it is monstrous. I feel certain that a large number of Members will agree with me in that, and I hope pressure will be brought to bear on the Government to accept this very innocent Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I must remind the House that these words were originally inserted in the Bill in order to meet the very serious difficulty to which my hon. Friend referred, that of persons being kept in prison for perhaps six or seven weeks awaiting trial at Quarter Sesssions when the whole sentence might only be a month. In Committee the difficulty was, to a certain extent, met by introducing into the Bill Sub-section (3), which runs:—
    "Where a person is committed to prison under this Section his treatment in prison shall, so far as practicable, be similar to that in Borstal institutions, or he may, if the Secretary of State so directs, be transferred to a Borstal institution."
    The result of that was that if a person was committed for a period of four, five, or six weeks, he would be getting the benefit of Borstal treatment. Consequently, much of the ground which we originally had for including the proviso to give a prisoner the option, if he liked, of getting an immediate trial has vanished. I shall be glad to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps this will save the next Amendment which was to omit the words "if the offender consents." In many ways there is something to be said for the proviso, but as it is evident that the feeling of the House is against it, it is useless to occupy further time with it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add the words, "a person sentenced by a Court of Quarter

    139
    Sessions under this Section to detention in a Borstal institution may appeal against the sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeal as if he had been convicted on indictment, and the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, shall apply accordingly."
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Amendment and Application of Part I. of the Prevention of Crime Act.)
    (1) The term for which a person may be sentenced to detention in a Borstal institution under Section one of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, shall not be less than two years, and accordingly "two years" shall be substituted for "one year" in Sub-section (1) of Section one of that Act.
    (2) The period for which a person sentenced to detention in a Borstal institution is on the expiration of the term of his sentence to remain under the supervision of the Prison Commissioners shall be one year, and accordingly "one year" year shall be substituted for "six months" in Sub-section (1) of Section six of the same Act.
    (3) The maximum period for which a person so under the supervision of the Prison Commissioners may on recall to a Borstal institution be detained in such an institution shall be one year, and he may be so detained notwithstanding that the period of supervision has expired, and accordingly "one year" shall be substituted for "three months" in Sub-section (2) of Section six of that Act.
    (4) The provisions of Part I. of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, as so amended, shall apply to persons sentenced to detention in a Borstal institution under this Act in like manner as they apply to persons sentenced under that Part of that Act.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move that the Clause be omitted.
    This Clause seeks to prevent young offenders being sent to Borstal for less than two years, and thereby, in the generality of cases, it will increase the sentences from one to two, and from two to three years. The argument in favour of it is, that Borstal treatment for one year is not good enough, that you do not get the really perfect article under two or three years, and that, therefore, the short sentences are not right, From the point of view of the interests of society that is a strong argument. I do not think that
    140
    we ought to look at this question simply from the point of view of the welfare of society, and the excellence of the product. We ought also to look at it from the point of view as to whether it is just to the criminal who has been convicted of an offence. I may have had no experience of these Borstal institutions, and may therefore be considered a person who should not utter a word as to the conditions in which poor people in this country can be sent to these institutions. But the House should consider the matter from the point of view of the individual sentenced by the magistrate, and not from the point of view as to whether it is in the general interests of society. You have enlarged the power of magistrates under Clause 10 of this Bill, and now you also wish to take away from magistrates the power to send anyone to Borstal for less than two years. If magistrates have these views as to the value of Borstal training, which were expressed to-day, I know perfectly well that there will not be fewer persons sent to Borstal, and that in nearly every case the minimum will be raised from one year to two years, and possibly from two years to three. I am against this increasing of punishment, and then saying that it is no punishment, and I am against this sort of State training of what are called the lower orders, because the yturn out such admirable products. I want to have fewer State institutions, and more justice before magistrates, and I would say that you should get a few more magistrates with proper Courts so that the people could be tried decently, and that that would be better than giving magistrates wider powers than they possess at present.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I think that we are entitled to a reply from the Under-Secretary.
    Mr. HOARE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "person," to insert the words "or youthful offender." This Amendment is moved at the suggestion of the London County Council and—
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To save time, may I say that the Government accept the Amendment of the hon. Member and also the two other Amendments which stand next on the Paper.
    Mr. HOARE: As I have been asked what this Amendment means, I may explain in one or two sentences. Under the Prevention of Crimes Act there are two classes of young persons, those guilty of particular offences and others who have already gone to reformatories, and who may be subsequently convicted and liable to Borstal treatment. This second class is, I imagine inadvertently, excluded from the scope of this Bill. It is with the object of bringing in that second class that I move the Amendment standing in my name.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: After the word "one" ["under Section one"], insert the words "or Section two."—[Mr. Hoare.]
    After the word "one" ["of Section one"], insert the words "and in Section two respectively."—[Mr. Hoare.]
    New powers of Dealing with Offenders.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Power to Order Detention for One Day in Precincts of the Court.)
    Where a Court of Summary Jurisdiction has power to pass a sentence of imprisonment, the Court, in lieu of passing a sentence of imprisonment, may order that the offender be detained within the precincts of the Court, or at any police station, till such hour, not later than ten in the evening on the day on which he is convicted, as the Court may direct.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move to leave out this Clause.
    I wish to obtain some assurance from Home Secretary on the points raised in connection with this Clause. I object to the Clause, first, because I feel that it will not do very much good. The proposal is, that in certain cases the person who would otherwise be sent to prison is simply put under lock and key in the Police Court or police cell and let out later in the day. This is open to certain objections. The principle one is that there is no proper accommodation for this kind of custody, especially in the case of women prisoners. I understand that the Home Secretary is, on the following Clause, going to make some proposal which will ensure that the accommodation in the police cells shall not be made use of for this purpose, unless it is made suitable under directions issued by the Home Office. I am not sure whether these directions will apply to Clause 12, as well as
    142
    to Clause 13, and I would like to have a statement on this point. Another objection is that in the case of women prisoners there are no female attendants for many of these police cells. I understand that the Home Secretary is going to move an Amendment which will ensure female attendants for women offenders dealt with under Clause 13. I am not sure whether this provision will also apply to Clause 12, and I would like this point cleared up. There is a third objection in reference to the hour at which prisoners shall be let out. The proposal is that they shall be kept in until ten o'clock at night,—or, rather, not later—and in all probability that hour would be the one chosen as a rule. That means that men and women would find themselves let out at an hour at which it may be difficult to get home, or, at any rate, which is not an hour suitable for the liberation of a prisoner. On that point I understand that the Home Secretary is going to meet us. It is in order to obtain some assurance on these points that I beg to move the Amendment.
    Mr. BECK: I beg to second the Amendment. I desire particularly to direct attention to the hour at which prisoners may be let out. As I understand the idea underlying the Clause is that it saves a man or woman the shame of a conviction. It is a kind of minor punishment, not the ordinary prison, but enough to frighten a person. There are two very great objections to it. One is that anyone who knows anything about the subject will agree that the whole atmosphere of the Police Court cells, so far from being a deterrent, is demoralising. There is a kind of stern discipline about prison which is frightening, and possibly reforming; but about the atmosphere of the Police Court cell there is nothing except what is degrading and demoralising. Turning to another point, I cannot conceive how it is considered desirable to turn out this type of petty offender, who is a weak person, and should be protected from temptation, at ten o'clock at night. Even those of us who sit at Petty Sessions know very well that ten o'clock is the worst hour which you could choose to let a person out. The public-houses are still open. The man, and, still worse, the woman, would go out alone, and be received as a kind of pothouse hero by boon companions, and probably get drunk. In the city it would be still worse, for the public-houses are open later there. I am very glad to know that the Home Secretary will consider the question

    143
    of altering this hour. But it shows what strange ideas some reformers have of dealing with matters like this, for all who know anything of the subject must realise that you could have no worse provision than a provision by which a young girl or boy, or a petty offender of any kind, could be turned into the streets from one of these places at ten o'clock at night.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend speaks of this Clause as if young boys or girls would be always let out at ten o'clock at night. This Clause gives a discretion which is to be exercised by the magistrate, and it is obvious that the magistrates could be trusted not to exercise such a discretion wrongly. But in order to remove anxiety on the point, I am quite prepared to accept an Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) lower down on the Paper to substitute eight for ten o'clock. I cannot conceive that any magistrates would wrongly exercise the power of detaining until ten. Though the magistrates would exercise their discretion in the use of their powers, I am prepared to accept the Amendments of my hon. Friends. If the places available at the police stations or Police Courts are not proper for the purpose, the magistrates must be aware of that fact, and they will not exercise their powers if the conditions are not satisfactory. What we propose now is to give the magistrates the opportunity of imposing what may be called a lenient punishment, and we propose in the next Clause to give the magistrates the power to inflict a penalty which will not necessarily send a person to prison for a period longer than five days. The magistrates have surely a full knowledge of the circumstances and of the character of the persons before them, and will exercise their powers reasonably. It must not be supposed that magistrates will necessarily exercise their powers in the worst possible manner. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the assurance I have given. I will accept the substitution "eight" for "ten," and I will even go further and accept a proposal in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. King), if it is pressed, that an offender shall not by any order be deprived of a reasonable opportunity to return to his abode on the day on which such order of detention is made.
    Mr. CAVE: I do not understand how there can be any strong objection to the Clause, which is only intended to apply to
    144
    cases where a sentence of imprisonment might be imposed. It must be worse to send a person even for a very short time to prison than to detain that person in a room within the court-house, or possibly at a police station for a day or any part of a day. Sometimes on a conviction taking place, the magistrate knows that within a short time some friend is willing to come and take charge of the person convicted, but if you release the prisoner at once, he disappears, and the chance of handing him over to his friends goes. If you have the power to keep the prisoner in the courthouse, it may be for no more than some hours of the day, you can obviate that, and hand the person over to his friends. In regard to the hour of release, I think eight o'clock is nearly as bad as ten o'clock. Eight o'clock is not an hour at which to release young persons, especially women or girls. For myself, I think it would be better to extend the time to eight o'clock the next morning, making that the maximum time. It is far better to release prisoners in the morning than at any time at night. You have less danger of their falling into bad company. They start fresh in the morning, and may have a chance of finding work, and they will avoid the dangerous and perilous task of finding quarters at night, after conviction. For myself, while I do not of course mean that the power should be used in every case. I should like a discretion to be given to the magistrate to detain persons of this kind until next morning, when they might be released at six, seven or eight o'clock without any danger at all.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I think my right hon. Friend has taken a perfectly genuine step to meet the various points raised. While I agree with the hon and learned Gentleman opposite that probably eight o'clock at night is not very much better than ten o'clock at night, I should like to say a word or two as to the state of the police-station cells, though perhaps that discussion might be taken more conveniently on the next Clause. As I understand him, the right hon. Gentleman desires in future, if possible, to level up the condition of the police cells. I think my hon. Friend has made a very substantial point in calling attention to the very dirty condition of the cells at many of the police stations. A person who may not be, a case-hardened offender should not be put into the company of drunken prostitutes and other prisoners in the police cells, and there is need of a

    145
    levelling up of the condition of cells connected with Police Courts and police stations. I think we might have some more specific assurance on this last point, and that the powers of magistrates will be reasonably and not carelessly exercised.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to make one suggestion to the Home Secretary, who I think has gone a considerable way to meet objections to the Clause by indicating that he will accept eight o'clock instead of ten o'clock. But, as has already been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member opposite, eight o'clock being a very unsuitable time for young persons to be discharged, I propose that the difficulty might be got over by substituting six o'clock. It appears to me that the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member opposite is open to this objection that the detention should be for reform and detention at the Police Court is not reform in any sense.
    Mr. NIELD: I think that perhaps too bad a character has been given of the accommodation provided at Police Courts or police stations. The accommodation does not necessarily mean that the cells will be used, for at most police stations, especially at those with which I am familiar, there are rooms to which those persons could be sent. There is the charge-room, where any young person could be put, and it would not be necessary to use a cell at all. It is not incredible to suppose, in the year 1914, that even in remote parts of the country there are rooms and places connected with the Police Courts and police stations where these young persons could be provided with temporary accommodation; and, as to the police cells, which are under the supervision of the Home Office, they are obliged to put them into a sanitary condition, and they are wholly different from what they were in years gone by. The rooms at various places in the country would be furnished, and they would obviously be the proper places in which to detain anybody for a short time.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CAVE: I propose, to move—
    Mr. DICKINSON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to substitute the word "eight," and may I ask whether that Amendment should not come before the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member opposite?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must take them in the order in which they appear on the Paper, but the difficulty could be met by striking out the word "ten" in order to insert the word "eight."
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, to leave out the word "ten" ["ten in the evening"], and to insert instead thereof the words "eight in the morning on the day following."
    Mr. McKENNA: The assumption against the Bill is that, as the magistrate has the power to release the person at ten o'clock at night, which is regarded as a very unsuitable time; therefore, he will invariably exercise that power. That is the whole argument directed against the Bill.
    Mr. CAVE: It is not my argument.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, it was not the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I would point out that under the Amendment proposed by him, the magistrate would have the opportunity of discharging prisoners at two o'clock or one o'clock in the morning, or any hour he pleases, and as I understand it if I accepted his Amendment, I should have the whole argument against me. Perhaps the magistrate might send out young girls at ten, eleven, or twelve o'clock at night. The difficulty would be in working the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman in a great many places. At the Police Courts and police stations, in the majority of instances, there is no suitable place where a young person could be kept until the next morning. When we get to Clause 13 we propose to take steps to ensure that proper places shall be provided for the detention of young persons for one or more days. I hope, in these circumstances, that the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: Leave out the word "ten" ["ten in the evening"], and insert instead thereof the word "eight."—[Mr. Dickinson.]
    At the end of the Clause add the words,
    "Provided that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction shall, before making an order of detention under this Section, take into consideration the distance between the place of detention and the offender's abode (if his abode is known to, or ascertainable by, the Court), and shall not make any such order of detention under this Section as will deprive

    147
    the offender of a reasonable opportunity of returning to his abode on the day on which such order of detention is made."—[Mr. King.]

    CLAUSE 13.—(Substitution of Police Custody for Imprisonment in Case of Short Sentences.)
    (1) No person shall be sentenced to imprisonment by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for a period of less than five days.
    (2) Where a person is liable to be sentenced to imprisonment by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the Court may, if any suitable places provided and certified in manner hereinafter appearing are available for the purpose, order the person to be detained therein for such period not exceeding four days as the Court thinks fit, and the Order shall be delivered with the offender to the person in charge of the place where the offender is to be detained, and shall be a sufficient authority for his detention in that place in accordance with the tenour thereof.
    (3) The expenses of the maintenance of persons detained under this Section shall be defrayed in like manner as the expenses of the maintenance of prisoners in prisons to which the Prison Act. 1877, applies.
    (4) The Secretary of State may, on the application of any police authority, certify any police cells, bridewells, or other similar places provided by the authority to be suitable places for the detention of persons sentenced to detention under this Section, and may make regulations for the inspection of places so provided, the treatment of persons detained therein, and generally for carrying this Section into effect.
    (5) For the purposes of any enactment conferring a right of appeal an order of detention under this Section without the option of a fine shall be treated as though it were a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine.
    (6) For the purposes of this Section the expression "police authority," with respect to the City of London, means the Commissioner of City Police, and with respect to other places has the same meaning as in the Police Act, 1890.
    Amendments made: At the end of Subsection (4), insert the words "Provided that no place shall be certified unless provision is made for the supervision of
    148
    female prisoners by female officers."—[Mr. Dickinson.]
    Leave out Sub-section (5).—[Mr. McKenna.]

    CLAUSE 14.—Provisions as to Malicious Damage to Property.)
    (1) If any person wilfully or maliciously commits any damage to any real or per sonal property whatsoever, either of a public or private nature, and the amount of the damage does not exceed twenty pounds, he shall be liable on summary conviction—

    (a) if the amount of the damage exceeds five pounds, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds; and

    (b) if the amount of the damage is five pounds or less, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months or to a fine not exceeding five pounds;

    and in either case to the payment of such further amount as appears to the Court reasonable compensation for the damage so committed, which last-mentioned amount shall, if the property damaged was private property, be paid to the party aggrieved:
    Provided that this provision shall not apply where the alleged offender acted under a fair and reasonable supposition that he had a right to do the act complained of.
    (2) So much of Section fifty-one of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861, as limits the cases which may be dealt with under that Section to cases where the damage, injury, or spoil exceeds five pounds shall be repealed, but a Court of Summary Jurisdiction shall not commit any person for trial for an offence under that Section unless it is of opinion that the damage, injury, or spoil exceeds five pounds.
    (3) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as preventing a Court of Summary Jurisdiction from committing a person for trial for an offence notwithstanding that the offence is an offence which the Court has power to deal with summarily under this Section.
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words,
    "Provided that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction shall not deal with any offence (in which the damage exceeds

    149
    five pounds) charged against a person previously convicted of an offence of this nature."
    The object of this Amendment is to prevent a person who has committed a similar offence being dealt with at Petty Sessions, and to provide that the person should be sent on to Quarter Sessions. I have been asked by those responsible for the administration of the criminal law to submit this proposal.
    Mr. McKENNA: The difficulty is that the fact of a person having been previously convicted would not be proved until after conviction. The Amendment appeared on the Paper with a different part of the Clause and in that position seemed unintelligible. As it is now in its right place, I have not been able to give much study to it.
    Mr. NIELD: There would be no difficulty in the matter. The case would have been completed and directly it became apparent that there had been a previous conviction the person would be sent to the Quarter Sessions.
    Mr. McKENNA: The case would be tried twice over.
    Mr. NIELD: No more than now when the case is investigated before the person is committed.
    Mr. McKENNA: We propose that these cases should be dealt with summarily.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Suppose the Court of first instance was not aware of the previous conviction, then the conviction Mould be quashed on the prisoner proving that previous conviction.
    Mr. NIELD: I hardly think the prisoner would be likely, after a Petty Sessions Court sentence, to inform the authorities and get a rule to quash the conviction to get a heavier sentence. It would be against human nature.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The person could not be tried again.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Imprisonment.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Hard Labour and CI ossification of Prisoners.)
    (1) Where imprisonment is imposed by any Court in respect of the non-payment of any sum adjudged by that or any other Court to be paid the imprisonment shall be without hard labour.
    Where a person convicted by or before any Court of an offence is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine, the imprisonment may, in the discretion of the Court, be either with or without hard labour, notwithstanding that the offence is an offence at common law or that the Statute under which the sentence is passed does not authorise the imposition of hard labour or requires the imposition of hard labour.
    (2) If no direction is given by a Court in pursuance of the powers conferred by Section six of the Prison Act, 1898, as to the division in which an offender is to be placed, the offender shall, subject to the provisions of that Section, be treated as an offender of the third division unless the visiting committee on the application of the governor of the prison consider the case suitable for treatment in the second division, and direct that the offender be so treated. Sub-section (2) of that Section shall be amended by the insertion after the words "without hard labour" of the words "or committed to prison for non-payment of a fine."
    (3) A Court or visiting committee shall not direct an offender to be treated as an offender of the second division if his character and antecedents are such that he is likely to exercise a bad influence on first offenders.
    (4) The provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section six of the Prison Act, 1898, as amended by this Section, which relate to the classification of offenders sentenced to imprisonment for offences, shall apply to cases where the person is sentenced to imprisonment for failing to do or to abstain from doing any act or thing required to be done or left undone.
    (5) Sub-section (3) of the same Section (which requires that certain prisoners shall be placed in a separate division and treated under special rules and shall not be placed in association with criminal prisoners nor be compelled to wear prison dress unless their own clothing is unfit for use), shall extend to persons committed to prison for contempt of Court, and accordingly the words "for contempt of Court" shall be inserted in that Sub-section after the words "hard labour."
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert instead thereof—
    "(1) Without prejudice to the power of the Secretary of State to make rules with respect to the labour to which pri-

    151
    soners or any particular division or class of prisoners are to be or may be put, no person shall be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour, and the punishment of bard labour is hereby abolished."
    I move this Amendment to draw attention to a point in connection with the imposition of hard labour. I am informed one effect of the provision would be that the doing away with hard labour would increase the number of drunkards and persons of that sort, who would prefer imprisonment without hard labour.
    Mr. McKENNA: Old offenders know too well the difference between hard labour and imprisonment without it. In the great majority of cases imprisonment already cannot be with hard labour for the nonpayment of a fine. What we propose to do is to make the law uniform.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 28.—(Provisions as to Evidence, 34 and 35 Vict. c. 112.)
    (1) The record or extract by which a conviction may be proved under Section eighteen of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1871, may in the case of a summary con viction consist of a copy of the minute or memorandum of the conviction entered in the register required to be kept under Section twenty-two of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, and purporting to be signed by the clerk of the Court by whom the register is kept.
    (2) The provisions of Section thirty of the Children Act, 1908 (which enables the evidence of a child of tender years to be received though not given on oath), shall apply to proceedings against persons for offences not mentioned in that Section, in like manner as they apply in respect of proceedings against persons for offences mentioned in that Section.
    (3) The wife or husband of a person charged with bigamy may be called as a witness either for the prosecution or defence and without the consent of the person charged.
    (4) In any proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to enforce the payment of a sum of money adjudged by that or any other Court of Summary Jurisdiction to be paid by one person to another person, then—

    (a) if the person to whom the sum is ordered to be paid was an officer of
    152
    a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the production of a certificate purporting to be signed by that officer that the sum has not been paid to him; and

    (b) in any other case the production of a statutory declaration to a like effect purporting to be made by the person to whom the sum is ordered to be paid;

    shall be evidence of the facts therein stated, unless the Court requires such officer or other person to be called as a witness.
    Mr. HIGHAM: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the following new Sub-section:—
    "(5) In any proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, or (upon an appeal) before the High Court or a Court of Quarter Sessions, for or in connection with, an order for the periodical payment of money, a copy of an entry in the wages book of any employer of labour, or, if no wages book be kept, a written statement signed by the employer, or by any responsible person in his employ, shall be primâ facie evidence that the wages therein entered or stated as having been paid to any person have in fact been so paid."
    This Amendment is designed to meet many cases which arise before magistrates. For instance, there are affiliation cases and cases where an order is made, or desired to be made, for payments by a working man under a separation order. There are many cases where it is necessary to know the earnings of a man. This Amendment is framed to meet such cases, so that a written statement may be obtained from the employer or from the person responsible for the wages book at the place where the man is employed. This principle is already acted upon where possible by the best justices and the best Courts, and the Amendment would regularise the practice all over the country.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: This Amendment would really introduce a new law of evidence. Such statements as those referred to certainly ought not to be conclusive. They could only apply to what the man had been receiving in the past. That is important, but the real point for the Courts to consider is, not what he has been receiving in the past, but what

    153
    he can pay in the future, which is not quite the same thing. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. WING: I do not like the idea of adding to the inquisition of working people, or that they should provide evidence for their own conviction. It seems to me rather an unfortunate Amendment.
    Mr. NIELD: This is rather a dangerous Amendment. It is a complete departure from the laws of evidence to accept written books without any evidence as to how they are kept, or out of whose custody they come, or as to their accuracy. The only thing the law has hitherto done in this direction is to allow certified extracts from certain official documents to be accepted as evidence. It would be very mischievous to the community if such statements, loosely got together, which might prove to be wholly inaccurate, were allowed to be given as evidence in such cases.
    Mr. HIGHAM: After what my right hon. Friend has said, I will not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 30.—(Periodical Payment's ordered by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction.)
    (1) Where a Court of Summary Jurisdiction orders money to be paid periodically by one person to another, the Court may, if it thinks fit, order that the payment shall be made through an officer of the Court or any other person named in the order.
    (2) Where a Court of Summary Jurisdiction has either before or after the commencement of this Act ordered money to be paid periodically by one person to another, the Court which made the order, or any other Court of Summary Jurisdiction for the same Petty Sessional Division, may, if it thinks fit, order that the payment shall be made through an officer of the Court or any other person named in the order.
    (3) Any order made either before or after the commencement of this Act by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for the periodical payment of money may, upon cause being shown upon fresh evidence to the satisfaction of the Court, be revoked, revived, or varied by a subsequent order.
    (4) Where a Court of Summary Jurisdiction makes an order for the periodical payment of money through an officer of
    154
    the Court or other person named in the order, the authority having the control of the fund out of which the salary of the clerk of that Court is paid may pay to that officer or person out of that fund, in manner provided by rules made by the Secretary of State, a sum not exceeding five pounds per centum on the money actually paid through him in pursuance of the order, as remuneration to him in respect of the work done and expenses incurred by him in respect of the order.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "named" ["person named"], and insert instead thereof the words "or officers specified"; in Sub-section (2), leave out the word "named" ["person named"], and insert instead thereof the words "or officers specified"; in Sub-section (4), leave out the word "named" ["person named"], and insert instead thereof the words "or officers specified."—[Mr. Mckenna.]
    Mr. DENNISS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "may" ["may pay to that officer"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
    This Amendment is to secure that the officer shall have same remuneration assured to him if he has to collect this money. He has all the labour of collecting it, and, what is more important, all the responsibility of accounting for it. The collection of small sums is very troublesome. Small sums are liable to be forgotten, mistakes are easily made, amounts may be lost, and very often the man who had to collect the small fines would, through no fault of his own, be out of pocket at the end of the year. I think, therefore, he ought to have some payment assured to him.
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: The object of the hon. Member would not be met by this Amendment, because no precise sum is named. The Clause simply says, "may pay a sum not exceeding." It might be simply one pound. The Clause is inserted at the desire of the parties concerned, who are quite satisfied with the word "may." All they ask is that an enabling power should be given.
    Mr. DENNISS: I have had a particular communication from justices themselves who wish for this alteration. I have not the letter with me, but I saw it a few

    155
    minutes ago, and it is most specific. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance that these people will be paid. If he will promise to have words inserted in another place to ensure that, I shall be satisfied.
    Mr. McKENNA: I simply explained that the hon. Member's Amendment would not affect his object. I believe the words already meet the case. There is, in addition, the technical point that, as a charge on the rates would be involved, the question cannot be raised for the first time on the Report stage.
    Mr. DENNISS: You are probably right, but will you do something in another place?
    Mr. McKENNA: I could not then.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 34.—(Appointment and Remuneration of and Accounting of Justices' Clerks.)
    * * * * * * * *
    (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other general or local Act to the contrary, the salaries of clerks to justices shall be fixed and may from time to time be varied—

    (a) in the case of a clerk to borough justices, by the justices of the borough; and

    (b) in the case of a clerk to county justices, by the standing joint committee of the county:

    Provided that—

    (i) in the case of the salary of a clerk to borough justices, the council of the borough or the clerk; and

    (ii) in the case of the salary of a clerk to county justices, the county justices for whom the clerk acts or the clerk,

    may appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of the justices or standing joint committee, as the case may be, and the amount of the salary shall thereupon be determined by the Secretary of State.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "or local" ["general or local Act"].
    The real reason for this Amendment is that generally there is one payment which constitutes the remuneration of the clerk and covers the payment of assistants, typists, and so forth. While they do not want to do away with the appeal to the
    156
    Home Secretary in the matter of the remuneration of the clerk properly so called, many municipalities think that the Home Secretary ought not to be troubled with, and that they ought not to be subject to an appeal in the case of every typist who might be added or reduced, as the case may be. Possibly the Amendment goes too far, as it may take away the appeal of the clerk himself in regard to his own salary. If that is the view of the Home Secretary I shall not press the Amendment. In that case I hope he will give me some sort of understanding that if the object, with which he probably agrees, can be achieved in any way, he will be willing to co-operate.
    Mr. McKENNA: Certainly. I entirely agree with the observations of the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment would go too far. On the other hand, we have no desire to acquire an appeal in the case of typists and minor employés. The provision is intended to apply to the clerk.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. DENNISS Mr. DENNISS rose to move at the end of the Clause to add, as anew Sub-section,
    "(7) No legal proceedings shall hereafter be commenced against any clerk to the justices of any county or borough for anything said or done by him in open Court in his capacity as such clerk as aforesaid without the fiat of the Attorney-General first obtained for the prosecution of such proceedings."
    As the right hon. Gentleman knows, justices themselves are protected for anything said or done by them in open Court, but the justices' clerk is not. He is very often subjected to civil proceedings of a very harassing nature, and their is no fund out of which he can be reimbursed, whether successful or unsuccessful. The justices' clerk is the adviser of the justices. He is their guide, and on many occasions their mouthpiece. He examines and cross-examines witnesses; he conducts a large number of the cases; he has to advise the magistrates as to the evidence and as to the sentence; he has to make observations to witnesses and prisoners, with the result that sometimes proceedings are taken against him. It seems to me e debito justitœ if the justices themselves are protected, the justices' clerk, as their mouthpiece, ought also to be protected.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that this proposal cannot come on this Clause. The Clause deals only with the

    157
    appointment and remuneration of justices' clerks, and the Amendment deals with a different subject altogether.

    CLAUSE 35.—(Punishment for Accusation, etc., of Dead Person with Intent to Extort.)
    For the removing of doubts it is hereby declared that the enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule of this Act (which relates to divers forms of blackmail) apply to cases where the person is dead—

    (a) who is accused, or whom it is proprosed to accuse; or

    (b) upon whom any libel is published, or is threatened to be published; or

    (c) touching whom it is threatened to print or publish, or it is proposed to abstain from printing or publishing, or it is offered to prevent the printing or publishing of, any matter or thing;

    and accordingly the words "(whether living or dead)" shall be inserted after the word "person" in those enactments as indicated in the third column of that Schedule.
    Amendment made: Leave out the word "Second" ["Second Schedule"], and insert instead thereof the word "Third."—[Mr. McKenna.]

    CLAUSE 37.—(Right of Appeal from Decision of Court of Summary Jurisdiction.)
    Any person aggrieved by any conviction of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in respect of any offence who did not plead guilty or admit the truth of the information may appeal from the conviction in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a Court of Quarter Sessions.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I would like to ask the Home Secretary—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must move some Question.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move to leave out the words "Any person."
    I do so pro forma to raise the question of the application of the Clause to Ireland. From this very useful Clause, as I understand it, we, in the Clause dealing with Ireland, are expressly excluded. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the reason for that. The Attorney-General for Ireland, now the Lord Chief Justice, some five or six years ago, as I understood him at the time, declared that at the earliest
    158
    moment the Government were willing to assimilate the law of Ireland to the law of England in this matter. Unless a man who gets fined 40s. and costs or a month's imprisonment there is no appeal whatever in Ireland against the sentence of the magistrate. I am not taking any exception to this particular Clause, but I would ask the Government to consider the matter. If we turn to Clause 43 we will find that in the application of this Act to Ireland the number of Sections applied goes down to Section 28. I do not find that Section 37 is applied. Therefore, I think that I am not out of order at this stage—when we come prepared that this Clause should be applied to Ireland—to ask the Government for a declaration that they may make good.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am sorry that I have not the advantage of a legal adviser as to the law in Ireland to assist me at this stage of the Bill. I would, however, remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that this Clause was inserted in Committee upstairs as a new Clause and after we had passed Clause 43. Consequently, whether its omission from Clause 43 is by action or intention, in the absence of my legal Irish advisers, I am not able to say. If it was an accident and I am not advised before we reach Clause 43, I shall certainly see about it in another place. If it were omitted by design I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that I must be advised by some Irish expert as to the grounds upon which this Clause was by design omitted from Section 43.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman. I know he is quite anxious that this matter should be put right, if possible. When we come to the Clause I shall certainly move the application of this Clause to Ireland. The fact that you have no appeal in Ireland when you have one in England and Scotland is absurd.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to move, after the word "conviction" ["aggrieved by any conviction of a Court"], to insert the words "or order."
    I called attention on the first four Clauses of this Bill to the fact that at one time the expression "conviction" was used and at another the words "order of the Court." I cannot think that that was undesignedly done. The same thing seems to be happening here again. In Ireland,

    159
    for instance, we have not the word "conviction" at all; it is simply "an order of Petty Sessions"; and outside Dublin, so far as I know, there is nothing corresponding to the word "conviction." The thing is likely to cause confusion unless the Clause is made perfectly clear.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think it is a very humiliating thing to see a man or a woman brought before a bench of magistrates for a supposed offence and he or she refuses to give bail. Perhaps the refusal to give bail has been made in the heat or passion of the moment. Afterwards, when the person gets to gaol, he would like, perhaps, to get out, but his pride is offended or he does not care to give bail. I think the words "or order" ought to be inserted after "conviction," so as to make it clear the entire machinery of magisterial orders or convictions shall be affiliated.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I think the words "or order" are far too wide. I do not think I could go further at the moment than to say that the point will be considered. If it is found possible to find some form of words—and we shall be glad for the hon. and learned Gentleman to assist us in arriving at that form—we shall insert them, but they must be nearer to the intention of the Clause than the words proposed.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I am willing to accept the assurance of the hon. Gentleman, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I beg to move, at end of the Clause, to add—
    "(2) An appeal shall lie from any order made by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under the enactments relating to bastardy, or from any refusal by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to make such an order, or from the revocation or revival by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction of such an order; and notice of any such appeal may be given at any time within one month from the date on which the decision appealed from was given."
    I understand that the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment.

    CLAUSE 40.—(Rules.)
    The power of the Lord Chancellor to make rules under Section twenty-nine of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall extend to the making of rules for regulating the manner in which convictions and orders of Courts of Summary Jurisdiction are to be drawn up, and in such cases as may be provided for by the rules, the transmission of such convictions and orders and any other documents therewith to the clerk of the peace and the filing of them by him, and for regulating the procedure in legal proceedings which under any Act, whether passed before or after the commencement of this Act other than the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, are to be taken before any police or stipendiary magistrate or other Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg, at the end of the Clause, to add—
    "(2) His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make rules extending the operation of the Summary Jurisdiction (Process) Act, 1881, as amended by any subsequent enactment (which relates to the service and execution in Scotland of process issued by Courts of Summary jurisdiction and sheriff courts in Scotland, and to the jurisdiction of Courts in England and Scotland respectively in bastardy proceedings), so as to make the provisions of that Act, subject to the necessary adaptations, applicable as between any one part of the British Islands and any other part of the British Islands in like manner as it applies as between England and Scotland.
    "This Sub-section shall extend to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and the Royal Courts of the Channel Islands shall register the same accordingly."
    Mr. BOOTH: I wish to raise the question referred to in the last part of this new Sub-section that it shall apply to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and so on. It falls to my lot every year before the legal Gentlemen of this House to raise this point in one shape or another. I want to know by what right we are legislating here for the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? It is an important point. I raised it on the Insurance Act. That Act does not apply to the Isle of Man. I pointed out that the approved societies of those friendly societies which were going to work the Act have branches at the Isle

    161
    of Man, and that members spent a portion of the year at the Isle of Man, and so on. Mr. Speaker ruled out an Amendment, that the Insurance Act should apply to the Isle of Man on the ground that they were not represented in this House. In regard to other laws it is continually coming up that we apply some laws to the Isle of Man, and others we do not. With regard to education one of the Channel Islands is under certain education laws, and not the rest of them. I do not know what light can be thrown upon, this point upon this occasion, but I ask the Home Secretary if he knows what powers we have in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, seeing that they have no representatives in this House.
    Mr. McKENNA: There is no other Parliament except this which has power to determine the considerable relations between Great Britain and the Isle of Man, and there will be no power in the House of Keys to give the jurisdiction under this Clause. I am advised that the Clause in its present form is strictly in order, and that we have the power to legislate in all matters relating to the mutual relations between the Isle of Man and the rest of the United Kingdom. This is one of the subject matters appropriate for legislation by this House, and I am advised that the course we are pursuing is strictly constitutional.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not remember a Clause like this ever being moved before without notice, and I do not remember any such Clause being made applicable to the Channel Islands. We have had this right asserted again and again in regard to the Isle of Man. That is undoubted and beyond all question, but this is in the nature of an enabling Clause. It does not enact directly but enables, and that may be some warrant for the Home Secretary's action. At the same time in regard to an ancient jurisdiction like that of the Channel Islands, I think we ought to proceed cautiously. It has always been assumed, when we have attempted to do this, that it was done with the assent of the Isle of Man Authority and the Legislature whose jurisdiction was affected. I do not know whether the Home Secretary thinks that this is a matter of sufficient importance to create a new precedent, and is ready to advise the House accordingly. This point, however, is of such serious importance from a contitutional point of view that I think we ought to thank the
    162
    hon. Member for Pontefract for calling attention to it. I think the Government might postpone this matter, and if they find that they are strictly within precedent, let them move this change in another place. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quoted any precedents.
    Mr. McKENNA: I think the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member is a very reasonable one. This Clause was introduced as the result of a pledge which I gave to the hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) in Committee, where we discussed this matter at some length. The constitutions I point is quite novel to me, and by leave of the hon. Member for Ealing I shall be willing to omit the last paragraph, and if I find that constitutionally there are ample and proper precedents for our action, I will introduce the words in another place.
    Mr. NIELD: I hope the Home Secretary will not think that I am wanting in courtesy if I say that I have already considered this difficulty, and discussed it in Committee, where I gave evidence from various societies who complained that they could not get orders or summonses for maintenance, for cruelty to animals, bastardy, and other charges, because the defendants went across to the Isle of Man to escape service, the Isle of Man not being within the United Kingdom for the purposes of process, and therefore these offenders were able to escape justice for a very considerable time, if not altogether. This made it so difficult for complainants to get justice that the remedy had to be given up. I hope that the Home Secretary, if he finds on the advice of the Law Officers that the constitutional question is not insuperable, will do his best to introduce those words. The law at present allows these people to escape process.
    Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I understand that the whole difficulty raised by the hon. and learned Member for Cork refers only to the Channel Islands. Would it not meet the case to leave out "the Channel Islands"?
    Mr. NIELD: I assent to the leaving out of "the Channel Islands."
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. BLACK: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out in the last paragraph the words "and the Channel Islands, and the Royal Courts of the Channel Islands, shall register the same accordingly."
    Mr. HIGHAM: I beg to second this Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, put, and agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

    CLAUSE 42.—(Application to Scotland.)
    This Act in its application to Scotland shall be subject to the following modifications:—

    (1) The Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted for the Secretary of State; the Prison Commissioners for Scotland shall be substituted for the Prison Commissioners; the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877, shall be substituted for the Prison Act, 1877; the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890, shall be substituted for the Police Act, 1890; the Fine or Imprisonment (Scotland and Ireland) Act, 1899, shall be substituted for Section nine of the Prison Act, 1898; an institution established in Scotland under Part I. of the Prevention of Crime Act. 1908, shall be substituted for a Borstal institution:

    (2) Section one of this Act shall not apply and in lieu thereof the following provisions shall be substituted:—

    (a) On conviction of any person by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction the Court shall allow time for the payment of any sum adjudged to be paid by such person in respect of such conviction, unless it is satisfied that he is possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the sum forthwith, or unless, upon being asked by the Court whether he desires that time should be allowed for payment, he does not express any such desire, or fails to satisfy the Court that he has a fixed abode within its jurisdiction, or unless the Court for any other special reason is satisfied that no time should be allowed;

    (b) Where any such person desires to be allowed time for payment, the Court, in deciding what time shall be allowed, shall consider any representation made by him, but the time allowed shall not be less than seven clear days:

    Provided that, if before the expiration of the time allowed the person convicted surrenders himself to the Court and states that he prefers immediate imprisonment to awaiting
    164
    the expiration of the time allowed, the Court may authorise the clerk of Court to issue forthwith an extract of the finding and sentence in the form of the Second Schedule to this Act, and the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908, shall apply to such extract as if it were one of the forms included in Schedule E to that Act;

    (c) Where a person so allowed time for payment as aforesaid appears to the Court to be not less than sixteen nor more than twenty-one years of age, the Court may, if it thinks fit and subject to any rules made under this Act, order that he be placed under the supervision of such person as may be appointed by the Court until the sum adjudged to be paid is paid, and in such case, before issuing an extract of the conviction and sentence, the clerk of Court shall again lay the complaint before the. Court, and the Court shall consider any report as to the conduct and means of the offender which may be made by the person under whose supervision the offender has been placed;

    (d) In all cases where time is not allowed for payment, the reasons of the Court for not so allowing a time shall be stated in the finding and sentence:

    (3) Section two of this Act shall not apply, and in lieu thereof the following provisions shall be substituted:—

    "Where time has been allowed for payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by any person in respect of his conviction before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the Court may, subject to any rules made under this Act, on an application by or on behalf of such person, and after giving the prosecutor an opportunity of being heard, allow further time for the payment of such sum or order payment thereof by instalments":

    (4) Section three of this Act shall apply, provided that a reference to the conviction or order shall be deemed to be a reference to the finding and sentence, and a reference to a warrant of commitment shall be deemed to be a reference to an extract of the finding and sentence:

    (5) Sub-section (2) of Section four of the Act shall not apply:

    165

    (6) Section five of this Act shall not apply: Provided that in Scotland a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, in fixing the amount of any fine to be imposed on any offender, shall take into consideration, amongst other things, the means of the offender so far as they appear or are known to the Court:

    (7) Section six of this Act shall not apply:

    (8) Section ten of this Act shall not apply: Provided that in Scotland Section one of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, shall be construed as if after the words "penal servitude or imprisonment" there were inserted the words "or is convicted by the sheriff summarily of an offence for which he is liable to be sentenced to imprisonment":

    (9) Sections fourteen to twenty-four, both inclusive, and Sections twenty-seven to thirty-one, both inclusive, of this Act, shall not apply:

    (10) Provision may be made by rules under the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877, for enabling a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment, whether by one sentence or cumulative sentences, for a period prescribed by the rules, to earn by special industry and good conduct a remission of a portion of his imprisonment, and on his discharge his sentence shall be deemed to have expired:

    (11) It shall be lawful for the High Court of Justiciary by Act of Adjournal to make rules for regulating the procedure under this Act.

    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
    "a reference to a sum of money adjudged to be paid, shall be deemed to be a reference to a penalty as defined in Section two of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908."
    I apologise for this Amendment and several others which I propose to move not being upon the Paper. The House knows the circumstances under which this Bill is being discussed. I may also say that I have been receiving up to Friday last certain representations from Scotland regarding the Bill, and for that reason I did not put the Amendments down on the Paper. In these circumstances I to-day furnished the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson) and the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Clyde) with a copy of the Amendments which I proposed to
    166
    move. When this Bill went into Committee there was no definition at all of "a sum of money adjudged to be paid." The phrase was thought to be quite intelligible. It was used in an Act of Parliament known as the Fine or Imprisonment (Scotland and Ireland) Act, 1899, and for that reason no translation of the phrase was thought to be necessary. During the passage of the Bill through Committee by Section 41, Sub-section (2), a definition of those words was inserted, as hon. Members will see by referring to the Bill. Although the definition of those words as given is quite accurate and intelligible in England, it is inapplicable to Scotland, and to our procedure and nomenclature in Scotland, and therefore it becomes necessary that these words should be defined in their application to Scotland. The Amendment I propose provides the requisite definition. This could not be done by merely verbal substitution, because that would not make the Clause read.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: As there is not a Scottish Member in the House, of course we cordially agree to this Amendment.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not think there is a single hon. Member in the House who has the slightest idea what we are voting for. Might I suggest that it is a serious matter that we should have to deal with Amendments in this way? The Government ought to have put these Amendments on the Paper some days ago, instead of putting unfortunate English Members to such a brain-straining task. I do not think this is treating the House of Commons fairly. One is anxious to get this Bill, but I do hope that in future the Lord Advocate will give us proper notice of intricate Amendments of this kind.
    Mr. BOOTH: I would like to explain that the hon. Gentleman is doing the Scottish Members here a vital injustice. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple), who put that beautiful algebraical Amendment on the Paper, assures me that this is perfectly simple.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I know that my hon. Friend the late Lord Advocate, and also the late Solcitor-General, sat here for a long time, and I think some notice ought to have been given to them that this was coming on.
    Mr. MUNRO: I said that I not only gave them notice, but I supplied them with copies of the Amendments.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I heard all that, but that was done early in the day. Probably the late Lord Advocate and the late Solicitor-General, are dining, and do not in the least know what is going on at the present moment. Considering that the Amendments are not on the Paper, it would have been courteous to find out if they were in the House, and acquaint them with what is going on. It is all very well to say that this came on unexpectedly, but that is the fault of the Government. They have put off everything until we do not know where we are.
    Mr. McKENNA: The late Lord Advocate spoke to me, said he was leaving, and asked when I thought these Amendments would be reached. I told him I thought it would be about a quarter to nine. It is now twenty minutes past that hour.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the late Lord Advocate expected to come back and intended to speak.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: We are dealing purely with a matter of definition. It is simply a definition of a term to make it apply to Scotland in a clear way. The hon. Baronet need not be under any fear whatever that the Lord Advocate for Scotland and the Scottish Members who are in the House are not fully cognisant of what is going on, and for the necessity of this particular Amendment. There is no need whatever to discuss it at any length.
    Mr. NIELD: We had the same difficulty upstairs in Committee. We had to send for the Scottish Law Officers, and then, ultimately, when we got them we had these long and complicated Amendments suggested, with arguments on Scottish law which I think would embarrass any person. So long as we are interested, however remotely, in the good government of Scotland, and so long as we have jurisdiction over that portion of the United Kingdom, we ought all of us to try and make ourselves acquainted with the laws proposed to be enacted, particularly when associated with procedure which has always seemed to me to be more than ordinarily complicated and difficult. I dare say that the Lord Advocate lives from hand to mouth, as he told us, in the sense that he never anticipated that this was coming on to-day, but still I do not think that he ought to run so close to the wind. He ought, at any rate, to have put down his Amendments when the Home Office put down their starred Amendments on Friday, so that we might have been able to
    168
    study for the good of ourselves and our educational advantage such intricacy of the Scottish law as the Amendment discloses.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I think it only fair to say that we on this side, at least the Scottish lawyers, were unexpectedly called on to discuss this Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman did his very best to put us in possession of what his views were by giving us quite early in the afternoon a copy of the Amendments which he proposed, and, so far as we are concerned, we have no complaint to make at all. The Amendment which is under discussion seems to be one which can be accepted without any question.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "or order payment thereof by instalments."
    The procedure in England is quite different from that in Scotland. There is in England, as I understand it power to order payment by instalments, but there is no such power in the Scottish Courts. The Clause as drafted allows a further extension of time or payment by instalments. The proposal in the Amendment is to delete that last alterative. It does seem anomalous in Scotland where there is no power to order payment originally by instalments, that you should be able to order payment by instalments after time has been given.
    Question. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
    Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (5), leave out the word "the," and insert instead thereof the word "this."
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (8) to insert the following new Sub-section:—
    "(9) Section thirteen of this Act shall apply with the substitution of the expression 'an extract of the finding and sentence' for the expression 'the order.'"
    This Amendment is required simply to bring the procedure in line with the procedure under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in Subsection (9), to leave out the words "twenty-four," and insert instead thereof the words "twenty-five."
    A new Clause, No. 23, was inserted in Committee, and that altered the numbering of the subsequent Clauses. Clause 23 is not applicable to Scotland. It deals with the matter of bail which in Scotland is regulated by another Act applicable to that country alone.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in Subsection (9), to leave out the words "and Sections 27 to 31 both inclusive," and to insert instead thereof the words "Subsections (1), (2), and (4) of Section 28, Sections 29 to 40, both inclusive, and Subsection (2) of Section 41."
    This Amendment is necessary, in the first place, to apply to Scotland, Clause 28, Sub-section (3). I think those who are familiar with our procedure will agree that that is desirable. It is further necessary, in consequence of the insertion in Committee of certain new Clauses, namely, Clauses 29, 31, 32, 35 to 39, and 41. It is proposed that none of these Clauses should apply to Scotland. They are obviously inappropriate, whereas Section 41, Sub-section (2) is quite appropriate to our Scottish procedure. These are the reasons for which the Amendment is moved.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: This is a very serious Amendment to make without notice. It alters the law of evidence in particular cases, and as one who opposed for twenty years the so-called right of a prisoner to give evidence in his own behalf, and who secured from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) a promise that that particular provision should never be applied to Ireland, I wish to draw attention to the serious steps it is now proposed to take, especially in view of the fact that, in a most recent case in England, in which an accused person gave evidence, the learned judge (Mr. Justice Avory) commented with anything but goodwill upon this alleged right. It is very serious without notice to practically force persons in criminal cases to go into the box. Is it desirable to extend to Scotland that important provision in the English judicature, which enables a prisoner to be examined and cross-examined and bullied and brow-beaten, as sometimes occurs. I think the Scottish Members can hardly
    170
    realise what a great change is being made in the criminal procedure of their country. It is being effected without notice. No doubt the Lord Advocate had good reason for not having been able to put his Amendments on the Paper, but then those which were of a technical kind were apparently non-contentious. This, however, does not partake of that character. It is a very serious alteration in the law, which ought not to be pressed without the universal assent of Scottish Members.
    Mr. BOOTH: I, too, should like to enter my protest against the way in which this has been sprung upon the House. I understood that this was more or less an agreed Bill which had been gone over in Committee. There is a very great deal in the Bill which I do not like. But, with the exception of a certain provision in Clause 10, I have kept silent whilst it has been under Debate. Now we come to a provision which makes a great difference in the way of giving evidence in Scotland. The words are not on the Paper. We have heard a lot of Sections included or deleted, but no one could tell us why, and my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate seems to think that he has only to speak to the two distinguished lawyers on the front Opposition Bench, and for the rest the House need not bother about the matter. No one knows what Sections come in or go out, and very few people appear to care. This is the way in which we are making our criminal law. I have always understood from my friends in the legal profession that they felt far more sensitive as lawyers in dealing with criminal cases than with civil actions, and I understand it is the custom of the Crown to be scrupulously fair to opponents in such cases, and even to supply them with information. Lawyers, in fact, are greatly concerned to see that justice is done in criminal matters, and now we are manufacturing new criminal legislation. I wash my hands of the matter. I will take no responsibility for it. There is one other matter as to which I wish to enter a protest. Scottish lawyers continually take part in Debates on our Bills. Their votes sometimes turn the scale, and then we suddenly find when we come to a particular proviso that certain things are not to apply to Scotland. That I presume has been the price which the English lawyers have paid to secure the support of Scottish Members. It has been done repeatedly. A distinguished law officer of the Crown, now on the

    171
    Bench, was rebuked by me for doing this. He could make no reply whatever, clever as he was, because I caught him in the act. I should like hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite to take some share of this responsibility. This is evidently not Government legislation. It has been arranged in some tea-room or Scottish Committee room. The Lord Advocate and one or two distinguished lawyers have agreed upon Clause after Clause, and Section after Section, but this House knows nothing whatever about it, and no one takes the trouble to explain what is being done.
    Mr. CLYDE: I think the indignation of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is a little bit wasted. There is no ground for his suspicion that there has been a Machiavellian compact between the Government and the Front Bench or any of those persons whom the hon. Member has spoken of as "Scottish lawyers." After all, the hon. Member and those who think with him, if there are any, should recollect that what the Lord Advocate proposes to do is to make, in this small particular, the law of Scotland and the law of England the same.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: It was never the law of England before. This Bill changes the law of England.
    Mr. CLYDE: I suppose even the hon. and learned Member has been a party to Sub-section (3) of Clause 28 which was passed this afternoon?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: It does not apply to Ireland.
    Mr. CLYDE: At any rate, Sub-section (3) of Clause 28 now expresses the law of England. So far as the law of Scotland is concerned, it must be remembered that already the approximation in this matter was exceedingly close. There was an Act passed in 1898 which did two things—first, it allowed the wife or the husband of a person charged to be called as a witness. No doubt that meant that they might be called as a witness for the defence. The hon. Member must also remember this, that under Section 4 of that Act either the wife or the husband of a person charged with an offence under any enactment mentioned in the Schedule—I agree that the Schedule is not exhaustive, but it is very long—might be called as a witness for either the prosecution or the defence, and without the consent of the person charged.
    172
    All that is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is to make in this particular, namely, with regard to the crime of bigamy—which I agree was not covered by the Schedule to the Act of 1898—the law the same as it was made in 1898 with regard to a long series of crimes and offences that were covered by the Schedule to that Act. I do not think that in making in this respect the law of Scotland the same as the law of England any harm is done to the interests either of Scotsmen or Scotswomen, or even to the interests which may be dear to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). I therefore venture to support the Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: While I do not wish to oppose the Amendment proposed by the Lord Advocate, I think some further explanation ought to be given of his proposal and the reason why it is made in this specific manner this evening. This Bill has been before the Standing Committee, and the Clause we are now discussing has come from that Committee in the form in which it now appears in the Bill. Doubtless there were strong reasons why the Lord Advocate's Department decided that this special Sub-section should not be applied to Scotland, and apparently, up to the present, the House of Commons has regarded those reasons as adequate. Now this evening, without any reason stated, unless it be at a conference which has been held behind the Speaker's Chair between my right hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, this provision is to be changed. That is treating the House and the Scottish Members with less respect than is their due. I do not see any special reason why this Sub-section should not apply to Scotland. I do not hold the same strong views on this question as are held by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy). Doubtless, if I did. I should be as resolute in opposing any extension of this Clause to Scotland as he has been in opposing any application of the Clause to Ireland. Believing as I do that, on the whole, the right to give evidence on his own behalf by an accused person has been to the advantage of the accused person, I am not inclined to oppose the provision now proposed by the Lord Advocate. At the same time, I think it is unfortunate that the proposal has been brought forward at this stage, and that no reason was put forward by the Lord Advocate for making it.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The speech to which we have just listened shows that Scottish Members have failed to appreciate the meaning of the Clause. The hon. Member spoke of the Clause as if it made the prisoner a competent witness. That is not so. As I understand the law, he is at present in Scotland and in England a competent witness, but this makes him a compellable witness, whether he likes it or not. I know no precedent of that kind dealing with any other offence in the calendar except the offence of bigamy. I do not know the reason why that course was adopted in that case. It was a very strong measure. Hon. Members do no appreciate what they are doing in making this very revolutionary change. The speech just delivered shows that Scottish Members are wholly ignorant of the effect of the Amendment moved.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Words Sub-sections (1), (2), and (4) of Section twenty-eight. Sections twenty-nine to forty, both inclusive, and Sub-section (2) of Section forty-one inserted in the Bill.

    CLAUSE 43.—(Application to Ireland.)
    (1) The provisions of Sections one to four inclusive, Sections seven to twelve inclusive, Sub-section (1) of Section sixteen, Sections seventeen to twenty-one inclusive, Section twenty-three, Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-four, Sections twenty-five and twenty-six, Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) of Section twenty-seven, and Section twenty-eight of this Act shall apply to Ireland, subject to the following modifications, namely:—

    (a) references to the Lord Lieutenant shall be substituted for references to the Secretary of State, and references to the General Prisons Board for Ireland shall be substituted for references to the Prison Commissioners;

    (b) a reference to the Prisons (Ireland) Acts, 1826 to 1907, shall be substituted for any reference to the Prison Acts, 1865 to 1902, a reference to Sections thirty-six, thirty-seven, thirty-eight, and thirty-nine of the General Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1877, shall be substituted for the reference to Sections twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, and twenty-seven of the Prison Act, 1877, and a reference to
    174
    Section one of the Fine or Imprisonment (Scotland and Ireland) Act, 1899, shall be substituted for the reference to Section nine of the Prison Act, 1898;

    (c) the reference to the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908, and the provision of Section two of this Act relative to payment by instalments, shall not apply.

    (2) A Court of Summary Jurisdiction, in fixing the amount of any fine to be imposed on an offender, shall take into consideration, amongst other things, the means of the offender so far as they appear or are known to the Court.
    (3) Proceedings for the recovery in a summary manner of a penalty for an offence under the Births and Deaths Registration Act (Ireland), 1880, may be commenced at any time within three years after the commission of the offence.
    (4) Where upon summary conviction an offender is adjudged to pay a penalty exceeding five pounds, the offender in case of non-payment thereof may without any warrant of distress be committed to prison for any term not exceeding the period for which he might be committed to prison in default of distress: Provided that where time is not allowed for the payment of the penalty a warrant of commitment shall not be issued in the first instance unless it appears to the Court that the offender has no goods or insufficient goods to satisfy the penalty, or that the levy of distress would be more injurious to him or his family than imprisonment.
    (5) Upon any information or complaint laid or made before a divisional justice of the police district of Dublin metropolis of an offence punishable on summary conviction, if the person charged resides within the limits of that district, the justice shall, notwithstanding that the offence has been or is alleged to have been committed outside those limits, have all the like powers, jurisdiction, and authority as he has upon an information or complaint laid or made of a similar offence committed or alleged to have been committed within those limits.
    (6) So much of Section twenty-two of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, as relates to the liability of persons aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of offences punishable on summary conviction shall, as amended by any subsequent

    175
    enactment, extend to the police district of Dublin metropolis; and every person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of any such offence may be proceeded against and convicted in that district in any case where the principal offender may be convicted in that district, or where the offence of aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring was committed in that district.
    (7) Section three (which relates to boards of visitors for convict prisons), Section six (which relates to divisions of prisoners), Section eleven (which relates to orders for production of prisoners), and, so far as respects sentences of imprisonment passed after the commencement of this Act, Section twelve (which relates to calculation of term of sentence) of the Prison Act, 1898, shall, as amended by this Act, extend to Ireland subject to the following modifications, namely:—

    (a) references to the Lord Lieutenant shall be substituted for references to the Secretary of State;

    (b) references to rules made by the General Prisons Board for Ireland with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council under the General Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1877, shall be substituted for any references to prison rules or special prison rules;

    (c) reference to Section forty-nine of the General Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1877, shall be substituted for the reference to Sections forty and forty-one of the Prison Act, 1877, and references to provisions of the Prison Act, 1865, or the Criminal Procedure Act, 1853, shall not apply.

    (8) For removing doubts it is declared that in Section twenty-four of the General Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1877, and Section three of the Prisons (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1884 (which relate to visiting committees of prisons), the expressions "grand jury" and "grand juries" respectively, include, in the case of the county of Dublin, a grand jury of that county impanelled at a commission of oyer and terminer and general gaol delivery.
    (9) The Lord Chancellor may make rules for the purposes of this Act regulating the procedure to be followed, and prescribing the forms to be used in summary proceedings and adapting to the requirements of this Act any forms relating to summary
    176
    proceedings prescribed by or in pursuance of any other Act, and all rules so made shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament.
    (10) Where a person convicted of an offence by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction is committed to prison by the Court under Section ten of this Act without sentence he may appeal under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts against the conviction, and the provisions of those Acts with respect to appeals shall apply accordingly in like manner as if the conviction were an order for a term of imprisonment exceeding one month and the committal were a committal in execution of such order:
    Provided that the time for serving notice of appeal shall run from the date of the committal, and the Appellate Court., if it confirms the conviction, shall have power to pass the like sentence and to deal with the case in the like manner in all respects as if the offender had been brought before it for sentence in pursuance of the said Section.
    (11) Save as provided in this Section, the foregoing provisions of this Act shall not extend to Ireland.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Sub-section (2) of."
    The Sub-section declares that Subsection (2) of Clause 24 shall apply to Ireland. There is no Sub-section (2) of Clause 24. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Bill he will see that Section 24 has only one Sub-section.
    Mr. McKENNA: That is quite right.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I am rather inclined to doubt whether the Clause really deals with Clause 24 at all. I think it pointed at some other Clause which had two Sub-sections in it, of which the numbering was changed in the course of the proceedings in Committee. I have been unable to find what Clause the words pointed to.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I beg to second the Amendment, which shows how much we need the assistance of someone from Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) said just now that we were not at a disadvantage owing to the absence of the Irish Law Officers. We are at a great disadvantage, and if they were in the House this would not have occurred.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maurice Healy) is perfectly right in his conjecture. Owing to the alteration in the numbering of the Clauses in Clause 43 as it now stands the references are not, in every ease, to the Clause which was intended.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Are they right in any case?
    Mr. McKENNA: What I said was a strictly accurate representation of the fact. They are not in every case properly applicable to the Clause mentioned. I was aware of the fact, and proposed to have the necessary alterations moved in another place, because, owing to the suddenness with which the Bill has been brought forward, I have not been able to get the advantage of the technical advice of a lawyer from Ireland. I understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) accepted my explanation on that point earlier in the evening and I undertook then that all the earlier Amendments should be moved in another place. By that procedure this House does not lose control of the Amendments, because the Bill will come back again with the necessary Amendments made.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Thank God we have a House of Lords.
    Mr. McKENNA: Shall we say a Second Chamber? I can only make this appeal to the mercy of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I quite admit that had I been aware earlier that this Bill would have come on to-day, I should have taken steps to be provided with the assistance of an Irish legal adviser, and I would suggest, therefore, if agreeable to the hon. Member, that he would be so good as to accept the course which I suggest, and postpone the consideration of the Amendments to Clause 43, and then reconsider them here when the Bill comes back from another place. That would save a great deal of time if we conclude the remainder of the proceedings on the Bill this evening, because I quite admit that if the hon. and learned Gentleman insists on his rights, he is fairly entitled to an answer on all his points on Clause 43, and I frankly admit that I am not in a position now to give him an answer.
    Mr. WATT: Does that apply to Clause 42?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Clause 42 was right.
    Mr. BOOTH: I also join in the right hon. Gentleman's appeal. We are only playing a farce to-night, and the best thing we can do is to let the Government take this Order Paper to whom they please, and I suppose we shall have the Bill back again, and shall then get really to business. I do not take the view of thanking God that there is another place, because my view is that if there had not been a Second Chamber the Government would have attended to their duty properly, and had the Bill ready to-night. The moral I draw is quite the opposite. So long as they know that there is another place where everything can be put right, so long will they come here with slipshod ideas in order that we may deal with it after its return journey. Hon. Members think that when it goes to the other place, they can finish it off properly. The Home Secretary says it will still have to come back here, and we must keep the upper hand over the other place. I think those who have taken any interest in the Bill, especially Scottish Members, had better save their breath to blow their porridge with. The Scottish Amendments are not even on the Paper, and now the Home Secretary himself will not take any responsibility upon these important things, and pleads ad misericordiam to us to let the Bill pass anyhow, and then let it pass away to the Second Chamber. In answer to that appeal, I suggest that we take no further part in the discussion.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I quite agree with the hon. Member opposite—that this shows the utility of the House of Lords and the uselessness of the Government. But I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. As I understand, we are in a difficulty now because the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to obtain the presence of two Irish Law Officers. Therefore, he suggests that as he knows nothing about Irish law, it should be referred to the other place, where presumably there will be two Irish Law Officers whose advice can be obtained. Are the two Irish Law Officers members of the other place? If they are not, what is the use of sending the Bill to another place where they are not members?
    Mr. McKENNA: That was not quite the point. I was only making a personal appeal, because I am not, without advice, sufficiently familiar with Irish law to be able to answer the Amendments. I have not been able to get technical advice from an Irish lawyer. He need not be a

    179
    Member of the House. When I get such advice, I think I shall be able to master the subject sufficiently to explain the Clauses. For the present I appeal to hon. Members not to press their Amendments.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to another place in order to obtain this advice from the Law Officers, because I do not see where we are advantaged? Apparently there are no Irish Law Officers in this House or in the other place, but the right hon. Gentleman will find an Irishman somewhere or other who has something to do with the law, and I presume he will pay him a fee, and will learn something about it. But what is the use of referring to the other place? Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Irish Law Officers would be in the other place, nor the Irish barrister whom he may succeed in finding, and who will take a fee out of the pockets of the taxpayers. The result of this merely is that the Government has muddled the business all the way through. Knowing they have no Law Officers to consult, the right hon. Gentleman appeals to us ad misericordiam and says, "I do not know anything about it. If I could have found an Irishman who knew something about the law, I should have been able to say something about it," and in order to shuffle it out of the way he suggests that he shall refer it to another place. I am not surprised at the indignation of the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) at such a proceeding when we have been told over and over again that the House of Lords ought to be abolished, and to all intents and purposes it is abolished. I think the Government will be abolished if they go on in this way. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to postpone his Clauses altogether until he can find some Irish barrister and take the other three or four Orders that we have agreed to take. Surely hon. Members opposite had better find someone to give advice to the right hon. Gentleman, and that we shall discuss these matters in the House, than it should be committed to a place which by the consent of everyone opposite is not fit to legislate in the interests of the democracy.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I am pleased to find, on both sides of the House, a feeling of regret that there are not enough lawyers in the House of Commons.
    Colonel GREIG: The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) never loses any opportunity of making a party point in any discussion that we have. Whose fault is it that this matter has come on to-day? The Second Chamber has made a mess of something else.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not in order to discuss the action of another place.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I do not see how I can yield to the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has made. The Clause as it stands is nonsense. If the right hon. Gentleman could tell me what he means to put in, I might accede to his request.
    Mr. McKENNA: We will certainly accede to the Amendment now, but it is obvious that I am not in a position to explain all the other changes without going through them, and that would take an unnecessary length of time.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I wish to point out that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has been too generous in this matter. He raised quite a false issue when he suggested that the absence of Irish lawyers has paralysed the right hon. Gentleman's energies on this Bill. We have always had a lack of Irish lawyers in this House when this Government has been in power. This is not a matter requiring expert knowledge of Irish law. It is a mere question of draftsmanship. It is a question on which an English or Scottish lawyer might advise the Government as well as an Irish lawyer. This Section refers to Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of another Statute. That is not a question of Irish law. The hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway says with diffidence but sincerity that he is not at all sure about the Sub-section referred to. That is not a question of Irish law. It is a question of substance. It is a question on which ordinary business skill alone is required. This House has been deprived of a very great deal of opportunity for discussing measures by the use of various devices, but I do not think we have ever reached such an absurdity as we are solemnly invited to take part in to-night by the Home Secretary, namely, to send this Bill in a chaotic condition, in an unintelligible muddle, to another place, to be put right there. Was ever a deliberative Assembly in any country reduced to

    181
    such a position? The responsible Minister, when he comes to Section 43, says that he does not know what to do to make it intelligible, and so he offers to send it to another place to have it made intelligible. A more monstrous curtailment of our liberties has not been known. If we cannot discuss proposals, we should know what the proposals are intended to do. Sometimes we cannot discuss them because time is taken away from us, but to-night we cannot discuss them because we are not allowed to operate our brains upon them. It is not a question of time. We have an unusual amount of time. The Clause is not intelligible, and the responsible Minister cannot tell us what should be done to make it intelligible. I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to second the Motion. I do not think the Home Secretary can complain of our action on this Bill. We have been most accommodating. We have done all we can to facilitate the passage of the Bill. We have given up Amendments over and over again, and directly we come to the Scottish Clauses we find the Lord Advocate moving Amendments of a highly technical nature, although he has not given notice of them. On Clause 43 we cannot get the opinion of the Irish Law Officers. I do not doubt that the Irish Law Officers are amply remunerated. We ought to have them in the Gallery in order to afford the necessary information. They ought really to be in the House, if, indeed, they could get seats. I venture to think that the House is entitled to protest, as the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) has protested, against being called upon to continue the discussion of the Bill which the Government themselves admit is absolutely unintelligible. All the arguments and materials for defending the Bill should have been ready last week. Even the Home Secretary put down his Amendments as late as Friday last. In these circumstances, and in view of the hopeless muddle into which the House has got, especially in relation to this Bill, I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not in the least complain that certain exaggerated language should be used in relation to the position in which I find myself in having to ask the House not to consider particular Amendments on Clause 43. I do not complain of the criticism of hon. Members. If I were sitting where they are at
    182
    the present moment I might have been very much disposed to use similar arguments, but we must not forget what the circumstances really are. The Clauses in the Bill, owing to Amendments in Committee have been renumbered. Clause 43 applying certain parts of the Bill to Ireland refers to the Clauses, and any expert Irish lawyer going through the provisions could see what Clauses are referred to
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: We have not all got copies of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are run out."]
    Mr. McKENNA: That is not my fault. The necessary alteration has got to be made on Report, and—
    Mr. PRINGLE: Why was not that done in Committee? I have been told frequently, when I moved consequential Amendments in the Committee stage of the Bill, that it was not necessary, as it was done automatically.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right. When they merely involve a matter of printing they would be amended by the printer. In this case that is not so. A number of Clauses have been altered in this way, and Amendments, in consequence, have to be moved.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The Clerk of the Committee should have done it.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not agree with that, but in any event, he has not done so. I have not been able to get the advice of an Irish lawyer as to what are the Amendments which should be made in the circumstances. Therefore I have asked that these Amendments, which are purely formal, should be allowed to stand over, I have no doubt that the House will agree that this is a purely formal matter. There is one very important point raised by the Member for North-East Cork which is not a mere formal matter. That is the question why the right of appeal is not extended to Ireland. Upon that point I have to regret that I had not the advice of an expert Irish lawyer to know why in Committee this right of appeal was not extended to Ireland. I undertook that if it were a mere formal omission I would correct that omission in another place. I understood that the hon. and learned Member accepted that. These matters are only formal matters. I would suggest, therefore, that we should be allowed to continue and dispose of the Bill, which every section of the House is anxious to

    183
    pass into law. We all know what the state of the business is at this stage of the Session, and it would only keep Members here unnecessarily to insist on pressing the Motion.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not complain of the tone of the Home Secretary's remarks, but he has admitted that he is suffering from very grievous disability. Here is a Bill making most important changes in the law. You pass a series of Clauses which are unintelligible to ordinary Irishmen, applying to England, and then you have an omnibus Clause saying, "Clauses so-and-so shall apply to Ireland," and when we come to that Clause nearly every figure in it is wrong. The Amendment of my hon. Friend simply points to the nonsense of the Clause. Here we have a Grand Committee dealing with Ireland, which leaves the Irish Criminal Law, to which Irishmen must pay some attention, in such a condition that if attention had not been drawn to it here, the whole thing would be a conglomeration of nonsense. That is an appalling state of affairs. I do not attribute any blame to the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary. I am rather in sympathy with him. At the same time, this Clause does make these changes. There is somebody in charge of the Irish Office and he should be here. Is there any reason under Heaven why the law of larceny in Ireland should not be the same as in England? You alter the law of larceny in an important way by Section 39, in which you provide:—
    "Where a prisoner is arraigned on an indictment for any offence, and can lawfully be convicted on such indictment of some other offence not charged in such indictment, he may plead not guilty of the offence charged in the indictment, but guilty of such other offence."
    Why should not that apply to Ireland? Why is there no supervising authority for revising these cases in Grand Committee? If that particular Clause is useful in England it should be applied to our country. I would respectfully propose that both the right of appeal Clause and the larceny Clause should be applied to Ireland, and I will tell you why. When the Bill comes back from the House of Lords we may not be here. It will be late in the Session. An appeal may be made by someone absolutely ignorant of the position, who will ask, "Are you going to lose this valuable Bill?" When we get a day unexpectedly
    184
    for the passage of this Bill, I think that Irish Members are entitled to take advantage of it. Accordingly, while I hope the proposal for adjournment will be withdrawn, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman, who is a very competent lawyer himself, will deal with these two points.
    Mr. McKENNA: If the Motion is withdrawn, I shall be in a position to move the necessary Amendments.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Not only is the right hon. Gentleman unable to give us a description of the Amendment on the particular Clause in question, but it is impossible to get in the Vote Office either a copy of the Bill or a copy of the Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman admits that up to the present moment he knew nothing about this particular Clause, but owing to some unforeseen circumstances he is now able to know something about them. I want to know what is going to happen to all the rest of the House who are unable to get a Bill, or even to get the Amendments. We have got very far on with the Bill, and it is absurd continuing to discuss it in the circumstances.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not think the Government will gain anything by going on with this Bill to-night. To say that my right hon. Friend is determined to go on and dispose of this Bill is a very erroneous phrase to use. We admit that it will have to go to another place and come back, and there is no such thing as disposing of it to-night in any final sense. The excuse the right hon. Gentleman gave was that there are no Irish Law Officers here. I do not know them by sight; perhaps they are whispering something from that ventilation shaft by the Table. Is there some magician about? I am told by my hon. Friend behind me that the Irish Law Officers are sitting under the Gallery. They do not look like Irish lawyers. I do not know where they are. I would point out that the hon. Member for Cork City referred to Sub-section (2) of Clause 37, and when we go to that Clause we find there is no Sub-section (2), nor Sub-sections (3) and (4) at the present time. Yet we are told that we must plough our way through, and leave the matter to another place. I am a democrat and a Radical, and I was never taught any such doctrine, and I am not going to take it from my own Government. Parts of the Bill are before us in such a way that nobody knows their meaning, and Radicals are asked to deny what they advocate on public platforms by

    185
    sending the Bill to the House of Lords to be put right. That is not the sort of doctrine for the hon. Member for North Sal-ford (Sir W. Byles), stern and unbending Radical, yet that is what we are treated to to-night. There are minor measures of a non-controversial character which could
    be proceeded with, and I think the Debate should be now adjourned.
    Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    The House divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 195.

    Division No. 187.]

    AYES.

    [10.8 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

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

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Barnston, Harry

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hills, John Waller

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hogge, James Myles

    Stewart, Gershom

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Bird, Alfred

    Hope, Hary (Bute)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Bull, Sir William James

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Cassel, Felix

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Nield, Herbert

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

    Duke, Henry Edward

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Younger, Sir George

    Fell, Arthur

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pringle, William M. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Norman Craig and Captain Wilson.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Delany, William

    Hinds, John

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hodge, John

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

    Dillon, John

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hudson, Walter

    Alien, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Doris, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Armitage, Robert

    Duffy, William J.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Kelly, Edward

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

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Kilbride, Denis

    Black, Arthur W.

    Ffrench, Peter

    King, J.

    Boland, John Plus

    Field, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Glanville, Harold James

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Clough, William

    Gulland, John William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Clynes, John R.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hackett, John

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Campton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hancock, John George

    Meagher, Michael

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

    Crooks, William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Crumley, Patrick

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Mollay, Michael

    Cullinan, John

    Haslam, Lewis

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morison, Hector

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Hewart, Gordon

    Nolan, Joseph

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thomas, James Henry

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    O'Dowd, John

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    O'Malley, William

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Toulmin, Sir George

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Ree, Sir Thomas

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Rowlands, James

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Wiles, Thomas

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

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

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

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

    Sheehy, David

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Radford, George Heynes

    Shortt, Edward

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Reddy, Michael

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Sutton, John E.

    W. Jones and Mr. Webb.

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

    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "Sub-section (1) of Section seventeen," and to insert instead thereof "Section sixteen."
    With this Amendment the Clause will read, "Sections sixteen to twenty-one inclusive."
    Mr. BOOTH: If the Adjournment had not been moved, and opportunity given, wrong legislation would have been made, and it is only because of the action taken that the right hon. Gentleman is able to correct it.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: If it is any satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman, may I say I think his efforts to-night will lead to the dropping of the Plumage Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "Section twenty-three, Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-four, Sections twenty-five and twenty-six, Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) of Section twenty-seven, and Section twenty-eight," and to insert instead thereof the words "Section twenty-four. Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-five, Sections twenty-six and twenty-seven, Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) of Section twenty-eight, Sections thirty-five and thirty-nine, and Sub-section (1) of Section forty-one."
    By this Amendment I propose to omit all the reference numbers, and insert the true reference numbers relating to the Bill as it is now presented. We mean the same Clauses, but the numbers were wrong because the numbers of the Clauses were changed.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: This Amendment meets my point to some extent, because the right hon. Gentleman is inserting certain Sections, but he is deliberately omitting Section 37, about which we are mainly anxious. Therefore, as the Amendment stands, I must respectfully object to it. In England, for a generation, there has been a right of appeal from all fines and imprisonments. Since the present Liberal Government came into office various Attorney-Generals have declared that at the first opportunity that right would be extended to Ireland. In Ireland any magistrate may give a man a month's imprisonment with hard labour, and there is no appeal. You are proposing to assimilate the law in the two countries, and yet, although the question has been raised three times, the Government, while admitting that the Clause is entirely wrong in point of form, persist in leaving the Irish law in this objectionable form. During the strike in Dublin great complaint was made because Labour men were sent to prison without appeal by stipendiary magistrates. In Ireland you can have more than one charge in one summons, with the result that a man may get one month's imprisonment on one section, another month on a second, and another on a third, or three months altogether without appeal. Although I condemned many matters in connection with the strike, it appeared to me on many occasions that the working men got hard measure. They were in the hands of a single magistrate, and there was no appeal to the Recorder or to any other Court. Whenever a sentence was given of such a character as to enable the Recorder to deal with it, he invariably varied the sentence. When we are told that we are on

    189
    the eve of Home Rule, is the Irish law to be permitted to remain in this inequitable, unjust, and really inconsequential condition? When the present Lord Justice Cherry sat on the Front Bench opposite, and was appealed to to make this change in the Irish law, he always answered that he was quite in sympathy with the change, but there was no time to carry it out. Now you have a whole day, which would otherwise have been devoted to the Irish Bill, and we simply ask that this provision should be included in the Irish section. Let me read to the House what I ask to have extended to Ireland:—
    "Any person aggrieved by any conviction of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in respect of any offence who did not plead guilty or admit the truth of the information may appeal from the conviction in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a Court of Quarter Sessions."
    I quite understand that the insertion of Clause 37 in this Irish Clause is not the happiest mode of dealing with the matter. But surely it is quite easy by a subsequent Amendment containing the necessary modifications, or whatever the legal consequences may be, to effect our purpose. Therefore, unless the right hon. Gentleman assures me that he will accept this Amendment, or will deal with it in another place, I shall be compelled to go to a Division. This is a matter which has been a standing grievance in Ireland for many years. I do say, therefore, that it will be illiberal on the part of the Liberal Government, and unlabourlike, unsympathetic, and unfriendly, if this Amendment is not now made. I would suggest this to the Government, let them propose part of the Clause, but do not let that have the effect of shutting me out from moving the inclusion of Clause 37. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow me to move an Amendment to his Amendment—which is not a very easy process, as I have got this Amendment by me, it only, I think, exists in manuscripts—or let the Debate be adjourned so that the Government may see about the matter. There is no Irish lawyer that would support a proposition contrary to what I submit; not one, I think. The whole trend of legal opinion in Ireland is in favour of my suggestion.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Gentleman will possibly accept this from me: I will agree that Clause 37 in the Bill be
    190
    made applicable to Ireland, on the condition that if I subsequently find that either in form or substance the inclusion is a mistake, that then I should be free to agree to its being cut out in another place. The hon. and learned Gentleman would then have the opportunity of re-raising the question in this House, because that can only be done by the omission of Amendments in the other House. Under those conditions I will accept his Amendment to my Amendment to include Clause 37.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I not only accept, but thank the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I would like to point out the way in which this matter stands. It is a matter of some consequence. The Home Secretary was not prepared to discuss this Clause at all earlier, because he had not the Irish Law Officers, and could not get—
    Mr. McKENNA: No, no; the hon. Member must not say that.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I am speaking in the recollection of the House.
    Mr. McKENNA: I never mentioned Irish Law Officers. I said that I had no expert legal advisers; but before the division was taken on the hon. Members motion, the papers had come to me with the requisite changes made, and I have now consequently been able to move them in the House.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, that the Paper has come to him, and that he has acted upon it—in part only; and in part from what has fallen from hon. Members below the Gangway. But what is the position of the House? Then we were not in a position to discuss the Section. Now the right hon. Gentleman says we are in a position to discuss it, and how does he discuss it? He says, "I do not know whether it is right or wrong, but instead of altering what I am not sure is right or wrong, we will get it altered afterwards." It may be right or wrong, but it can be altered. The thing is as broad as it is long. He might as well have said, "We will put the whole of the rubbish in and have it altered afterwards." It is a pretty way of legislating. Let me point out this to the right hon. Gentleman. He is accepting this Amendment to include Clause 37, but the Summary Jurisdiction Act does not apply to Ireland. You will

    191
    have to make other alterations; make the Petty Sessional Act of 1851 take the place of the Summary Jurisdiction Act—
    Mr. McKENNA: That is so.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Of course, that is so. I quite agree. But it is a nice way to legislate. You incorporate Clause 37 as applying to Ireland, when everybody who knows anything about these Acts at all knows that the Act which is referred to in Clause 37 has no application to Ireland.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Summary Jurisdiction Act is also used at the top of page 26.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: That is possibly so, but the importation of this Clause does not make it any better. This Clause distinctly says the Summary Jurisdiction Act, the right hon. Gentleman said when he was asked to deal with this question, this is merely a question of renumbering Clauses. It is nothing of the sort. Neither 37 nor 39 were in the Clauses we were discussing. They were first raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have proceeded upon this method. He says, "I will give 39 but I will not give 37." The hon. and learned Gentleman then presses him, and the right hon. Gentleman says, "Very well, I will give 37, but I do not know whether it is applicable or not. If it is it will be put right in another place, and if not it will be otherwise dealt with." I think that is reducing legislation to an absolute farce.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done, may I point out that he will require to slightly modify Sub-section 10 based upon the condition that there was no appeal in Ireland from sentences under one month?
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c) at the end, to insert,
    "(2) The wife or husband of a person charged with bigamy may be called as a witness either for the prosecution or defence and without the consent of the person charged."
    This matter has already come up in connection with what happened with Clause 15 for England, and, unless I am mistaken, for Scotland also. So I think,
    192
    in view of the desirability of assimilating the law upon this subject in the three countries, this Amendment should be made.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am sorry, but, as I have already informed the hon. Member opposite, I do not propose to include this in the Clause.
    Sir F. BANBURY: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman has incorporated this Amendment in the Clause relating to Scotland this afternoon. If he has done that for Scotland, why not do the same for Ireland?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I will give the hon. Baronet a reason. When this was being done for Scotland, and I pointed out to the Scottish Members that this grave change was being made in the law, and they assented, and although it was not upon the Paper, it was unanimously agreed that it was necessary. I will give the hon. Baronet a reason for not applying it to Ireland, which he will appreciate. When the Criminal Evidence Act was going through we agreed to allow it to go through for England, and I think for Scotland, upon a pledge being given from the then Prime Minister that no attempt would be made to compel Irish prisoners to give evidence on their own behalf. That was a pledge, upon the faith of which we allowed the law of England to be altered, and we understood that no attempt would be made to alter the law of Ireland without the consent of the Irish Members.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: When we discussed this matter for Scotland we were told that it was extending to Scotland the power of a person to give evidence on his own behalf. But there is nothing about that in the Bill. By a verbal Amendment we have extended the provisions of this Bill to Scotland, and now the question arises whether it should be extended to Ireland. In this Amendment there is no question of compelling a prisoner to give evidence at all, and this simply deals with one isolated case of bigamy, where a person charged may give evidence, although not compelled to do so. This is an enabling Section, but I am not anxious to press it upon an unwilling House, or upon England or Scotland, because it makes very little difference. When we are passing a Bill in this way, however, I protest. We have evidently made this Bill apply to Scotland without knowing it, but if the hon. and

    193
    learned Member for North-East Cork does not wish it to apply to Ireland, I will not press the matter.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHAN: I beg to move to add the following new Sub-section:—
    "(11) Upon any information, summons or complaint laid or made before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in Ireland where-ever the defendant is called upon to show cause why such defendant should not be bound over to keep the peace or be of good behaviour, the defendant shall be entitled to call witnesses and tender evidence at the hearing of said information, summons or complaint."
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think it will now be necessary to move an Amendment to Cause 37, but I will not move it if the Government object.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, that will be necessary.
    Mr. P. MEEHAN: As the law stands at present in England a defendant who is summoned to show cause why he should not enter into sureties to be of good behaviour is entitled to give evidence in his own defence, but in Ireland the law is different. The defendant is usually called upon to show cause, but he goes into Court and he is not allowed to show any cause. The information is read, the com plainant is heard, and he has no opportunity of—
    Mr. McKENNA: I agree.

    CLAUSE 44.—(Short Title, Commencement and Repeal.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, and shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifteen.
    (2) The enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that schedule.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "Second," and to insert instead thereof the word "Fourth."
    Mr. NEWTON: I have not the slightest idea what the Schedule consists of. Turning "two" into "fourth" may mean turning two months' into four months'
    194
    imprisonment. [HON. MEMBERS: Look at the words!"] I am afraid I cannot. I have not got them.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment is on the Paper.
    Mr. NEWTON: I will not pursue that point, but I think that I shall be in order in saying that I have not been able to get a copy of the Bill, although I have applied many times. We Members have a duty to our constituents, and it may well be that we shall be arraigned for agreeing to some change in the law of which our constituents heartily disapprove. I desire to put on record that it is impossible under these circumstances to know what one is voting for.
    Amendment agreed to

    SCHEDULES.—FIRST SCHEDULE.
    TABLE OF COURT FEES TO BE TAKEN BY CLERKS TO JUSTICES OFTHE PEACE.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Indictable Offences:—

    For the performance of all the several duties in every case committed for trial to the Assizes or Sessions, without regard to the number of prisoners included in the same charge

    1

    5

    0

    (This fee does not cover taking recognisances or giving notice to the accused and his sureties when admitted to bail; nor attending to take the deposition of a witness prevented by sickness or otherwise from appearing in Court; nor supplying a copy of depositions. In cases of dismissal the separate fees for information, etc., are chargeable.)

    For the performance of all the several duties in respect of any indictable offence dealt with summarily without regard to the number of persons charged in each case, and whether there is a conviction or not

    0

    15

    0

    Elementary Education Acts:—

    Proceedings under the Acts, in each case, including summons, order, and conviction

    0

    4

    0

    Distress warrants (if any)

    0

    1

    0

    Committal (if any)

    0

    1

    0

    For services not covered by the foregoing fees the following fees may be charged:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Appointment:—

    Of parochial or other officers (except constables), to contain the names of all the persons appointed at the same time to the same office in the parish, hamlet, or place, including notice and oath when necessary

    0

    5

    0

    Of any constable (other than special)

    0

    1

    0

    Of valuer, arbitrator, etc.

    1

    10

    0

    Of special constables, if less than twenty-eight, for each person, to include notice, oath, and certificate

    0

    1

    0

    If more than twenty-eight are appointed on one occasion, for attending to summons, swear in, and make out appointments, and the business thereof, for each day

    2

    2

    0

    Army Act, 1881 (44 and 45 Vict, c. 58):—

    Attestation of recruit (Section 80 (4) (d))

    0

    1

    0

    Descriptive return in relation to deserter (Section 154 (6))

    0

    2

    0

    Certificate of civil conviction or acquittal (Section 164)

    0

    3

    0

    Warrant to provide carriages (Section 112)

    0

    1

    0

    Attendance:—

    On a justice, to view deserted premises in order to affix notice or to give possession thereof, to view a highway bridge, or nuisance, or to take an examination elsewhere than in Court

    0

    6

    8

    If required to go more than one mile from the place of holding Petty Sessions, for each mile after the first (one way)

    0

    1

    0

    Case for the opinion of Superior Court (20 and 21 Vict. c. 43, Section 3):—

    Drawing case and copy, when the case does not exceed five folios of 90 words

    0

    10

    0

    For every additional folio be yond five

    0

    1

    0

    Taking recognisance as required by the Act

    0

    5

    0

    £

    s.

    d.

    Every enlargement or renewal thereof

    0

    2

    6

    For certificate of refusal of case

    0

    2

    0

    Certificate:—

    Every certificate not otherwise charged

    0

    2

    0

    Certiorari:—

    Return to and filing

    0

    13

    4

    Civil Debt (not including Rates):—

    Summons and copy

    0

    1

    6

    Complaint

    0

    1

    0

    Order and copy

    0

    3

    0

    Oath (each witness)

    0

    1

    0

    Judgment summons and copy, including hearing

    0

    3

    0

    Warrant of distress

    0

    2

    0

    Commitment. (See Warrant.)

    Complaint:—

    Every complaint not otherwise charged

    0

    1

    0

    Conviction:—

    Every conviction, including returning same to the Court (to include all persons convicted on the same charge, except in cases where all persons convicted on the same charge cannot be included in the same conviction)

    0

    2

    6

    Copy:—

    Of depositions for prosecutor on the trial, per folio of 90 words

    0

    0

    4

    Of depositions for prisoner, under 11 and 12 Vict., c. 42, s. 27, per folio of 90 words, not exceeding

    0

    0

    1½

    Of any other document, per folio of 72 words

    0

    0

    4

    Duplicate:—

    For the duplicate of any document

    One half the orginal fee.

    Examination. (See Information.)

    Exhibit:—

    Each document annexed to or referred to in any affidavit or declaration and marked

    0

    1

    0

    Explosives Act, 1875, (38 Vict., c. 17):—

    Store licence (s. 15), not exceeding

    0

    5

    0

    Store licence, renewal (s. 18), not exceeding

    0

    1

    0

    Registering premises (s. 21), not exceeding

    0

    1

    0

    £

    s.

    d.

    Registering premises, renewal, not exceeding

    0

    1

    0

    Small firework factory (s. 49) licence, not exceeding

    0

    5

    0

    Small firework factory (s. 40) licence, renewal, not exceeding

    0

    1

    0

    Extradition Act, 1873 (36 and 37 Vict., c. 60., s. 5):—

    For taking a deposition in pursuance of an order made by the Secretary of State

    1

    1

    0

    Each subsequent deposition taken in pursuance of the same order

    0

    5

    0

    Hearing:—

    When no conviction or order is made

    0

    1

    0

    Information:—

    Each information or examination (including oath)

    0

    1

    0

    Jury Lists:—

    For forwarding lists with schedule to the clerk of the peace (25 and 26 Vict., c. 107, s. 9)

    0

    2

    6

    Revision fee to be fixed by the local authority subject to approval of Secretary of State.

    Licences:—

    For every licence, consent, or authority not otherwise provided for, to include registration when necessary

    0

    5

    0

    Billiard licence (to include fee of 1s. to constable), 8 and 9 Vict., c. 109., s. 10

    1

    0

    0

    Theatre licence (6 and 7 Vict., c. 68., s. 6), for each month for which theatre is open, not exceeding

    1

    0

    0

    Registration of music and dancing licence (53 and 54 Vict., c. 59., s. 51)

    1

    0

    0

    List:—

    Every list not otherwise provided for which it is the duty of the clerk to the justices to make or transmit

    0

    2

    6

    Notice:—

    Every notice not otherwise provided for

    0

    1

    0

    Oath:—

    Every oath, affirmation, or solemn declartion not otherwise charged

    0

    1

    0

    (Vide note at end of table.)

    £

    s.

    d.

    Order:—

    Order, certificate, or record of proceedings in case of deserted premises, or relating to a highway, bridge, or nuisance, or for protecting separate property of a married woman

    0

    5

    0

    Order as to the settlement, removal, or maintenance of a pauper or lunatic, the affiliation of a bastard, or in case of fraudulent removal of goods

    0

    5

    0

    Order for payment of allowance to special constables (one order to include all the constables appointed)

    0

    2

    0

    Every order or minute thereof not otherwise charged

    0

    3

    0

    Precept:—

    Every precept

    0

    1

    6

    Rate:—

    Amending a rate, each name

    0

    1

    0

    Taxing costs and order thereon

    0

    3

    0

    Order on appeal

    0

    5

    0

    Order for adjourning appeal, if required

    0

    1

    0

    Allowance of rate

    0

    2

    0

    Enforcement of any poor rate, including the complaint, summons, duplicate, or copy, and the hearing, but not not to include oaths when administered, nor the cost of a warrant if issued

    0

    2

    0

    Warrant of distress

    0

    2

    0

    Commitment

    0

    2

    0

    Enforcement of any general district or other rate, including the complaint, summons, duplicate, or copy, and the hearing, but not to include oaths when administered, nor the cost of a warrant if issued

    0

    2

    0

    Order

    0

    2

    0

    Judgment summons (including hearing)

    0

    2

    6

    Warrant of distress

    0

    2

    0

    Commitment

    0

    2

    0

    If more than one rate is included in the summons, for each rate after the first

    0

    0

    6

    When the form of warrant provided for by 12 and 13 Viet. c. 14. s. 3 is used, for each name inserted in the Schedule over and above eight

    0

    0

    3

    £

    s.

    d.

    Recognizance:—

    Every recognizance

    0

    2

    6

    Notice to each person bound

    0

    0

    6

    Summons:—

    Every summons (to include all the names included in the same charge or intended to be summoned as witnesses in the same case for the prosecution or defence if applied for at the same time)

    0

    1

    0

    Every copy

    0

    0

    6

    Backing summons for service from outside jurisdiction

    0

    1

    0

    Warrant:—

    Every warrant of distress when not otherwise provided for

    0

    2

    0

    To commit after conviction in in which the conviction is set forth

    0

    2

    0

    Every other warrant

    0

    1

    0

    Return to warrant or endorsing warrant, including oath

    0

    1

    0

    Backing warrant for execution from outside jurisdiction

    0

    1

    0

    Note.—Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorise the demand of any reswearing any person to any examination, or for any oath, affirmation, or declaration to obtain pay, pension, or allowance from Government or friendly society, or charitable fund, or for any declaration relating to lost duplicates of articles pledged where the amount advanced on such articles does not exceed 20s., or in any other case where an Act of Parliament directs that no fee shall be taken.
    Amendment made: After the word "Schedule" ["First Schedule"] insert the words "Part I."
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move, in paragraph "Indictable offences," after the word "duties" ["For the performance of all the several duties in respect of any indictable offence"], to insert the words "including commitment."
    This and other Amendments are put down on expert advice and at the request of the clerks of the peace of this country in order that there may be one fee, and only one fee, and I hope that the House will accept them.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move, after the list of fees relating to the Elementary Education Act, to insert,

    "Aliens Act, 1905:—

    For the Performance of all the several duties in connection with the recommendation of a person for deportation

    0

    5

    0"

    Mr. BIGLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot accept that.
    Mr. NIELD: Why not?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is no such procedure as the hon. Gentleman contemplates by this language. The deportation and expulsion of an alien is a magisterial act after the trial.
    Mr. NIELD: It is a recommendation of a person for deportation, and there are certain duties which the clerks and the magistrates have to perform.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman does not suggest by whom the fees should be paid?
    Mr. NIELD: By the person convicted.
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move to add to the list of fees for "Attendance,"
    "Expenses actually incurred for travelling (such amount not to be payable to the authority by whom the salary of the clerk to the justices is paid.)"
    Mr. McKENNA: This is a table of fees and not expenses, and I cannot accept it.
    Mr. NIELD: Is not this reducing the Schedule to an absurdity? You are directed to levy certain fees, and included in these fees are necessary expenses of persons who are called upon to execute the orders of the Court. If they are not included in "fees," then that word should be enlarged to include them. It is obviously a matter on which the Court is called upon to exercise jurisdiction, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see the necessity of making the Schedule complete by accepting the Amendment.
    Question, "That those words be there added to the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to add to the list of fees for "Case for the opinion of Superior Court,"

    "Certificate of officer of Court to whom periodical payments of money are to Be made

    0

    1

    0"

    This is rendered necessary by the provisions of the Affiliation Orders Bill which has passed through all its stages in this House and is very nearly through in another place. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot accept this Amendment because it does not properly come within the Schedule, which deals only with fees to be taken by the justices' clerk, and does not refer to officers of the Court who may or may not be justices' clerks. Neither could I accept it on its merits.
    Mr. KING: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move, on page 28, line 41, to leave out the words "where payable to the clerk of the peace," and to insert instead thereof the words "(to be paid to the clerk of the peace) such fee as is authorised by the table of fees payable to the clerk of the peace.

    In cases where a fee has not been authorised as aforesaid

    0

    1

    0"

    I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: The fee referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman is one to which there is no strong objection so far as I am concerned.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. There are no such words in my copy of the Bill. Line 41, on page 28, simply says "charge cannot be included in the same conviction, 2s. 6d."
    Mr. McKENNA: That is so. The fee was omitted in Committee, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will remember.
    Mr. NIELD: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I handed to him the recommendations not only of the clerks of the peace, but of the county of Middlesex,
    202
    and he assured me in Committee that he had already received them by post, and he promised between the Committee stage and the Report stage that he would give very careful consideration to them, and that he would endeavour so far as possible to incorporate them. I am afraid there has been an error in the printing as to the place where the Amendment should come in. If he has no objection to the fee, he must obviously know where it ought to come in, and I hope he will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite clear that it cannot come in here.
    Mr. NIELD: I will withdraw the Amendment for the present.

    Amendment made: Leave out the words, "Billiard licence (to include fee of 1s. to constable), 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109. s. 10

    1

    0

    0

    Theatre licence (6 & 7 Vict. c. 68. s. 6), for each month for which theatre is open, not exceeding

    1

    0

    0

    Registration of music and dancing licence (53 & 54 Vict. c. 59. s. 51)

    1

    0

    0"

    [Mr. McKenna.]
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move, at the end of the paragraph "Licences," to insert, "Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910:—

    On the deposit of plans of alterations under Section 71 (2)

    0

    5

    0"

    This is a matter of some substance, because when applicants desire to alter the licensed premises they produce to the Petty Sessional bench a plan of the proposed alterations. If those plans are to be approved, questions of extension may arise and the plans have to be very carefully examined at the Petty Sessions. The Home Secretary cannot object to the person in possession of the tenancy, generally the brewer, who applies for the alterations being charged so modest a sum as 5s. for the examination of the plans. There is every reason requiring that fee to be authorised. It would be no hardship on persons who come forward to ask for the alterations, who will be well able to pay this charge to remunerate the clerk for the examination of the plans. Very often they have to be examined by an expert.
    Captain WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I regret that I cannot agree to accept this. All fees for work under the Licensing Act ought to be included in that Act. We ought not to select particular items out of various Acts
    of Parliament and put them under this Bill.
    Question put, "That those words be there added to the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 204.

    Division No. 188.]

    AYES.

    [10.55 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Baird, J. L.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Barnston, Harry

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

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hills, John Waller

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hogge, James Myles

    Stewart, Gershom

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Bird, A.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Boyton, James

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Cassel, Felix

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Worthington Evans, L.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Yate, Colonel C E.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Nield and Sir W. Bull.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Dillon, John

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Doris, William

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

    Duffy, William J.

    Joyce, Michael

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Kelly, Edward

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Armitage, Robert

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    King, J.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Falconer, James

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lundon, Thomas

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

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

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Maclean, Donald

    Boland, John Plus

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

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

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Glanville, Harold James

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Meagher, Michael

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

    Gulland, John William

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hackett, John

    Molloy, Michael

    Clough, William

    Hancock, John George

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Clynes, John R.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Morrell, Philip

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morison, Hector

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harvew, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Cowan, W H.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Crooks, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Nolan, Joseph

    Cullinan, John

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Hinds, John

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hodge, John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O Doherty, Philip

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

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Dowd, John

    Delany, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Malley. William

    Devlin, Joseph

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Robinson, Sidney

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Rowlands, James

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Pratt, J. W.

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

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Wiles, Thomas

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Sheehy, David

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Reddy, Michael

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Younger, Sir George

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Sutton, John E.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    William Jones and Mr. H. Webb.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Tuesday).

    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, at the end of the paragraph headed "Licences" to add,

    "Cinematograph licence (9 Edw. 7, c. 30, s. 2 (5) for each month during which the licence is granted, not exceeding

    1

    0

    0"

    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member will see that I have an Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—on the Paper which includes in Part II. of the Schedule matters to which Part I. does not apply, and included in that is the cinematograph business.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in the paragraph "Order," to leave out the words "the affiliation of a bastard." The object of this Amendment is that the fees in connection with affiliation orders should be reduced in certain circumstances.
    Mr. McKENNA: I will accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: At the end of the paragraph "Order" insert,

    "Order as to the affiliation of of a bastard, or under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895

    0

    2

    0

    Variation, revocation, or revival of order

    0

    1

    0"

    —[Mr. King.]
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move, in the paragraph headed "Rating" to leave out all words following "allowance of rate 2s."

    206
    down to, and including "warrant of distress 2s.," and to insert instead thereof:

    "Enforcement of any poor, general district, or other rate, to include complaint, summons, and all other proceedings for which separate fees are not provided here under

    0

    2

    0

    Order

    0

    2

    0

    Warrant of distress

    0

    2

    0

    Judgment summons (including hearing)

    0

    2

    6

    Summons (if any) in poor rate cases to show cause why defaulter should not be committed

    0

    2

    0"

    I hope that the Home Secretary has satisfied himself that this arrangement is far better than that which is suggested in the Schedule. I hope that this is a case in which he has profited by the documents which were given him to study, and that he will accept this moderate Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Will this mean any increase in the fees?
    Mr. NIELD: In some cases it will mean a reduction.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In paragraph "Warrant," after the word "conviction" ["after conviction"], to insert the words "or order."
    After the word "conviction" ["the conviction is"], to insert the words "or order."—[Mr. Nield.]
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, at the end of the First Schedule, to add—

    Part II.
    Matters to which Part I. does not apply.

    1. Matters in respect of which fees are authorised to be charged by the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910 (10 Edw. 7 and 1 Geo 5, c. 24).

    2. Billiard licences, under Section ten of the Gaming Act, 1844 (8 and 9 Vict., c. 109).

    3. Theatre licences, under Section six of the Theatres Act, 1843 (6 and 7 Vict., c. 68).

    4. The registration of music and dancing licences under Section fifty-one of the Public Health Act, 1890 (53 and 54 Vict., c. 59).

    5. Licences under the Cinematograph Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 30).

    6. Assessment appeals under the Valuation Metropolis Act, 1869 (32 and 33 Vict., c. 67).

    7. Formal investigations into shipping casualties under Section four hundred and seventy-nine of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 and 58 Vict., c. 60).

    8. Appeals from pilotage authority under Section twenty-eight of the Pilotage Act, 1913 (2 and 3 Geo. 5, c. 31)."

    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: In the Fourth Schedule, after the word "justices" ["clerks to justices"], insert

    "5 and 6 Vict., c. 51

    The Treason Act, 1842

    In section two the words 'as often and' and 'not exceeding thrice.' "

    After the word "England" ["so far as the same relate to England"], insert

    "26 & 27Vict., c. 44

    The Garrotters Act, 1863

    In section one the words 'twice, or thrice.' "

    After the word "Sub-section" ["to the end of that Sub-section"], insert "paragraph (6) of Section twenty-seven."
    After the word "five" ["and Section five"], insert

    "8 Edw. 7, c. 59

    The Prevention of Crime Act, 1908.

    In Sub-Section (2) of Section six from 'and at latest within three months,' to the end of that Sub-Section."

    —[Mr. McKenna.]
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope that the House will allow me to take the Third Heading. The Hill is universally accepted.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There is no agreement to take the Third Reading.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Baronet, on the Second Reading of this Bill, said he
    208
    considered this was one of the measures which did not stand in the same position as most of them. But, as objection is taken, I will not press the Third Reading to-night.
    Bill to be read the third time To-morrow (Tuesday).

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  REVENUE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  FINANCE [LOCAL GRANTS].
  Order for Committee thereupon read, and discharged.
  HOP SUBSTITUTES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EMPLOYMENT IN SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): This is an Irish Rating Bill making no demand upon the Treasury. The scheme of rating involved has been in operation since 1866. Under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, the Irish Department of Agriculture is empowered to make assessments through the Local Government Board for Ireland upon Irish county councils with a view to the provision of money for administrative and other purposes under the Diseases of Animals Act. Those powers are, however, subject to the limit that a rate of not more than one halfpenny in the pound can be levied at any one time, but

  209
  as a matter of fact no more than a farthing has been levied, and that no larger sum is raised in this way than is equivalent in the whole to a poundage of "d. for the initiation of the scheme of rating in 1866. From that year down to January, 1914, a period of forty-eight years, there have been twenty-nine assessments, in all, but one, to the extent of one farthing in the pound, and a sum equivalent to a poundage of 7½d. has been levied, leaving a margin of a halfpenny within the statutory limit of 8d. The proceeds of those assessments go to a fund, the main object of which is to spread the cost of the working of the Diseases of Animals Act over the different local authorities and so to lighten the burden on any particular district in which exceptional expenditure may become necessary.
  Out of this fund the county councils are recouped one half of their expenses under that Act, For example, out of this fund half of the salaries of veterinary officers in the service are paid. The fund also makes good such portion of any expenditure in dealing with pleuro-pneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease, or swine fever as is not covered by the moneys voted by Parliament for those purposes. The amount provided by Statute in respect of these diseases for the United Kingdom is £160,000, of which not more than £50,000 may be devoted to swine fever. The statutory amount allocated to Ireland of this maximum amount of £160,000 must not exceed £20,000 in any one year, but if the balance is not required for Great Britain the Treasury is authorised to allocate such portion of it as may be considered necessary in aid of any Irish deficit under this head. What this means may be gathered from the fact that in 1912–13 Ireland received £38,000 for foot-and-mouth disease and £8,000 for swine fever purposes or £46,000, and I may say that a larger amount will be payable in respect of foot-and-mouth disease during the present year.
  The last assessment made by the Department was in January last. This was required in order to meet expenditure on tuberculosis and swine fever. The Diseases of Animals Acts were extended in Ireland to tuberculosis in May, 1913, but the special grant which has been voted in aid of expenditure in this direction extends only to one-half of the compensation payable by local authorities, leaving one-half of the remaining expenditure to be defrayed by the fund fed by these
  210
  assessments. Further, the statutory grant in connection with swine fever in Ireland has been limited in the present year to £7,000. But the necessary expenditure under this head is estimated at £14,000, which means that the excess over the statutory grant, namely, £7,000, will also have to be defrayed out of the fund. As I have explained, a total poundage of 7½d. has already been levied, and there is now a margin of only ½d. within the statutory limit of 8d. Under the Bill it is not proposed to interfere with the limitation whereby ½d. in the pound is the maximum rate which may be levied at any one time. The House will see that this is an absolutely necessary Bill. I am sorry to say that swine fever is very common in Ireland—more common than in England at the present time. We have to meet very-heavy expenditure upon swine fever. We have also to meet expenditure upon other diseases, including foot-and-mouth disease, and we have only ½d. left in the Treasury. We cannot afford to leave ourselves without money, because I greatly fear that these diseases have come to stay in some cases, and it would be very; awkward indeed if we could not pay the veterinary officers and the necessary compensation.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: It is extremely difficult to understand the working of this general Cattle Diseases Fund in Ireland. But one thing is perfectly clear, that the time has arrived when it is unfair to charge the taxpayers in this country, or the ratepayers, as the case may be, with any portion of the fund—
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. Did I understand you, Sir, to put the Question from the Chair?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): The Question put from the Chair was. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I do not understand the nature of that interruption. I was about to ask whether we are to understand that any portion of this Irish Cattle Diseases Fund is provided out of the pockets of the British taxpayers or ratepayers? The right hon. Gentleman referred to a sum of £38,000, representing the deficiency in the Irish quota which had to be provided out of the British fund. In the second place, I want to ask whether it is really fair to ask the ratepayers in either country to pay what is in effect a

  211
  deficiency not of the local authorities, but of the fund available for the administration of the Board of Agriculture in stamping out foot-and-mouth and other contagious diseases? In this country the corresponding fund — the Pleuro-pneumonia Fund—when there is a foot-and-mouth outbreak, has to be made good, for the purposes of Board of Agriculture administration, out of the pockets of the local ratepayers. So far as I understand the same thing is happening in Ireland.
  If that is so, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that under the Finance Bill in its original form—and I understand that this part of the Bill will be incorporated in the Revenue Bill—the whole of this duty, which used to fall upon the local authorities in Great Britain in respect of the deficiency of the Fund in the case of the Board of Agriculture, will in future be paid by the Treasury. If that is so in Great Britain, why not in Ireland? In other words, why should the local authorities of areas where there is no swine fever at all have to make good the deficiency in this account in order to pay expenses in respect of outbreaks in other districts where it is more prevalent? The whole system operates unequally. It operates unequally as between Great Britain and Ireland and as between different parts of Ireland itself. This deficiency ought to be made good, not at the expense of the ratepayer in either country, but out of the Exchequer, bearing in mind that what has caused the deficiency is a lack of money in the hands of the Department of Agriculture whose business it is to stamp out these serious contagious diseases. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has had to admit that another outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred in county Tipperary. I, for my part, sympathise with him.
  Mr. RUSSELL: I should like to correct a part of my remarks. I referred to £48,000. That was the amount that came from the Treasury direct to meet the expenses of foot-and-mouth disease in 1912–13 in addition to what we spent in Ireland ourselves out of this fund.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Do we understand that if we pass the Second Reading of this Bill no charge will be imposed upon the English ratepayer or taxpayer beyond any balance which may be available under the existing Act?
  Mr. RUSSELL: That is exactly the position.
  Mr. BATHURST: Surely this sum would not be available: it is provided by the British taxpayer?

  SECOND PEACE CONFERENCE (CONVENTIONS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION) (No. 3) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): This is a Bill which proposes to allow an additional qualification for the election of county and borough councils. Under the law as it now stands for local governing bodies a twelve-months' residence within the area is a qualification for election. That is the case in regard to Parliament, borough, urban district, rural, and parish councils, and boards of guardians. In regard to county councils this qualification does not exist; consequently there are great numbers of people who might be eligible as members of these bodies who are prevented from standing for them. Incidentally, this provision of the law has the effect of excluding all married women, except in London, from election anywhere as members of town or county councils. Whatever our ideas may be as to Women Suffrage, the House, I think, generally will agree that this disqualification should not prevent women, on account of marriage, from presenting themselves to the voters for election on these local bodies. I propose, therefore, in this Bill, to ask the House to allow the same residential qualification for county and borough councils as already is allowed by law for all other local governing authorities in the country. As the House knows, there are

  213
  difficulties from time to time in the selection of suitable persons as members of these bodies, and it is desirable to allow the widest possible choice to the electors in choosing their representatives. I hope, therefore, the House will pass this measure; it is keenly desired by numbers of persons interested in our local, government affairs.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not at all sure that this is desired by the unfortunate ratepayers. The right hon. Gentleman has not really told the House what the effect of this Bill is. The effect of the Bill is this. As the law stands at present no one can be elected as alderman or county or borough councillor unless he has an occupation qualification. An occupation qualification means that the particular person has to pay rates; that is to say a person cannot be elected with the power of imposing rates upon other people unless he himself pays rates. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That, as I am informed, is the law at the present moment. The right hon. gentleman now proposes for that merely a twelve months' residential qualification. Therefore, any lodger who lives in a room for which he pays 3s. or 4s. per week for twelve months is to be qualified to sit upon a body which imposes rates upon other people.
  I say that is quite wrong, and because it has been done in Metropolitan borough councils, district councils, or parish councils is so far from being a reason for doing-it in this instance that I think it ought to be reversed and the law left as it is in the case of county and borough councils. It is one of the very greatest misfortunes of to-day that the people who imposed both taxes and rates in many cases do not have to pay a single penny towards them. It tends to extravagance, and it is not good either for the administration of the particular body or for the pockets of the unfortunate ratepayers. With regard to the inclusion of married women, I do not know I particularly object to married women sitting upon those councils except that the duty of the married woman is in her home. The spinster has nothing to do except to go and waste her time upon one of those particular bodies, but the married woman should be at home looking after the baby and her children. I do not know that it is worth while dividing the House at this stage, but I shall move Amendments when the Bill gets to Committee.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: This Bill proposes a very important change in the law and I really think we should have some more explicit statement upon it before we pass it. I do not agree with the hon. Baronet that a person must pay rates before he can be elected to a council. Under Section 11 of the Municipal Corporations Act a person only requires to be on the roll of electors before being entitled to sit upon a council. There is no qualification as to the payment of rates directly.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I never said so. I said the occupation qualification in the majority of cases meant payment of rates.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: There are thousands of electors who do not pay rates direct in the sense which the hon. Baronet means. I should like to ask the President of the Local Government Board one or two questions. In the first place, how is it possible to know unless a list is kept of the persons entitled to sit on the county councils under the new law. Any person can declare that they have resided in a town for twelve months. The law is that a man must have been on the register as a voter. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am speaking of persons in municipal boroughs where the law is quite clear. This Bill alters the law with regard to county councils and municipal boroughs and it says that a person shall not be qualified to be a councillor unless he is entitled to be enrolled as a burgess. Any person who lives in a town for twelve months will be entitled to sit on the council under this Bill. What provision is there to ensure or guarantee that such a person has lived in a borough or county for twelve months? There is no indication in this Bill of such a qualification or that such a list is to be prepared.
  Clause 1 provides that a woman, if elected as chairman of a council shall not by virtue of holding or having held that office be a justice of the peace. Every Mayor is a justice of the peace and presides over the Bench for the year ho is holding office. If a woman is holding that office she will become the chief magistrate for the year. That is an important point, because the chief magistrate has important functions to perform during his year of office. There is no provision in the Bill with regard to that point, and I think some provision ought to be put in the Bill making the senior justice of the peace chief magistrate for the time being in case the mayor happens to be a woman. These are all

  215
  points which I am afraid have not been considered by the draughtsman of this Bill. The mayor is an important personage and has very many duties to perform, and if that office is held by a woman she is disqualified to act as chief magistrate, and some provision ought to be made to rectify that error.
  Mr. HILLS: I can assure the hon. Member opposite that there is no difficulty in fixing the qualification by residence at the present time. All electors for district councils can vote upon a residential qualification and no sort of difficulty arises. It is merely a question of preparing the lists upon which the overseers place all residents for twelve months. What has really caused the necessity for this Bill is a mistake made by Parliament not removing a disqualification, but from the fact that very few women are qualified as voters for county and borough councils, they cannot stand for election.
  All that this Bill does is to make real the removal of the disqualification which was purported to have been removed seven years ago. I myself introduced a Bill for the same purpose, and it is an act of tardy justice that I hope the House will pass. Clause 1 provides that a woman who is elected chairman of a county council or mayor of a borough shall not be a justice of the peace ex officio. I cannot see why she should not be. Let the House consider the matter. She first of all has got to stand for election to the county or borough council, and, if she is elected by the ratepayers of the district, she has further got to be elected as chairman of the county council or mayor of the borough, and any woman who passes through these two tests is very well qualified to act as a justice of the peace.
  Mr. BOOTH (who was indistinctly heard): I am a little astonished at the lack of information which some hon. Members have on a simple question like this. The hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Jonathan Samuel) and the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. J. W. Hills) do not seem to know that for twenty years the disqualification has been in full vogue, both with regard to boards of guardians, urban councils and rural councils. There is no list required. When a man or woman stands they simply have to satisfy the returning officer that they have resided there for twelve months. When I went into my present residence, I was there
  216
  about thirteen months before the election for guardians took place for the Ponte-fract Union, and when the year came round they begged of me to stand, and I was elected on a residential qualification. I put it to the hon. Baronet that if I had not chosen to go the probability is that a workman would have gone in my place very unwillingly, because he would have had to sacrifice his wages in order to go. He was living in a house rented at 1s. 6d. per week, and he came and begged me to allow myself to be nominated, and said he would retire.
  There are cases within my knowledge where a man has married a woman of property, and his mother-in-law being alive, he has chosen to live in the house, which is in her name—a man of great education and of great substance—rather than take the daughter away from the parental roof. Such a man of very-great substance indeed without having any qualification becomes a candidate. The urban district councils had a conference last week, and it may be information to hon. Members to know that some of them are larger than many boroughs. There is Tottenham and important places in Lancashire where they choose to be urban districts in preference to being boroughs. A district council is a simple direct authority and, in my opinion, the model authority for local government. Residence there has been the only qualification, and it has worked well. It has not resulted in putting people of no substance upon the council. This is a one-clause Bill, which I say candidly and somewhat shame-facedly is very well drafted, and I support it with all the enthusiasm I can muster for anything.

  MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT [EXPENSES].
  Order read for resuming Adjourned De-bate on Amendment proposed [28th April] on Consideration of Resolution, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of contributions made by the Commissioners of Works in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to enable the London County

  217
  Council to acquire certain lands and execute certain improvements in the city of Westminster, and for other purposes in connection therewith."
  Which Amendment was, at the end, to add the words "but such sum shall not exceed the sum of thirty-eight thousand pounds."—[Sir Frederick Banbury.]
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there added." Debate resumed.
  Mr. BOOTH: I regret to some extent that this has been moved because I should have preferred to have limited it to a still smaller sum. This is a case of a great and wealthy district like London sponging on the poorer parts of the country. Why cannot the West End of London pay for its own improvements? Why need it go to the taxpayers of the country for help? I always did oppose this ridiculous attitude of the powers-that-be in London. They cut in my opinion a very sorry figure. They are far more backward than any town in the North of England or Scotland in these matters—probably because local government was not given to the metropolis till so late. There is not the same spirit in London as exists in other parts of the country. What would hon. Members think if Manchester, or Liverpool, or even Pontefract came here and asked Parliament to tax the whole country in order to straighten out a corner in one of their main thoroughfares? It is all very well to say that this is of national importance, but who in the provinces cares whether you have a square end or a round end to some building in Trafalgar Square. Surely the fact that London occupies the position she does makes her better able to pay for these things. I protest once more against people in the poorer parts of the North, who are already heavily burdened being compelled to pay however small a sum for the glorification of a corner of Trafalgar Square. I am ashamed that the Government should have brought in such a Bill.
  Mr. HOGGE: I hope that this House will agree to limit this money very severely. We from Scotland object very strenuously to our money being used for the purpose of glorifying London, especially when the Government is reluctant to grant Scotland any money at all for public purposes. What is this money for? I understand it is to effect an improvement at the end of the Mall. I want to know exactly what difference it is going to make to the architectural
  218
  beauty of that particular corner. Before we agree to the spending of this money I should like some plans put up in the Tea Room, in order that we can appreciate the exact æsthetic effect the scheme will have upon the Square. We have to bear in mind that there is a statue of Nelson in the middle of the Square, and that the Square is flanked by national buildings, all of which have a certain relation to the building now erected at the end of the Mall.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): The only question now before the House is the amount of money to be spent on the improvement. I must ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the amount to be spent.
  Mr. HOGGE: It is much too much. Why do we require this money at all? We ought to have details in front of us as to the amount that is required. There is a perfectly indefinite Clause in the Bill as it stands. I understand the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has attempted to restrict the sum to £38,000. We ought to have an elaborate statement—
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Scotch cheeseparing!
  Mr. HOGGE: Scotch cheeseparing, as the hon. Member suggests, may be a very desirable thing. It is something when you are criticising the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attempts at cheeseparing. We ought to have an elaborate statement from the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) to show why he requires more than £38,000. It was only intimated this afternoon that this Bill would be taken to-day—we ought to have had Monday and Tuesday of this week devoted to another purpose—therefore we have been unable to put down Amendments to the Bill. The only way in which we can delay the consideration of the Bill is to discuss the question of money. I am convinced that the sum is £20,000 too much.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Why?
  Mr. HOGGE: Because I do not see the value there now. I do not see why other parts of the country which are getting no benefit at all out of this particular improvement, should contribute. It is improving London at the expense of other parts of the United Kingdom. I should like to hear from the hon. Member

  219
  (Mr. Harold Smith) his reasons for supporting this extraordinary expenditure of money. I have heard him complain of the low wages paid, for instance, to bakers. How can he, as a representative of a working class community and a large industrial community, support this extraordinary expenditure of public money in a city, out of which he makes his bread and butter. The Westminster area is one of the lowest rated areas in the whole of London. Why should other parts of the country be mulcted in a large fine of this kind in order to give to the lowest rated part of London this sum of money? I shall oppose this very vehemently.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I desire to answer the appeal which has been made and to correct the hon. Member in one statement that he made when he charged me with having earned my bread and butter in the constituency which I represent. I owe much to that constituency but that much I do not owe. I accept in all humility the challenge which the hon. Member has thrown out. Whether one represents a Lancashire borough or an important Scotch constituency, I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind that London is the very centre of the greatest Empire that the world has ever known.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The only question before the House is whether £38,000 shall be inserted.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I think the hon. Member has made out no case whatever, and his speech shows, whether he speaks for Liberal or Scottish Members or only for himself, that he shows great lack of pride in the City, and I hope the House will vote the money.
  Mr. HODGE Mr. HODGE rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I have often observed that when important questions of the expenditure of public money are under discussion Labour Members are anxious to catch their trains. But we on these benches who are not affected by these considerations are anxious that due regard should be had to economy and to the careful expenditure of national money, desire to support the hon. Baronet in his efforts to limit this expenditure. The hon. Member opposite has completely
  220
  exonerated himself for the charge which he fancied my hon. Friend levelled at him of making his bread and butter out of Warrington. As the hon. and learned Gentleman is not concerned as to the expenditure of his Constituents—[HON. MEMBERS: "He never said it."] Yes, he is not concerned that his Constituents' money should be spent on the adornment of London when Warrington is left unadorned. It seems to me that he is absolutely betraying the interests of his Constituents. I have only seen Warrington from the train. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is a lunatic asylum."] I did not know from the train that there was a lunatic asylum there.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is trifling with the House.
  12.0 M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: If I am subjected to irrelevant interruptions I think I can hardly be blamed. I wish to deal with a serious aspect of this question. The principle which has been put in reference to other cases of the expenditure of public money has in those cases received my support and as the hon. Baronet has once more come forward with an Amendment of limitation on a Committee Resolution, I have pleasure in again supporting him. I am, of course, opposed in general to the expenditure of national money on the adornment of London, but I cannot enter into the general question. Had the hon. Baronet moved an Amendment still further limiting the sum which should be paid I should be glad to support him. Even on the basis of the slight limitation which he now proposes, I think it is the duty of all economists who wish to prevent money coming from the National Exchequer being used for purely local purposes to support that limitation. We believe that this is none other than a local purpose, and that it is one connected with the richest part of the metropolis. After all, we might have had some sympathy with the proposal of the Government if it had been a matter connected with St. George's-in-the-East, but it refers to the City of Westminster. I think those who represent the poorer areas throughout the United Kingdom should take this opportunity of limiting the amount to be taken out of the Imperial Exchequer in aid of such a rich locality.
  Mr. WATT: I should not have risen to take part in the debate had it not been for the attempt on the part of an hon. Member on the Labour Benches to closure

  221
  this discussion. Ho is a gentleman of Scottish extraction, who represents an English constituency, and who has adopted an English accent.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: On a point of order. May I ask if the hon. Member is really in order?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member should address himself to the question before the House.
  Mr. WATT: The subject before the House is the limitation of the sum to be spent on the Mall improvement. The hon. Member with the English accent on the Labour Benches objects to any limitation being put on the sum which is to be expended in this extravagant way. We who represent Scottish constituencies think that a limitation ought to be made, and in that view we have the support of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) the Member for the City of London. We cannot see why our constituencies should be asked to give money for the improvement of the wealthy city of Westminster. If a sum of money is to be taken from our Constituencies to improve this city that sum of money should be limited. The hon. and learned Member for Warrington spoke of his Constituents being quite willing to give something towards this improvement of the city, and he desired that the sum taken from them towards this improvement should not be limited. We all agree that Warrington is an authority on improvements. I am told by hon. Members that it is the dirtiest city in Europe.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment before the House.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: My reason for supporting the proposal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—to place a limit on the amount of money that is to be granted for the purpose of this proposed improvement of the Mall is that it is a proposal for the purely aesthetic decoration of this city and—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I do not propose to discuss the merits of the œsthetic improvements. If you would allow me to finish you would agree that the remark which I was about to make was in order. The improvement for which it is proposed to grant public money is a
  222
  proposal for the adornment of one of the wealthiest districts of the metropolis, and a district which has few slums compared with other districts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Warrington"]—compared with Warrington, and certainly with the city which I represent; and it is proposed for the purely aesthetic adornment of this district that all those other districts throughout the country in which there are many slums should be taxed.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I presume that the hon. and learned Member has come to the end of his sentence. It is not relevant to the Amendment before the House.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The point I wished to put was whether it was desirable to limit the amount of money taken from these poor districts, and if it is in order that is the point which I wish to develop.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The sole question before the House is the insertion of some limiting words in the general words of the Resolution.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I desire to argue that it is desirable to place limiting words, and the argument which I wish to use is whether we should limit the amount of money which can be taken from these poor districts.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We cannot say where the money comes from. If it comes from the general Treasury it is a grant of public money, and the hon. Member is now talking about the amount contributed by poor and rich districts, which is not in order in this discussion.
  Mr. WATT: Is it in order for an hon. Member to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton to shut up?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—which I wish to put is that if money is taken for this purpose for Imperial—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not unnecessarily detaining the House, and he certainly should be allowed to finish his sentences,
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: You are right, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in thinking that I do not desire to detain the House. My argument is that public money is drawn from the Imperial Treasury for the purpose of this improvement. It is drawn not from the district which is benefited

  223
  but from the country as a whole, including many poor districts which do not benefit in any respect from this improvement.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already indicated to the hon. Member that he is out of order in making those general observations.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The question is whether we should place a limit upon the amount of money which can be drawn from the Imperial Treasury for this improvement. If that be done, it will correspondingly increase the amount which
  will have to be drawn from the rates of Westminster, and I believe that this improvement ought to be financed out of the local rates.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is the general question again.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member is wrong. If a limit is placed on the amount in the Resolution, that is all the Government need to keep them to their word.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 129.

  Division No. 189.]

  AYES.

  [12.12 a.m.

  Barnston, Harry

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Kills, John Waller

  Stanley, Han. G. F. (Preston)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hogge, James Myles

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Stewart, Gershom

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  F. Banbury and Mr. Wheler.

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

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

  Hackett, John

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Ainsworth John Stirling

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Armitage, Robert

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Radford, George Heynes

  Bird, Alfred

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Black, Arthur W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Boland, John Plus

  Hodge, John

  Reddy, Michael

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Redmond, Wiliam Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Charles (Lincoln)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Joyce, Michael

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kelly, Edward

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Clough, William

  King, Joseph

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Sheehy, David

  Crooks, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shewell, Arthur James

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lundon, Thomas

  Shortt, Edward

  Cullinan, John

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sutton, John E.

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Delany, William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Meagher, Michael

  Thorne, G. R. (Walverhampton)

  Doris, William

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Molloy, Michael

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Falconer, James

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, W. T. (Weshoughton)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Glanville, Harold James

  O'Dowd, John

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Gulland, John William

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Wm. Jones and Mr. Webb.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT [EXPENSES].

    MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT (RECOMMITTED) BILL.
    Considered in. Committee.
    Mr. SANDERS: I would point out that this was not one of the Bills which the Prime Minister read out at Question time.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    We ought not to be asked to take at this time of night a Bill of this description, containing Clauses to which some of us have rooted objection, and to which we have been unable to put down Amendments because the Irish Bill was to have been taken. If the Bill is proceeded with, it will be necessary for us to write out our Amendments as we go along, a course which is most inconvenient for all concerned. I hope the discussion will be postponed.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to second the Motion for adjournment.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Illingworth): There has evidently been a misunderstanding, and therefore I accept the hon. Gentleman's Motion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).

  OSBORNE ESTATE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: I wish to ask why this Bill is necessary. It seems to me to inflict a gross injustice upon the Army and Navy for whom part of the Osborne Estate was set aside. The Bill proposes to extend the classes of persons for whom part of Osborne House was set aside. It repeals a most important provision of the Act of 1902, which decided what was to be done with the Osborne Estate. Paragraph (b) lays down that part of Osborne House and the grounds under their management are to be used for the benefit of officers of His Majesty's Naval and Military Forces or their wives, widows, or families. There is a great shortage of officers already, and any privilege like this, taken away, will not be a good thing for the
  226
  Army, or for recruiting, or for the officers. It is proposed to have a Clause about an Order in Council adding persons for whose benefit part of Osborne House, mentioned in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (4) of the Osborne Estate Act, may be used. Practically under the new Act any public servant may be allowed to have the benefit of Osborne House; in fact, any Member of Parliament who wants to spend a week-end there may by this Order be allowed to make use of its benefits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Yes, and Ministers may go down there and enjoy it, and in addition to having their private yachts may also have a country residence. You may now put there the Metropolitan Police, superannuated county council clerks, and anybody who has public services to recommend him. The consequence is that these officers of the Army and the Navy, for whose benefit His late Majesty distinctly set aside this place, will be crowded out. The House ought to know for what reason this is proposed.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): This Bill must be read in conjunction with the Order in Council which it is proposed to issue in connection with it. The Order in Council will define the persons for whose benefit Osborne House can be used, so that it will include those who have served in the public service in tropical countries. At present there are fifty beds and only thirty can be used. I do not know whether the hon. Member is anxious to limit the use of Osborne House to a smaller number of members than it is capable of holding? I presume not! The provisions of the Bill and the Order in Council are perfectly proper and reasonable, and now that he has heard them explained I trust he will approve of them.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  EMPLOYMENT OF MILITARY IN CASES OF DISTURBANCE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee be appointed to report in what circumstances and on what conditions His Majesty's military forces should be employed to deal with

  227
  disturbances or threatened disturbances of the peace among the civil population."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Sir F. BANBURY: I object to this Motion, and am really sorry that the Government should persist in this course. There can be no question about not proceeding with this Motion now. I discussed the matter with the Chief Unionist Whip (Lord E. Talbot) before he went home, and he left me here on purpose to stop this. The Prime Minister has never made any statement about it. He made a statement across the floor of the House about matters to be proceeded with, but this was not one of them. That can be made plain if there is any question about it. I am sorry to have to oppose now, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to take the Motion he can say to-morrow, "I will take it after eleven o'clock," and make it one of the Orders of the Day. Nobody can object to that, but it is not in his power to take it now after it has been thoroughly understood that it should not be taken. I am prepared to give my reasons against the Motion, but I do appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to insist upon taking it tonight. Let him put it down for to-morrow instead of forcing us to proceed with it now.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The hon. Baronet has spoken on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Opposition. This Committee has taken a considerable time in its
  228
  arrangement, and a long time has been spent upon it altogether, and I think the time has arrived when it ought to begin its deliberations upon matters which are of considerable importance. If the hon. Baronet tells me he is speaking on behalf of the Noble Lord (Lord E. Talbot) in objecting, I am bound to accept his statement.
  Mr. KING: I wish to protest against any postponement. I should like to point out that the Chief Unionist Whip has four other Whips—[An HON. MEMBER: "Five."]—and it is not very likely he would have gone away and not left one of them behind but leave in command a mere private soldier like the hon. Baronet. If we are to go home now I hope we are not going to be met in the same way on this matter tomorrow.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned"—[Mr. Illingworth]—put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Tuesday).
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six minutes before One a.m., Tuesday, 21st July.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  COST OF ACT TO EXCHEQUER.
  COST OF ACT TO EXCHEQUER.
  Motor Traffic (Road Up-Keep) Joint Select Committee.
  Motor Traffic (Road Up-Keep) Joint Select Committee.
  Income Tax.
  Income Tax.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenant, Garfiny Dingle, County Kerry.
  Evicted Tenant, Garfiny Dingle, County Kerry.
  Dingle Pier and Harbour.
  Dingle Pier and Harbour.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Primary Education (Ireland).
  Primary Education (Ireland).
  Labourers (Ireland) Bill.
  Labourers (Ireland) Bill.
  Scartaglin County Council, County Kerry.
  Scartaglin County Council, County Kerry.
  County Kerry Magistracy.
  County Kerry Magistracy.
  Kerry County Council (Harbour Guarantees).
  Kerry County Council (Harbour Guarantees).
  Monitors' Examination, County Kerry.
  Monitors' Examination, County Kerry.
  Church Service Cinema Pictures, County Kerry.
  Church Service Cinema Pictures, County Kerry.
  Army Service Corps (Sergeant James Haggaty).
  Army Service Corps (Sergeant James Haggaty).
  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
  Prevention of Corruption Act (Convictions).
  Prevention of Corruption Act (Convictions).
  Shop Hours Act.
  Shop Hours Act.
  Railway Police Constables.
  Railway Police Constables.
  Housing Acts (Skipton Division).
  Housing Acts (Skipton Division).
POST OFFICE.
  INACCURATE TELEGRAM.
  INACCURATE TELEGRAM.
  NEW ROMNEY POSTMAN.
  NEW ROMNEY POSTMAN.
  MARCONI WIRELESS COMPANY.
  MARCONI WIRELESS COMPANY.
  Trade Boards.
  Trade Boards.
  German Shipping (Subsidies).
  German Shipping (Subsidies).
  Passenger Vessels (Manning).
  Passenger Vessels (Manning).
  Montreal Central Terminal Company.
  Montreal Central Terminal Company.
  Collooney, Ballina and Belmullet Railway and Piers Company.
  Collooney, Ballina and Belmullet Railway and Piers Company.
  Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (Orders).
  Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (Orders).
  Store Cattle.
  Store Cattle.
  Strike Assaults (Glasgow).
  Strike Assaults (Glasgow).
  British Arts and Crafts Exhibition.
  British Arts and Crafts Exhibition.
  Victoria and Albert Museum (Old Ceramic Gallery).
  Victoria and Albert Museum (Old Ceramic Gallery).

LORD D'ABERNON.
Sir Edgar Vincent, K.C.M.G., having been created Baron D'Abernon of Esher in the County of Surrey—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The LORD MICHELHAM—Took the Oath.

PACK-BERESFORD DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to dissolve the marriage of Henry John Pack-Beresford of Kellestown House, in the County of Carlow, Major, with Sybil Maud Pack-Beresford, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again, and for other purposes—Presented (on Petition) and a copy of the Proceedings in and of the Decree of Divorce of the King's Bench Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland: Delivered (on Oath): Bill read 1ª, and to be read 2ª on Thursday next: The usual orders made.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
London County Council (Money).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional Provision in the
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill ought to be dispensed with.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
TEES VALLEY WATER BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (WESTERN ROAD AND IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCE) BILL.
Bill read 3ª, with the Amendments.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to omit from the Bill Clause 24—
As to traffic services on work No. 1.
24.—(1) For the purposes of this section—
The expression "the company" shall mean any authority company or person working or running any service of mechanically propelled omnibuses on any part of the new roadway (Work No. 1) by this Act authorised:
(2) The company shall pay to the council a sum equal to three-eighths of a penny per car mile run by any such omnibus over the new

3
roadway (Work No. 1) by this Act authorised towards the cost of the maintenance of such roadway. All sums of money payable to the council under the provisions of this section shall be paid quarterly and shall be deemed to be a debt due to the council and recoverable from the company accordingly.
(3) The company shall keep daily records for the purposes of this section showing in proper detail the number of journeys and the mileage run by each such omnibus of the company on the new roadway and shall furnish statements of such journeys and mileages quarterly to the council and the company shall allow any person duly authorised by the council in that behalf at all reasonable times to inspect and take copies of all such records awl any accounts kept by the company relating to the running of any omnibus of the company.
(4) All sums received by the council under the provisions of this section shall be carried to the general county fund.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment first on behalf of those who, like myself, are interested in the general free user of the roads, and, secondly, on behalf of the Road Board, who have from the commencement opposed this clause; and I ask your Lordships to omit it also on the ground that if this question is to be dealt with at all it should be by general legislation. I do not in any way claim to represent the interests of the particular motor-omnibus companies affected by this clause nor those of motor-omnibus companies in general. They are quite able to watch their own interests. The companies concerned were represented before the Parliamentary Committees by able counsel, and it is not part of my business to-day to argue over again the case which was very well put before the Committees of both Houses when the Bill was being considered in those stages. But there were certain points not mentioned before the Committees and other points which I think were not sufficiently emphasised, and to-day I propose to draw your Lordships' attention chiefly to those points which concern that aspect of the question.
It cannot be denied that there is a general consensus of opinion that heavy motor traffic, including traction-engine traffic, should pay more towards the maintenance of the roads. No one can use the roads to-day without seeing the immense amount of damage done by heavy traffic to roads which are quite capable of carrying the ordinary motor-car and horse traffic, but are not constructed for this heavy traffic. I am one of those who think that we must have general legislation on this question, and I throw out as a sugges-
4
tion that it would be perfectly fair, for instance, to ask heavy motor traffic to forego the rebate of 1½d. on motor spirit and to pay, as we all do who use motor cars, 3d. a gallon, and that amount might be used by the Road Board in paying for special damage or in giving grants in aid of maintenance in addition to the present grants for new work.
This case of the new western road is unlike other cases that come before your Lordships, inasmuch as the Road Board have given £400,000 towards the estimated cost of snaking this new road. I had a conversation on the subject with Sir George Gibb, the Chairman of the Road Board, and he has authorised me to say that when we gave this large sum of money for this necessary western exit out of London we never had it in contemplation that there would not be a general user of the road. When we have given grants we have always insisted that the general public should have the same rights over the particular road as over any other road—namely, the rights of free coming and going; and if we had thought for a moment that this clause would have been inserted by the Committee of the other House and agreed to by the Committee of your Lordships' House we should have taken a different view of the position and probably would not have given so much towards this particular improvement.
The object of constructing this exit is to surmount the great difficulty which many of us have experienced of getting out of London westward. There is the well-known narrow neck at Brentford only thirteen feet wide, and there are other places where congestion occurs between Knightsbridge and Hounslow, and it was to get rid of this congestion that the Road Board made this large grant towards the construction of this western road, and we hoped that as much traffic as possible would be diverted from the old narrow road to this new road, which is, I may mention, being built stronger than other roads especially in order that it may be able to withstand heavy modern mechanically-propelled traffic. Therefore we were naturally very surprised when we found that the Committees of both Houses had passed a clause whereby three-eighths of a penny per mile per motor-omnibus is to be charged over a portion of the new roadway. The anomaly of the position is that there is to

5
be no charge made for traction-engines and heavy lorries. In other words, a traction-engine can go along that road weighing up to sixteen tons and pulling two trucks weighing ten tons each, and motor-lorries can go along the road conveying an amount of heavy material weighing very much more than a motor-omnibus. These traction-engines and motor-lorries are not only heavier than motor-omnibuses, but they are run on steel-tyred wheels and therefore do more harm to the roads than motor-omnibuses, which are run on rubber-tyred wheels. Yet motor-omnibuses are to be charged mileage, whereas no charge is to be made in the case of these other heavy vehicles.
About a fortnight ago the Government announced that they were going to appoint a Joint Committee to go into this question of heavy traffic, and to recommend what alteration should be made in the law or what regulations should be issued by the Local Government Board on the subject. That announcement was, I am sure, welcome news to many of the home counties near London, the ratepayers of which are heavily burdened in the matter of road maintenance for traffic originating outside their borders and from which they get no benefit whatever. The whole question is one which needs careful consideration, and to treat this subject in the piecemeal way proposed in this Bill and make a charge for a particular five miles of road, a new road specially designed to carry heavy traffic, is, in my opinion, to deal with the matter in the wrong way. The Road Board offer no opinion themselves, and I do not pretend to voice their opinion, on the question as to whether or not heavy traffic should contribute. When I say that it should, that is my personal opinion.
In regard to the proposal contained in the clause which I am asking your Lordships to delete, the Road Board thought it wise to put on record in a letter to the Local Government Board some of their objections to the proposal, and on June 15 they wrote setting forth their objections to the clause, the gist of their letter being that—
"motor-omnibus traffic does not injure a road properly constructed and properly maintained."
That, I think, is a self-evident proposition. We have evidence of that fact constantly,
6
not only from surveyors in large provincial towns but from surveyors in London. The opinion of the latter is that none of the great trunk roads of London—Piccadilly, the Strand, Regent-street, and so on—have been damaged by motor-omnibus traffic. I could even quote evidence from surveyors to show that the cost of road maintenance in Westminster and Marylebone has decreased from what it was at the time when horse-drawn omnibuses were on the roads. There is no provision in this Bill which will prevent motor traffic from continuing to use the old road, and therefore one of the objects for which the Road Board gave this large contribution—namely, that the traffic should be diverted on to the new and properly constructed road in order that the congestion which now arises on the old road should be avoided—will be defeated.
Decisions under the existing law given in many cases decided in your Lordships' House and in Courts elsewhere have laid down the general right of user of the roads, subject alone to the question of extraordinary traffic. I believe that every distinguished lawyer now admits that the question of extraordinary traffic is an exceedingly difficult, one, and one of the objects of this Committee which is to be set up will be, I understand, to make clear the law on that point, and, if possible, to lay down more precisely what extraordinary traffic is. At the present moment I cannot do better than read to your Lordships a passage from a judgment by Lord Moulton, in which, in a remit case, he laid down the law relating to the user of the roads. He said this—
"The community have come definitely to the conclusion that absolute freedom of user coupled with common upkeep of the roads is the wisest thing for the nation."
That states in general terms the general right of user of the roads by the public as a whole. I could read other quotations from judgments on that point, but I do not think my argument will be contested by the promoters of this Bill.
I submit that if the Middlesex County Council feel that they ought to make some charge in respect of this user of the new road by motor-omnibuses, it would have been wiser if it had been subject to one or two other conditions. One would have

7
been that there should have been evidence taken after three years user of the road by this class of traffic, and that then some approximate amount should be charged for special damage. Another way would have been to ask the Road Board their opinion on the matter, and the Road Board might have given even more than they have given rather than allow the Middlesex, County Council to make this special charge. I maintain that, supposing the Middlesex County Council are right in their contention, there is plenty of time within the next two years in which to deal with the matter. I may remind your Lordships that this road will take a long time to construct, certainly not less than two years, and before it will be fit for use there will be, no doubt, sufficient regulations on the subject and the difficulties will probably be swept away.
It is a dangerous precedent to set up a special toll on five miles of this new road. When they begin with one kind of vehicle there is nothing to prevent their proceeding with another kind. This proposed charge upsets the whole of our highway law ever since the Act of 1868. Moreover, if we allow these privileges to the Middlesex County Council, which spends a very small percentage of its income on its roads, how can we refuse the same kind of relief to agricultural communities which suffer much more from traffic of this kind? I leave the case there, and I trust that your Lordships will give it your consideration. Speaking both as a student of road matters and as a member of the Road Board, I think this is an ill-advised clause, and I hope your Lordships will agree to delete it.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 24.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu)
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment which has just been moved. This matter is not a local one only; it involves a general principle, and one that I think ought to be very carefully considered. The general principle to my mind is this, that by this clause a special tax is going to be put on a special kind of vehicle. The effect of that will be that these vehicles will either avoid the new road altogether, or the proprietors will recoup themselves by charging higher fares. One of the great problems of the day
8
is how to obtain quick, cheap, and rapid transit from our large towns to the country. We are always complaining of the congestion of population and the difficulty there is of obtaining houses for working people and the lower middle class, and it is therefore of the greatest importance that the poor man's motor-car, which is the motor-omnibus, should be as cheaply run as possible. If a special tax is going to be put on motor-omnibuses, the fares charged must necessarily be higher than is absolutely necessary. It is quite open to argument that heavy traffic ought to be taxed more than light traffic, but I cannot see where the argument comes in if you tax only one particular kind of heavy traffic. Traction engines sometimes have behind them six enormous trucks, almost like railway trucks, which break up the strongest road. Why are not they to be taxed if motor-omnibuses are to be taxed? You ought to go on some general principle and tax all heavy traffic or none at all. Therefore in the interests of the public and in the interests of getting the working people out of our towns rapidly and bringing them back rapidly, I support the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved to omit this clause.
*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, as chairman of the Committee of your Lordships' House by whom this Bill was considered, I hope your Lordships will not agree to the Amendment to delete this clause. This is a Bill promoted by the Middlesex County Council to make a new road which will form a very important outlet from London to the West of England. The new road leaves the main road at Hounslow, and passes through Brent-ford, but not on the route of the present Brentford road, and joins the West of England road on the other side of Brentford. Many of your Lordships know the condition of the old Brentford road. As long ago as the old coaching days this road was condemned as one of the worst approaches to London. Nothing, however, was done. But when motor-omnibuses came into existence a new road became absolutely necessary, and with the creation of the Road Board came the possibility of construction. The Road Board agreed to contribute 75 per cent. of the total cost of construction, the other 25 per cent. falling upon the ratepayers of Middlesex. The length of the road is five miles, and the estimated cost £500,000.

9
The question of motor-omnibuses is the question which is dealt with by Clause 24. Your Lordships know the enormous damage which is done by motor-omnibuses to country roads all over England. These vehicles have got on to the roads under conditions extremely favourable to themselves. In the case of a tramway undertaking the promoters have to come to Parliament, and Parliament imposes conditions upon the tramways for the upkeep of the roads. It is not so with motor-omnibus companies. All the owners have to do is to obtain a licence, and having got a licence they can establish a line of omni-buses on any of the existing roads without anybody's leave; they may damage the roads as much as they like, and you cannot get anything out of them. We had it in evidence before the Committee that at the annual meeting of the urban district councils held last year, at which 200 councils were represented and 400 delegates were present, the following resolution was passed—
"That this conference is of opinion that local authorities should have the power of laying down defined roads for omnibus traffic, and such traffic should contribute towards the cost of road maintenance in addition to the petrol tax at present levied."
The petrol tax at present goes to the funds of the Road Board, and the motor-omnibus companies claim that, inasmuch as the Road Board has contributed to the cost of this new road, they (the motor-omnibus companies) have contributed in that way to the original cost of construction. That is not disputed. But that does not alter the fact that they will be absolutely free, unless this clause remains in the Bill, from ever paying anything at all for the damage which they may do on this new road. That is the case with all roads throughout the country. It is only when a new road is constructed and before that road is dedicated to the public that the road authority—in this case the Middlesex County Council—can come to Parliament and ask to be given a clause putting some restrictions on this motor-omnibus traffic. That has been done in the present case.
When this Bill was before the Committee of the other House the Middlesex County Council asked that they should have the right to prohibit motor-omnibuses coming on to this road at all. The Commons Committee thought that that was going too far, but they agreed that motor-
10
omnibuses should contribute to the upkeep of the road. That is the history of how Clause 24 came to be inserted in the Bill in the other House, and this clause was agreed to by the Committee of your Lordships' House. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Meath) is quite right when he says that motor-omnibuses carry a large number of persons belonging to the class of the community who cannot afford any other form of motor carriage. But, of course, the motor-omnibus is not a benevolent institution upon wheels run for philanthropic purposes. All these motor-omnibuses are the property of companies trading for profit, and if you put a charge upon them for the damage they do to the roads you diminish the profits, and that explains the opposition of the motor-omnibus companies to this clause. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment asked why motor-omnibuses should be taxed and not other heavy mechanically-propelled vehicles. The reason is that the traffic of motor-omnibuses is continuous; they pass to and fro frequently. The noble Lord said that he could produce evidence that in Westminster and Piccadilly motor-omnibuses did not do much harm to the roads. When the traffic is congested motor-omnibuses have to go slowly and do less damage. But on open roads they go swinging along at a rapid pace and do more harm. I do not know whether the noble Lord objects to the principle of taxing motor-omnibuses for the repair of roads.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I stated that I was in favour of some scheme whereby you could make the taxation of heavy vehicles a general principle, but that I was not in favour of dealing with the question in this piecemeal manner.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I understand that the noble Lord does not object to the principle of taxing motor-'buses, but thinks that this is the wrong moment to begin on account of anticipated legislation which is to proceed from the intention to appoint a Committee to inquire into this matter. I do not know whether the noble Lord can say when we shall get this legislation. It may be three or four years before anything is done. Are we to make no attempt in the meantime to put some charge on this motor-omnibus traffic which damages our roads?
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has made some rather remarkable statements about motor-omnibuses and the London roads. May I say, first of all, that no doubt it is against principle to go back to what may be called to some extent the old turnpike system as regards charging specifically the vehicles that use the roads and not throwing the whole of the cost on the general taxpayers. But I think that principle ought to be revised to some extent, because when you have these tremendous changes introduced by new machinery and an enormous cost cast upon the already heavily burdened ratepayers, it is time that you should reconsider the principle of whether you should not put some specific charge on a particular class of vehicle that does a particular amount of damage to the roads. I agree that on principle it would be better that that money should be charged by the Central Government, and that then a larger grant should be given to the local authority by the Central Government in order to make up for the damage. But one has had particular experience in the London County Council of the treatment local authorities get from the Government. The Government are rather fond of laying taxes on specific forms of property that we thought were particularly our own; and they promised us in various cases when the tax was imposed that we were going to get half of it. I am afraid that if they had the taxation in this case we could not accept their promises, and therefore as a pis aller, perhaps, it is better that the money should in the first case go to us.
These motor-omnibuses can not only run on one road but they can run on any road they choose. I am perfectly content that if they are properly controlled they should not have a specific charge laid upon them; and on the London County Council we have again and again asked that we should have, not only for London but for Greater London, a road authority which should control the streets on which motor-omnibuses should run, and that they should not have freedom to run on any road. Lord Montagu, with some temerity, I thought, considering that he is a member of the Road Board, told us that very little damage was done by the running of motor-omnibuses on the London roads, and he cited one or two cases. It
12
is quite true that, as regards the maintenance of the roads, there is some saving to be set against wear and tear; but that is only true of one or two particular places in London. I can give this very strong evidence the other way, that I have been battering at the Road Board to give us in London other improvements, and what is the reply of the Road Board? Their reply is that so much damage is done by this new form of traffic to the roads that for the present they will give us nothing, but will concentrate the whole of their grants on the actual maintenance of the roads themselves, showing that in the opinion of the Road Board an immense amount of damage is done by motor-omnibuses, and I think it is common knowledge that it is so. Therefore although I feel that the principle is a dangerous one and no doubt the matter should be fully examined, I shall support the noble Duke's Committee in this specific instance as a protest against the way in which motor-omnibuses are allowed to roam freely over the whole country without control being exercised over them by any central authority.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, one observation made by the noble Duke opposite was received with rather general applause, and I was not altogether surprised at it. I refer to the observation that motor-omnibuses seriously damage country roads. That is so. In many cases when heavy vehicles like motor-omnibuses are put on country roads it is in no sense a user of the road, but a destruction of the road. In those cases motor-omnibuses should be prohibited from travelling on those roads at all. But that comparison does not apply to this proposed new western road. This road is to be constructed in the most modern way. It is to be an urban road of the most possible urban character, with concrete foundations and wood blocks on the top, and the damage that will be done to it by motor-omnibuses will be very small. A letter appeared in The Times a few days ago from Mr. Shrapnel Smith, an authority on this subject, who pointed out that this proposed tax, if levied on the omnibus services using Piccadilly, would more than suffice for the entire maintenance of Piccadilly and the streets used by these motor-omnibuses.
I think, with the noble Viscount who has just sat down, that there is a great deal to

13
be said for the proposal to control the routes of these vehicles and prevent them using streets which are unsuitable, but the proper way to do that is not to proceed by piecemeal legislation with regard to particular bits of thoroughfares here and there when opportunity arises and to propose a sort of local tax or octroi. I admit that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his petrol tax the general principle was, to some extent, departed from, and it may be that there is a general opinion now that heavy traffic ought to pay more in respect of the roads. I think the same thing might apply mulatis mutandis to light traffic. But are you to have a London borough, when it brings up a General Powers Bill or something of that kind, or when it comes to Parliament for some gas undertaking, imposing a special tax on, say, a portion of Piccadilly or King's-road, Chelsea, and saying that no motor-omnibus is to travel over that half mile without paying a local tax? If you once admit this principle of local charges, where are you to stop? I am not interested in this personally, but I am interested in seeing some sensible principle applied to the matter.
It seems to me a rather serious thing, as we learn from the noble Lord opposite, that this large contribution was obtained from tire Road Board from funds to which motor-omnibuses have been a rather heavy contributor without any intimation, that the Middlesex County Council were going to propose on this new road made with this money to levy a special and obnoxious tax of this character. But if you are going to tax motor-omnibuses why not tax other heavy vehicles? The noble Duke said the reason was that the other heavy vehicles only used the roads occasionally, but I venture to assert that they use the roads with great frequency. London is very much disturbed with large traction-engines drawing sometimes very heavy trailers, and these with their iron-tyred wheels must do a great deal more damage to the roads than motor-omnibuses with their rubber tyres will do in this case running on a road which is supported by concrete.
When the Bill was passed which constituted the Road Board, there was a principle enunciated to which the proposal in this clause is directly contrary. I was at that time in favour, and I am still, of the Road Board limiting the use of a portion of a road to special vehicles for which it
14
may be fitted, say, for instance, a cycle track by the side of a road. It is no use the road authority providing a certain part of a road for ordinary bicycles—I mean push bicycles—if that is going to be cut up by the wheels of carts. I thought it might be good to do what is done in the Champs Elysées in Paris and limit one portion of the road to motor traffic. But at the time the Road Board was constituted all these proposals were put on one side, and the opinion of Parliament was declared that all roads to which the Road Board contributed should be public highways, and by that I think Parliament meant that they should be open to the public as all our highways are. The power of levying taxation of this kind will not have a good effect, because the traffic may go through the old Brentford road and may continue the congestion, or it may go through by-roads and cut them up. Bat if it goes through this new road, then those for whom motor-omnibuses cater will have to pay more in fares. To motor-omnibus proprietors it is a matter of dividends; that is the ground of their opposition. But there was also opposition, which unfortunately owing to the rules of your Lordships' House was not admitted to a locus standi, on the part of the Roads Improvement Association, totally disconnected with the motor-omnibus agitation, and I think we could have placed before your Lordships' Committee figures which would have gone very far to rebut the evidence of the Middlesex surveyor as to cost. In all these circumstances I hope your Lordships will think fit to await the result of some general legislation, and will not begin by cutting up the country piecemeal into little toll gate districts.
LORD BARNARD: My Lords, I ask permission to say a few words on this subject, because I have this session been chairman of a Select Committee which inquired at considerable length into a Bill dealing with a very similar subject to that which is now under your Lordships' consideration. In case you might be led to think that this is a singular or isolated instance, I should like to remind the House generally that there are no less than 20 Acts of Parliament—they have already passed, or are in course of being passed—dealing with this very subject.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: This case differs from all those in that the Road Board have given a contribution of £400,000.
LORD BARNARD: The Committee of which I was chairman had the greatest difficulty in coming to a satisfactory conclusion on the subject because there were no general principles laid down which could guide them, and I would urge upon His Majesty's Government to lose no time in appointing some proper body to inquire into the subject with a view to laying down some satisfactory principle which can be applied to all Bills of this description. With regard to what the noble Duke has said about motor-omnibuses being run for private profit, may I supplement that by stating that the clause with which my Committee had to deal bad nothing whatever to do with motor-omnibuses running for private profit, nor have many of the other cases. They are cases where corporations are seeking to run motor-omnibuses outside their own borders.
I sympathise entirely with Lord Meath's suggestion that motor-omnibuses are the motors of the poorer and humbler classes and I think they are entitled to have roads on which they can be rim, but the question as to who should pay for the damage which these motor-omnibuses do has to be considered, and some satisfactory solution ought to be found before it goes any further. We were told in the evidence that was given before us that a motor-omnibus when loaded weighed nearly six tons, but a peculiar circumstance in connection with it is that four tons are on the hind axles and two tons on the front axles, the result consequently being that there is a considerable knocking action which damages roads far more than any other kind of action. But I do not suppose the damage in this particular case will be so great. Another point to bear in mind is the frequency with which motor-omnibuses run. A heavy traction-engine, even if it goes once a day each way, is nothing compared with this continual knocking action of motor-omnibuses in the case, say, of a quarter-hour service from eight o'clock in the morning till nine or ten o'clock at night. I hope that before this debate closes your Lordships will hear from the Government Benches what steps they propose to take to deal with this very great difficulty. As to the proposed contribution of three-eighths of a penny, our Committee heard a great deal about that but declined to put it into the Bill because nobody could tell us the principle on which it was based. The explanation,
16
no doubt, is that a half-penny had been suggested by one side and the other side had suggested a farthing, and they split the difference.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, as the representative of the Local Government Board the House would, perhaps, like me to intervene for a few moments in this discussion. It has not been the practice of the Local Government Board, as your Lordships are aware, to interfere with the decisions of Private Bill Committees as regards details of this sort. Their practice has rather been to point out to the Committees what the objections to, or the advantages of, any proposals of this sort may be. I disagree with Lord Montagu in his statement that this case is entirely different from other cases because of the fact that the Road Board has given a very large grant. If this were a national question it would rather mean that no charge at all ought to fall on the local rates for the maintenance of this road, but although a large sum has been given to the Middlesex County Council towards the cost of the construction of this road, yet the cost of its maintenance will fall entirely on the county rates. Therefore there is a precedent for the Middlesex County Council asking that some such clause as has been inserted in other Private Acts should be put into this Bill in order that the ratepayers of the district through which this traffic, which is not a local but to a large extent a national traffic, passes, should be relieved of some part of the cost of maintenance. Again, it seems to me that there is a good deal of difference between motor-omnibus traffic, which is excursion and pleasure traffic to a large extent, and that of heavy motor traction; not that I wish to say one word against heavy motor traffic paying a fair share towards the cost of the roads, but it seems to me that motor-omnibus traffic stands by itself. For if you put a tax upon heavy motor traffic, which is trade, you may be fairly said to be to a very large extent putting a tax upon trade, whereas, as I have said, motor-omnibus traffic is largely a pleasure traffic. Motor-omnibuses go out ten, twenty, or thirty miles into country districts on pleasure, and are no advantage at all to those localities.
The noble Lord who has moved the omission of this clause did not refer to the

17
circumstances attending a similar Motion in the other House. I think he, like myself an old member of the House of Commons, will admit that it was very remarkable that when a Motion was actually made on Report in another place that this should be considered "this day three months," mover could not even get a seconder, which shows the strong feeling there is in the House of Commons on this question. I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord will be endangering this Bill very much if he makes any alteration in it. It would be much better, I suggest to him—and this is the view of the Local Government Board—that this question should be hung up until the matter has been thoroughly threshed out by the Joint Committee of both Houses which is to consider the whole question of the use of the roads by motor-omnibuses, and, incidentally, whether they should pay anything towards the cost of maintenance.
I would venture to suggest to the noble Lord whether it might not be desirable to amend the clause so as to provide that, it any general legislation should Subsequently be passed altering or abolishing this proposed charge, it should apply to this Private Act. A provision of this kind in a Private Act can only be altered by a Public Act when specific direction to that effect is given in the Public Act—that is to say, general legislation by itself would not apply to Private Acts which had been passed giving local authorities a right to make a charge upon motor-omnibuses using the roads; but by adopting my suggestion the noble Lord would protect his friends on this particular point, and, at the same time, his action would not prejudge, as I think we ought not to prejudge, what is going to be the decision of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of whether or not motor-omnibuses ought to be made to contribute to the cost of maintenance. We are all agreed that this is a question which ought to be threshed out. But if your Lordships were to strike out this clause it might be very well held that one House had considered the matter already, and had prejudged any decision at which the Joint Committee might arrive.
*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, after the very full discussion that has taken place upon the merits of this
18
clause, I do not feel that I ought to take up much of your Lordships' time with reference to it. Your Lordships are in a certain difficulty, because whilst we are discussing a clause of a particular Bill applying, as has been said, to a road merely five miles long, we are at the same time very much more than on the verge of the far greater question of principle, and that question, already a very great one, is increasing in urgency every day. Those of your Lord ships who read the Sunday newspapers will have noticed a column advertisement of a prospectus which opens up a tremendous vista of motor-omnibus traffic far greater than anything we have yet dreamed of. In this prospectus London, Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth, Eastbourne, Hastings, Folkestone, Dover, Deal, Ramsgate, and Margate are referred to as one system. There are others mentioned, and it is obvious that we are on the brink of very great developments in this matter.
I should regret very much if your Lordships did not support the Committee which heard the full details in this particular case. The noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board has suggested that general legislation will probably result—I do not think I am putting it too high—from the labours of the Joint Committee which we are looking forward to seeing appointed, but I suggest to him that if general legislation does result from the proceedings of the Committee, as I hope it may, there will be no difficulty in inserting in the Bill which carries out that general legislation a clause to the effect that it is to apply to any case such as this which your Lordships are considering and such as the twenty or so cases which have been already referred to by Lord Barnard as existing. I think that would be a more convenient course than inserting in this one Bill out of the twenty odd an Amendment to that effect. I think we can trust the general legislation to take care of itself in a case like that, should such general legislation result. In this particular case, I feel that the matter of principle has been carefully gone into by a Committee of your Lordships' House; they heard all the evidence, and I say, with all respect to the speeches which have been made this afternoon—I have, of course, read all the evidence—that I find all the points that have been raised in the discussion this afternoon mentioned in the

19
evidence, except the points referred to by Lord Russell—the points which, as he said, owing to the question of locus standi, which was perfectly correctly decided by the Committee, were not put before them.
And may I point out this. The principle we are discussing this afternoon is not whether certain heavy vehicles should make a contribution to the rates. The principle we are discussing is whether vehicles which make a profit out of the roads should pay a contribution. I do not wish in any way to prejudice the decision of the Joint Committee. Lord Balfour of Burleigh has kindly consented to serve as chairman of the Joint Committee when it is set up, and I am sure he will not be prejudiced by any thing that is said this afternoon. But I feel that in this case, where a Committee of your Lordships' House have heard all the evidence fully and have come to this decision, your Lordships would be unwise not to support them in their decision, more especially as no facts have been brought forward which were not before the Committee. I should therefore regret it if your Lordships did not decide to allow Clause 24 to remain as part of the Bill.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I should like to answer briefly one or two of the points that have been raised in this discussion. I stated that I agreed with the general principle that heavy motor traffic should pay more, and I am not surprised to find that the noble Duke and the other members of the Committee who considered this Bill agree with that idea. The noble Earl the Lord Chairman said that there was a special case for this charge in regard to motor-omnibuses because they made a profit, but I would point out that every commercial van—the vans of Maples, Harrods, and so on—which conveys the articles of the great London firms also makes a profit indirectly, and therefore should be considered.
LORD BARNARD: Municipal corporations also run motor-omnibuses to make a profit.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Just so. I do not wish to detain the House further, but I have made what I think is a good protest against this clause. None of my objections to it have been removed, and I regard this as a bad piece
20
of legislation. But I have been to some extent convinced by what the noble Earl the Lord Chairman said, that when this question is being considered, in view of the Report of the Joint Committee which is to be appointed, there will be a convenient opportunity to insert a clause which will deal with all these cases of London, Sheffield, Leeds, Bradford, and other places. I assume that it is the general opinion of the House that that is the most convenient course, and in those circumstances I shall not press my Amendment. But I still think that this is a dangerous precedent, and it is only because I am convinced that before this road is fully constructed this point will be considered by the Joint Committee that I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL.
EXPORTATION OF HORSES BILL.
GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN BILL.
POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 19) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 178.)
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CAMBS, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

UPPER MEDWAY NAVIGATION AND CONSERVANCY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
YORK CORPORATION BILL.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Onslow be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Braye; read, and agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS.
1. Provisional Regulations, dated 15th July 1914, entitled the National Health Insurance (Adjustment of Married Women's Transfer Value) Regulations, 1914;
2. Provisional Regulations, dated 11th July 1914, entitled the National Health Insurance (Essex and Southend Insurance Committees) Regulations, 1914;
3. Provisional Regulations, dated 18th July 1914, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Order Inquiry) Regulations, 1914:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 179.)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL. (No. 180.)
EXPORTATION OF HORSES BILL. (No. 181.)
Read 1ª, and to be printed.

GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN BILL.
Read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª on Thursday next (The Lord Strachie). (No. 182.)
POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 1ª, and to be printed. (No. 183.)

THE KING'S CONFERENCE.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, before your Lordships take up the important public business which is down for discussion to-day, I wish to ask two Questions of my noble friend the Leader of the House with reference to a matter of extreme importance which has arisen only to-day. I do not ask the Questions with a desire to initiate a discussion; on the contrary, I rather hope there will be no discussion on the general policy of the step which has been announced to us. But there are two considerations in connection with it to which I desire to call my noble friend's attention, and with respect to which I should like to be relieved by his assurances. The first is the question of the responsibility of His Majesty's Ministers for the step which has been taken in calling together the Conference which is to assemble to-morrow. The announcement of this consultative body was made in two or three organs of the Press—I saw it myself in The Times—but not generally made this morning; and, of course, it was made with no real authority as to the conditions on which the consultation was summoned.
I have been told that in another place a statement has been made by the Prime Minister, but this House has no official knowledge of what has been said there. I understand that the Prime Minister was silent on the question of Ministerial responsibility for the step which has been taken. His Majesty has commanded certain persons to attend to consider certain questions to be put before them. Nothing was said of the concurrence or the advice of His Majesty's Ministers in respect of the step so taken. I think it will be generally conceded that no act of State of this kind could have been taken without not merely the concurrence but without the advice of His Majesty's Ministers. It is not sufficient that His Majesty's Ministers should acquiesce in such a step, and by acceptance of the summons signify approval of the act. It is their act, whoever initiated it, inasmuch as it is an act of the Crown done on their responsibility. I am sure my noble friend will reassure us on that point, and settle this doubt as to the responsibility of His Majesty's Ministers with regard to the step taken.
The next matter on which I should like to be reassured is as to the appointment of

23
this body. I am afraid this step will be viewed by the world at large as something like a supersession of Parliament. Of course, that cannot be. But it is true that it looks a little like a slur on the ability of Parliament at all events to lead to a successful issue the difficulties which have arisen. Seeing how badly some of us here talk occasionally of the House of Commons, and what the estimate of this House is as expressed sometimes in the other House, it is perhaps not surprising that there should get about a notion that Parliament is a body which has lost its efficacy and its powers, and this act of bringing into existence this consultative body may be regarded by the ignorant as a supersession of Parliament itself. I am sure my noble friend will tell me that whatever this body may do is, of course, subject to the limitation that the authority of Parliament remains supreme, and that the last word which will be spoken will be spoken by Parliament. These representative parties interested in the subject under dispute, with Mr. Speaker at their head, will constitute an important and authoritative body, and their conclusions will command the greatest respect and almost demand acceptance. Still, the right of Parliament to re-examine every conclusion arrived at, and, still more, the right of Parliament to pronounce a final opinion of its own with respect to the matters deliberated upon, must always be reserved. These are the two points which I think it is desirable should be made clear at once. If I am rightly informed, nothing was said on either point elsewhere, and the other House is reduced to that position that it is impossible there to discuss anything. But here we have that liberty, and with a plea for forbearance for exercising that liberty I put my Questions to my noble friend.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am sure my noble friend behind me will forgive me and I am confident that my action will be approved by the House generally if I only reply in the very briefest terms to the two Questions which he has put to me. I entirely agree with him that it cannot be necessary in a matter of this kind to engage in anything like a general debate on these two points which my noble friend, as a faithful guardian of constitutional practice, desires
24
to bring before our notice. As regards his first Question, I can say simply that there has been no abrogation whatever of Ministerial responsibility and no departure whatever from constitutional practice, in the circumstances in which His Majesty has summoned representatives of various parties and interests to meet and consider these supremely important questions. And on my noble friend's second Question, I can assure him with equal confidence that there has not been, and, as he himself admitted, cannot be, any intention to supersede the authority of Parliament in this matter, and no such result can conceivably follow. The noble Marquess opposite (Lord Lansdowne) will remember the former constitutional conference in which he and I were both concerned. It was then, I think, equally understood and made clear in that case, too, that there could be no suggestion that those who took part in it claimed any rights or made any pretensions contrary to the supreme authority of Parliament. Precisely the same, no doubt, will be the case in this instance; and I hope, therefore, that the short answer which I have given to my noble friend will be completely reassuring.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3ª on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 8) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Age of consent to be sixteen years in cases of indecent assault. 43 & 44 Vict. c. 45.
1. Section two of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1880, shall be read and have effect as if there were inserted therein the word "sixteen" instead of the word "thirteen."
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE)*THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE) moved to leave out Clause 1, and to insert a new clause. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the effect of the proposal in the Bill, if it were to pass, would be that carnal knowledge of a girl under eighteen would be a criminal offence, and I desire to draw your Lordships' attention to the position in which the matter stands. But before I do that I wish to say a word about the manner in which the Government have approached the consideration of this Bill. Unquestionably we are face to face with great social evils, which have existed for long, which have been imperfectly dealt with, and with which the time has come, with the rising standards of public opinion, when we should make further efforts to grapple. That I say not on any mere ground of sentiment. The progress of knowledge is showing us that venereal disease and promiscuous relations between the sexes unrestrained are the cause of much of the misery which afflicts a large number of people in this country, misery of which the worst feature is that the innocent suffer—the children suffer, the mothers suffer, the public suffers—and consequently the whole of the questions which are touched here and many other questions which are not touched here are attaining to a prominence which they have not had before. The Government have therefore felt that this Bill is one which deserves sympathy and support wherever they could give it sympathy and support.
On the other hand we have, of course, had to watch these matters very closely. There are a large number of people who feel these things very strongly, who get a particular case on which they are entirely right, and who, ignoring the fact that besides that particular case there are ninety-nine other cases which are equally likely to happen, legislate for that one case regardless of the grievous injustice that they do in other instances. Now what is proposed by Clause 1 of this Bill is this. If a girl under sixteen consents to an act of sexual intercourse or even instigates it, that still is to be taken to be an offence committed without her consent, and therefore to be treated as an indecent assault.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Not intercourse.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is one case of it. But the difficulty is still more glaring where there is no intercourse and where the girl has herself instigated what has taken place. There you are calling that an indecent assault which is not an indecent assault at all, but something which has taken place with the assent, and, it may be, at the instigation of the girl herself. When you pass laws of that kind, if you do pass them, there is one result which invariably follows. Human nature being what it is, juries decline to convict and your law becomes inoperative, and I think one of the most, lamentable features is that you should find that the tribunals will not enforce your law.
Consequently we have looked at this question as raised by the right rev. Prelate from a more general point of view. We cannot agree with him that it would he right to make that an indecent assault which is not an indecent assault at all. It is an indecent assault, in the case of a girl under thirteen, to have intercourse or to have something less than intercourse, because it is presumed that she is a child and does not know what she is doing. But with a girl nearly 16 the state of things is quite different. The precocity which some girls at that age exhibit who are habitual prostitutes is very remarkable. I have not thought it right to confine myself merely to the valuable advice that I have received from the Home Office, but I have been in communication with one of the most experienced London magistrates, before whom an enormous number of these cases have come. I have

27
also had the personal advice of the Public Prosecutor, and I have seen several individuals who are engaged in the administration of the Criminal Law in London and who have had special experience with these matters, one or two of them men of very great authority as well as very great experience. They all advise me to the same effect, that there is a real evil to be dealt with but that it should be dealt with in a different fashion from that which the right rev. Prelate proposes.
I therefore propose to leave out Clause 1, and to insert the new clause which I have put on the Paper and which I will explain very briefly to your Lordships. First of all, we hold it plain that if you are going to make it an offence to commit an act of indecency with a girl just under sixteen, the offence is one which ought not to apply to a boy under sixteen. Remember, this is not a case of consent at all; it is a case in which the mere act is in itself an offence; and as a girl at that age is presumably more precocious than a boy—she very often is—to make it an offence irrespective of the age of the person who commits it would, we think, be wrong. We therefore take the age of sixteen under which, as I suggest, a boy should not be convicted under the Statute. Then we do not use the term "indecent assault" at all. We say, "Any person over the age of sixteen who commits any act of gross indecency with a girl of the age of thirteen or over and under the age of sixteen," etc. We say "thirteen or over" because under thirteen it is already provided for by other Statutes, notably the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885. But between thirteen and sixteen we are creating a new offence to meet the case which the right rev. Prelate has made, and which is a real case with which we think we are dealing in the right way. The offender will have a defence that he had reasonable cause to believe the girl was of or above the age of sixteen, but the limitation of that is that if the girl is under fourteen that defence will not avail hint. We think that if she is under fourteen he ought to know it, and should take the risk of it. Therefore if the girl is under fourteen, as I say, the defence of her appearance being misleading will not avail.
We put in a proviso that "No person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section upon the evidence of one person only, unless that witness is corro-
28
borated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused." Those of your Lordships who have had experience of Quarter Sessions know what corroborative evidence is and how it is forthcoming, and you also know the danger there is in those cases of imaginative charges. Then we put in a proviso which is meant to have this effect. Suppose a girl turns out to be under thirteen, then you cannot convict under this law but you can convict under the old law and its following analogies, notably the analogy of the Incest Act. We enable a conviction to take place if it is proved that the offence comes under the existing law although it is not the offence charged in the indictment. That, as I say, is a subject on which there are a good many precedents. Then there is this further safeguard. It is quite right that a man should be arrested when he is seen committing an offence of this kind, and it is quite right that he should be arrested if the charge is brought on the belief that the charge is true. But when you get further I am advised by those of great experience that the danger of this class of case is so great that it is expedient that, after the case has come before a justice of the peace, the Public Prosecutor or the Attorney-General should be consulted and that his consent should be given to further proceedings taking place. That is obviously put in to deal with the danger of blackmail, and the large class of dubious cases which always arise in connection with this legislation. That is the substance of what we propose, and, if I may venture to say so to the right rev. Prelate, I think it is likely to be a much more effective clause for attaining the object he has in view than the clause in his Bill as it stands. I therefore move to leave out Clause 1 with the view to substituting the new clause which I have just described to your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause:
Acts of gross indecency with girls between 13 and 16.
—(1) Arty person over the age of sixteen who commits any act of gross indecency with a girl of the age of thirteen or over and under the age of sixteen shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable, on conviction, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding six months, unless he proves that he had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of or above the age of sixteen years, and that she was, in fact, of the age of fourteen or upwards.
Provided that no person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section upon the evidence of one person only, unless that witness is corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused.
(2)—(a) If, upon the trial of any indictment for an offence under this section, the jury are satisfied that the defendant is not guilty of an offence under this section but is guilty of indecent assault, they may acquit the defendant of the first-mentioned offence and find him guilty of indecent assault; and
(b) If upon the trial of any indictment for indecent assault upon a girl, the jury are satisfied that the defendant is not guilty of that offence but is guilty of an offence under this section, they may acquit the defendant of indecent assault and find him guilty of an offence under this section;
and in every such case the defendant shall thereupon be liable to be punished as if he had been convicted upon an indictment for the offence of which he is so found guilty.
(3) If any person is charged before a justice of the peace in England or Ireland with any offence under this section, no further proceedings shall be taken against that person without the consent of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions, except such as the justice may think necessary, by remand or otherwise, to secure the safe custody of that person.
(4) The second column of the First Schedule to the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall include the offence constituted by this section, and there shall be inserted accordingly in that column the words "committing any act of gross indecency with a girl of the age of thirteen or over and under the age of sixteen."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I must first thank the noble and learned Viscount for the great care and trouble he has undoubtedly taken over this matter. I understood from him at the Second Reading that he was entirely friendly in spirit to my object; and I am not only grateful to him for the trouble he has taken, but I wish I could see my way to accept the Amendment which he has brought forward. However I must state one or two points on the other side. In the first place, I want to remind your Lordships of the great prevalence of these cases. I quoted one or two facts in moving the Second Reading which I would like to recall to your Lordships' memory. It is not, perhaps, fully realised how distressingly common these cases of criminal assault on children and young girls are. This is what I said on the Second Reading—
"Mrs. Bramwell Booth speaks of the Salvation Army receiving 316 girls under 16, who had been
30
so assaulted, in twelve months. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has for the last six years had an annual average of 400 cases of criminal and indecent assault reported to them. In the Church of England we ourselves have many homes full of them. From many other sources and from the reports in the newspapers it is clear that these figures cannot be doubted, and that they do not in any sense give an adequate idea of the prevalence of such assaults."
Then I take the strong consensus of opinion which there is in support of the actual Bill as it stands. I think the Lord Chancellor will admit that the Amendment which he has proposed does not raise the age to sixteen, whereas in support of the Bill as it stands I have received resolutions from all over England. I have laid on the Table a petition from Peeresses and wives of Spiritual Peers. Here are petitions from 400 associations, some representing 100,000 women and girls, one alone consisting of 25,000 factory girls, all supporting the Bill as it stands.
The Lord Chancellor's Amendment, waters my clause down, and by mentioning the age of fourteen I fear that its result will be to raise the age of consent only to fourteen. Then I should like the noble and learned Viscount to consider whether the definition of "gross indecency" is not vague. The meaning of an indecent assault on a child has been understood for a long time. I hope the Lord Chancellor will later on explain what "gross indecency" means. Then with regard to the defence of ignorance. I have taken counsel with others on the other side of the Atlantic, and I find that the defence of ignorance is not admitted in the United States, nor, I believe, in any other country. Are not our juries to be trusted as much as are the juries in other countries Therefore on the ground that the great number of these cases makes a more stringent clause than the Lord Chancellor's essential, on the ground that I have a vast amount of public support for the clause as it stands, and on the ground that the excuse of ignorance is not allowed in other countries with regard to this offence, I feel bound, I am sorry to say, to resist the clause which has been moved by the Lord Chancellor, although I am certain of the friendly spirit in which it has been so brought forward.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the subject-matter with which we are dealing is one of the most difficult and anxious

31
with which Judges have to deal when they are trying these criminal cases. I am bound to say that in my opinion the Bill as it stands would create great difficulties, and I am going to explain to your Lordships in a few words why in the main I hope that the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor will be adopted. I wish to say this at the outset in reference to what the right rev. Prelate has said. I think that amendments in our Criminal Law should always be made in relation to those who have experience in its administration, and not in reference to outside resolutions got up by various bodies who may very well be carried away by sentimental notions but who do not appreciate the real underlying difficulties. One of the underlying difficulties in dealing with crimes of this character is not only, as the Lord Chancellor has said, lest you should not get convictions when convictions should be given by juries, but there is another incident, a very painful incident, and that is the incident of blackmail, particularly blackmail levied on very young people under conditions which either make their lives a torture or wreck their whole future.
All the conditions which the Lord Chancellor proposes to introduce in order to have a proper safeguard are absolutely essential, and I make that statement from having had considerable experience in administering this side of the Criminal Law, which is always a matter of great difficulty. In the first place, I think the age under which no young male person should be found guilty under the Act is properly the age of sixteen. It would be a very bad principle and I do not believe it would afford the real protection that is desired if you were to bring young boys into Court charged with offences of this kind who themselves might be only eleven or twelve years of age. I deprecate, and I know it is a matter which grand juries deprecate, the unnecessary discussion particularly in reference to young people of these sexual matters, which are undoubtedly difficult in themselves but which we do not want to bring unnecessarily before the minds of young children.
The second point is corroboration. I think it is essential that the principle of corroboration should be inserted, and I hardly see how you can administer a law of this kind unless you introduce the principle of corroboration. Without corro-
32
boration you would merely have the statement of some very young girl which would be denied, of course, on the other side by the person charged. In those circumstances I think it would be grossly unfair to blight, perhaps, the whole future of a young fellow thus charged unless there is some corroboration of the charge made against him. It is, of course, a common place in all crimes of this kind that it is very unlikely that any third person is immediately present, and therefore you may merely have oath against oath, or opinion against opinion. But before you convict a young man who is only about the age of sixteen of a crime which may blight his whole future, I think it is essential for the fair administration of the law that some corroboration should be rendered necessary.
The next point is one of rather wider meaning. Personally I am not in favour of what is called the method of private prosecution in this country. I prefer, for instance, the methods in most other countries, certainly the method in Scotland where you cannot have any private prosecutions at all; because very often private prosecutions are conducted for indirect motives which bring discredit upon the administration of our Criminal Law. I think the Lord Chancellor is quite right when in cases of this kind he makes it a condition—I think I am right in this, and no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—that proceedings shall not be carried to the point of prosecution without the assent of the Attorney-General or of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In that way you do introduce a safeguard.
This matter is to my mind a very complicated one. I submit that if you are making changes of this sort in the law you ought to make them so that every one can understand what the law is. I have taken very great care to study the Lord Chancellor's proposed new clause, and to my mind it is not clear, particularly having regard to the law as it stands at the present moment. In substance "gross indecency" is a new phrase at the present moment. One does not wish, of course, to go into matters of this kind, but at the present moment that phrase is only applied where there is indecency between males. In the Criminal Law as it stands it is applied to that class of case and to that class of case only. Therefore as applied to the conditions of

33
this Bill the term "gross indecency" is undoubtedly new, and I feel very doubtful whether a Judge who had to explain to a jury whether they ought to convict or not could say what is implied in this term "gross indecency." It would be very difficult to do and to hold the balance quite fairly between the complainant on the one side and the person charged on the other. Therefore I hope that before the Report stage the Lord Chancellor will carefully consider whether the term "gross indecency," which is introduced for the first time in an Act of this sort, is a term which is properly appropriate having regard to the existing condition of our Criminal Law.
This leads me to what, in my mind, is a curious anomaly in the Lord Chancellor's clause. In subsection (2) (a) it is provided that if, upon the trial of any indictment for an offence under this section, the jury are satisfied that the defendant is not guilty of an offence under this section but is guilty of indecent assault, they may acquit the defendant of the first-mentioned offence and find him guilty of indecent assault. Now I want to put this to the Lord Chancellor. It seems to me that an indecent assault necessarily implies gross indecency; but the suggestion here is that a person might not be guilty of gross indecency but yet can be guilty of indecent assault. That appears to be a contradiction in terms, which I mention in order to emphasise the difficulty that I feel with regard to an express on of this character.
But I want to say something more, looking at it again from the point of view of a Judge trying to direct a jury. A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of this clause, if I understand it rightly, is liable to imprisonment for six months; but if a person is found guilty of indecent assault, he is liable to be imprisoned for two years. Therefore a young fellow charged with an offence for which the maximum penalty is six months might find himself under this clause found guilty of an offence for which he is subject to the penalty of two years. I do not think that can be intended, but as the Lord Chancellor's clause stands it would have that illogical and impossible result. I call attention to it because, in my view, these questions of Criminal Law amendment want careful attention. Although I am, speak-
34
ing generally, in favour of what the right rev. Prelate proposes, I should always oppose a private Member's Bill, because I do not think that amendments to our Criminal Law ought to be introduced, either in this House or in another place, without the expert assistance which the Government have at their disposal.
Then under subsection (2) (b) of the Lord Chancellor's clause we get the alternative proposal— namely, that a person charged with indecent assault may be found guilty of gross indecency. There, again, I am not satisfied whether that is right. We all know what is meant by "assault." A young fellow is charged with indecent assault, and he brings forward evidence and proves to the jury that there is no case of indecent assault at all. In those circumstances he ought not to be liable to be convicted of some other charge which is not made against him. In dealing with juries in these cases, even if you have a simple issue, it is a very important matter to be certain that they are acting fairly and justly in a certain case; but if you have a system under which you can tell the jury that they may find the prisoner guilty of some offence with which he is not charged, I think that introduces an unfair complication into the administration of our Criminal Law. There is one point which I do not overlook, and that is that subsection (2) (a) and (b) may be merely meant to cover a ease where the particular charge is shown to be in connection with a girl who is under thirteen, which might be the case. If it is only that the Lord Chancellor wishes to make that point clear, I should assent to it. But, as a matter of fact, the actual clause goes a good deal beyond that point. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships for so long a time, but I feel that these matters of criminal administration are of the greatest possible importance, and I am sure that while your Lordships, on the one hand, want to give protection against these offences, you desire, on the other hand, to give protection against young fellows being blackmailed or unfairly convicted of offences of such a character.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to ask a question, as I think there appears to be some misunderstanding. As I understand it, there is no difference of opinion, as far as the question of indecency is concerned, between the Lord

35
Chancellor and the Bishop of London with respect to the age, but from the right rev. Prelate's speech your Lordships would have gathered that there was a difference between himself and the Lord Chancellor with regard to this particular offence. I understand that they are both agreed as to the age of sixteen.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It is that there are two offences.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The particular offence with which this Amendment is dealing is not seduction.
LORD PARMOOR: Might I point out, with regard to the age of sixteen, that it is quite true that in one case you have the same age in the two clauses. But by the Lord Chancellor's clause no one can be convicted who is under sixteen, whereas under the right rev. Prelate's clause he can be convicted if he is of any age.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not speaking of that. I am speaking of the age of the girl in respect of indecency. The Lord Chancellor, no doubt, deals with it in a slightly different way, but so far as the age is concerned the right rev. Prelate and the noble and learned Viscount are agreed.
LORD GORELL: Is that so? I understand it is not so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor will make the point clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will endeavour to make it clear. According to the clause that I propose, the law will stand as it does at the present time under which an offence committed against a girl under thirteen is a very serious offence indeed. That is intact. The new offence begins at thirteen and goes to sixteen.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Like the Bill itself does?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes; just as in the right rev. Prelate's Bill. The only difference between the right rev. Prelate and myself as regards that age is that he calls something an "indecent assault" when there may be consent. I call it an "act of gross indecency" and make it a new offence. I think I have made that quite clear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, that is quite clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble Marquess desire that I went on with the further points?—or perhaps I will deal with them later.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to get this point quite clear. At the present moment the law knows no such offence as "gross indecency."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was going to deal with that later.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The offence which the law does know is indecent assault; and the law about that is that it shall be no defence to a charge on indictment of an indecent assault on a young person under the age of thirteen to prove that there was consent to the act of indecency. The right rev. Prelate proposes to raise that age from thirteen to sixteen; he proposes the same, that it shall be no defence to a charge of indecent assault on a girl of sixteen or under to prove that she consented to that act. Now if the Lord Chancellor has his way and Clause 1 of the Bill is omitted and his Amendment substituted, that change in the law will not take place. A man could not be convicted if he was able to plead that the indecent assault was committed on a girl between fifteen and sixteen and that she had consented.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He would be convicted of "gross indecency" then.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, but the offences are not the same obviously, because the penalty for gross indecency is to be six months whereas the penalty for indecent assault may be two years. Therefore there is a very material difference between the two offences. The Lord Chancellor has proposed to constitute this new offence of "gross indecency" because he thinks there is a gradation in the crime, and I do not wish to say a word against his proposal. I am not competent, as is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, to discuss the merits of such a proposal. What I protest against is the effect of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, which will be to prevent raising the age of consent from thirteen to sixteen. We

37
want the age of consent to be raised from thirteen to sixteen in these cases of indecent assault. There really is a very strong case for so raising the age, because the law does not allow the plea to be made that a girl of under sixteen consented to an attempt at carnal knowledge. That is not allowed as a plea. But, as the Lord Chancellor pointed out just now, the line between an indecent assault and carnal knowledge is often very hard to draw. He actually used the word "intercourse" himself when he was describing an indecent assault. I say that if the law does not allow a girl, who after all is only a child, of sixteen and under to consent to an attempt at carnal knowledge, neither ought it to allow her to consent to an indecent assault; or, rather, the man should not get off because she consented in the case of an indecent assault any more than in the case of an attempt at carnal knowledge. I say this without any difference of opinion from Lord Parmoor as to the great importance of corroboration, and also as to the distinction which he drew between the case of a man and the case of a boy who is himself a mere child.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP CANTERBURY: My Lords, only want to say a word with regard to a phrase which fell from the Lord Chancellor and from Lord Parmoor about corroboration. As far as I know, no one who is advocating the raising of the age and the changes that we desire to see has the slightest objection to the Judges insisting upon what they think right in the way of corroboration of the charges in the indictment. That is not our point at all, and I am particularly anxious that it should not be mixed up with the other side of the matter. With regard to corroboration, we have not a word to say about the Lord Chancellor's Amendment. We do not want your Lordships to be prejudiced by that point which is pressed upon us by high legal authority, because it is a point upon which we do not require any pressure at all.
*LORD GORELL: My Lords, may I add one word with regard to the question of gross indecency As I understand, that expression is only known at present in the law as relating to an offence between male persons of a graver character as far as the indecency is concerned than an indecent assault; and I think I am right—the noble and learned Viscount will correct me
38
if I am wrong—in saying that it is a question for the jury as to whether the indecency is gross or not. I think, somewhat on the lines raised by the right rev. Prelate and Lord Parmoor, that there are possible difficulties in the use of this expression, and I should like to know whether it would not be possible to describe an offence such as the noble and learned Viscount contemplates without using words which are at present used in a technical sense in connection with an offence such as I have referred to and which may possibly raise difficulties in that direction. There is one other point, emphasising what has fallen from Lord Parmoor, with regard to the importance of the third subsection of the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment if the third proposal in the Bill of the right rev. Prelate is adopted. I venture to think that the proposal of the noble and learned Viscount, if that proposal is admitted, might be made even more important. It would be useful in preventing applications for prosecutions which are really fraudulent, or which are only used to enforce bastardy proceedings and not with a bona fide intention of assisting the Criminal Law. I venture to think that if the proposal of the right rev. Prelate is adopted, this provision in the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment would be extremely useful in that connection.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will endeavour to deal with some of the points which have been raised, and perhaps it will be convenient if I first deal with the point put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. His question was whether the clause as I propose it does not somewhat narrow the scope of the existing law, and he pointed out quite truly that at the present time intercourse, for example, with a girl under sixteen is illegal.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Or attempt.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Intercourse with a girl under sixteen is illegal under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. We are dealing now, not only with cases of intercourse, but with something else. We are dealing with cases of indecency, which may be a shorter thing. At the present time, if a girl under thirteen has an act of indecency committed towards her, her consent is inoperative in law to justify the defendant. She is treated as a child, as what it fact to a great extent

39
she is, as one not knowing what she is doing; consequently the defendant cannot take any advantage of her assent. When you come to the age between thirteen and sixteen you are dealing with a very different class of case. Just under the age of sixteen there are a large number of prostitutes on the streets, deplorable as it is. The noble Earl opposite shakes his head, but I have had on this subject some of the most competent advice in London from people who are not only looking at one phase of the evil but at all phases. If you say that a thing is an indecent assault when there has been no indecent assault, when it has been the subject of invitation, do what you will, juries and tribunals will not convict in cases of that kind. That is why we have changed the character of the offence; but we have preserved all that is substantial, because we have made an act of indecency committed on a girl between thirteen and sixteen something which is itself an offence. We have made a difference, no doubt, between what is done to a girl under thirteen, which is very gross, and that which is done to a girl between thirteen and sixteen which is less gross, because it may be very fully consented to in the ordinary sense of the word. But still we have made it an offence, and at the same time we have met the point of which the noble Earl spoke and given a chance of redress against the evil which the right rev. Prelate has brought forward.
The next is the point about the phrase "gross indecency." My noble friend Lord Gorell suggested that it was a technical phrase, and that it was unfortunate to use a technical phrase here. He also said that it has been used in regard to offences between males in the Criminal Law Amendment Act. It is not really a technical phrase at all. I have had the advantage of the very best advice in using the words. What I am told is this, that indecency is something well understood, and that a jury as a judge of fact will quickly distinguish between indecency and indecency which is gross. There are other things which are obviously on the other side of the line. Nor is "gross indecency" a technical term. It is an expression which those who have had the most experience in administering this branch of the law consider best enables them to get a grip of the kind of evil which is to be dealt with.
40
The right rev. Prelate spoke of the introduction of the age of fourteen, but, if he will forgive me for saying so, that is not a good point. Fourteen is only introduced in this way. If a girl is under fourteen it is no defence for a person who committed the offence to say that he thought she was, and that she looked as if she were, over sixteen. If in fact she is under fourteen he cannot take advantage of the plea that her appearance was calculated to deceive. I do not think there is any danger of the expression "fourteen" cutting down the beneficial operation of the clause from the point of view of the right rev. Prelate.
Now I come to the other point which Lord Parmoor took. Lord Parmoor, if he will permit me to say so, made a speech which was of a particularly valuable kind, not merely for what he said but from its tone, and not merely from its judicial tone but the administrative tone which he brought to bear in examining the difficulty of this question. He spoke with knowledge of Quarter Sessions, and also with the knowledge of a man of the world; and he also spoke as one who seeks to amend the law in this direction but to amend it in a practical way. I entirely agree with what he said about hasty amendments of the Criminal Law. You have to go very carefully in making these amendments. Lord Parmoor pointed out that under my clause as it is drawn a boy, say, may be charged with an act of gross indecency, and yet the jury, acting under the alternative which the clause gives, can convict him of indecent assault. I gathered from the noble and learned Lord that he did not object to that if, for instance, it came out that it was really a case of a girl under thirteen and that the offender would have been prosecuted for an indecent assault upon a girl under thirteen if her age had been known. I gathered from the noble and learned Lord that he considered the subsection a good one if it covers that.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, that only.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I see the ambiguity to which my noble and learned friend pointed. I have already been in communication with the Government draftsmen, and I will see that at a later stage an Amendment is put down to make it different. The noble and

41
learned Lord meant the same as I did, but I think his criticism is a good one. That is, I think, all the assistance I can give your Lordships on this matter. We are dealing with topics which are difficult and obscure, but we are dealing with a very great evil, an evil with which we wish to cope, if possible, and the anxiety of the Government is to give such assistance
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Is it competent to move an Amendment to the Lord Chancellor's clause?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: No, not now; it ought to have been done before the new clause was accepted.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Then it must be done at the next stage?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Clause 2:
Defilement, &c., of girls under eighteen. 48 & 49 Vict. c. 69.
2. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, shall be read and have effect as if the word "eighteen" were inserted instead of the word "sixteen" in section five, subsection one, section six, subsection two, section ten, paragraph (a), and section twelve of the said Act.
42
as they can to the right rev. Prelate, within the limits of prudence, in framing a clause which will really have the effect that he desires.
On Question, whether the clause proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12. Not-contents, 52.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Bryce, V.

Braye, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Selborne, E. [Teller.]

Llandaff, L. Bp.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

London, L. Bp. [Teller.]

Manners, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Wakefield, L. Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Halifax, V.

Glenconner, L.

Hutchinson, V.(E. Donoughmore.)

Gorell, L.

Devonshire, D.

Haversham, L.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Heneage, L.

Bath, M

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Camden, if.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Lansdowne, M.

Addington, L.

Lucas, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Lyell, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Avebury, L.

Parmoor, L.

Ancaster, E.

Balfour, L.

Pirrie, L.

Bathurst, E.

Barnard, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Beauchamp, E.

Barrymore, L.

Rotherham, L.

Eldon, E.

Charnwood, L.

Sanderson, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Russell, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Sinc air, L.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Allendale, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Strachie, L.

Churchill, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Sudeley, L.

Falkland, V.

Erskine, L.

Wynford, L.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to amend Clause 2 so that it would read—
The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, shall be read and have effect as if the word "eighteen" were inserted instead of the word "sixteen"

(a) in section five, subsection one, in any case in which the person charged is of or above the age of twenty-one years, and

(b) in section six, subsection two, section ten, paragraph (a), and section twelve,

of the said Act.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I regret to see the Amendment which stands later in the name of the Lord Chancellor, in which he seeks to strike out what is, after all, the main object of the Bill—namely, the raising of the age of consent in the case of carnal knowledge from sixteen to eighteen. He, in fact, strikes at the most important part of the right rev. Prelate's Bill, and I cannot support the Lord Chancellor in that Amendment. It seems to me that public conscience demands the raising of the age now.

43
It is, of course, a very dangerous thing in matters of this kind to go in front of public opinion, but public opinion has been very pronounced about things of this kind, and I think it would justify the raising of the age from sixteen to eighteen. Therefore I regret that the Lord Chancellor has put down an Amendment by which he proposes to deal with the right rev. Prelate's Bill in the way I have indicated.
I realise that there will be hard cases which will have to be dealt with, and the Amendment which I am now moving is intended to deal with one particular class of hard case. Of course, the case which the right rev. Prelate particularly wishes to hit is that of a fully grown man who uses his influence over a girl who is little more than a child in order to rob her, of what is the most priceless possession she has, and the right rev. Prelate is asking Parliament, very rightly, to stop that. That is a case where it may be held that the aggressor is in such a position as to have so much influence over one who is much younger and more ignorant than himself, that they are not upon an equal footing, and that she consents really not knowing the extent of the evil which is being inflicted upon her. But the whole thing turns upon the fact that she is so young as not to be fully responsible for what she does when she consents. I do not say that she is not in one sense responsible, because when she has reached the age of sixteen she must know to some extent what she is about, but she is not aware of the tremendous loss which she is incurring by consenting to the attack of this aggressor. That is true.
But if it be true that you ought to protect her in the case where she is assailed by a man in this way, it does not follow that you ought to deal out the same measure when the aggressor is not a man but a boy. Every one of us knows that where it is a case of a boy, the boy may not be more responsible than the girl; indeed, he may be the less responsible; she may be the one who tempts and not he; therefore he requires to be protected just as much as she does. Take the case which must be present to your Lordships' minds, the case of a young prostitute who persuades a boy no older than herself to have intercourse with her. Well, it is the boy who is to be pitied. Is he to be made criminally responsible for that? I think your Lordships
44
will agree that justice demands that he should be protected just as much as the girl in the other ease ought to be protected. If we are to be logical, the person who ought to be sent to prison is the girl and not the boy, or both of them, but certainly not the boy only. It does seem to me that in a case of that kind we ought to introduce a saving clause. I have put the Amendment on the Paper, but I need not tell your Lordships that I am not particularly proud of the form in which it is drawn; it might easily have been drawn better. But I do not care in the least about that if the Lord Chancellor will accept this policy which we suggest to hint, that in the main the age should be raised to eighteen but that the hard cases should be saved by any form of words which either he or the right rev. Prelate prefers in order to carry that out. I would willingly accept any such form. But substantially I think that if the age is raised to eighteen, protection ought to be inserted in the case of boys under age. I have put it at under twenty-one, but in regard to that, of course, I should be quite willing to defer to your Lordships' better judgment. In the main, however, I submit this Amendment to your Lordships with some confidence.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("sixteen") to the end of the clause and insert:

("(a) in section five, subsection one, in any case in which the person charged is of or above the age of twenty-one years, and

"(b) in section six, subsection two, section ten, paragraph (a), and section twelve,

of the said Act.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I feel great sympathy with what is in the noble Marquess's mind, and I am quite prepared myself at some stage in the proceedings to move a clause which would safeguard against the blackmailing of young men. But I ask the noble Marquess to consider whether his Amendment does not go much too far. It seems to me that if it is accepted as it stands we should almost by Act of Parliament be saying that any one under twenty-one years of age is free to do practically what he likes. I was prepared myself to meet this difficulty by a clause—I will bring it up on Report—to the effect that when both are under the age of eighteen they might be dealt with under the Children Act, which

45
would put them on probation. I see, of course, the objection to sending young fellows of eighteen or under eighteen to prison for two years. But nothing is such an educator as the law, and if they find out that the law does touch them, even with a light hand, nothing will raise the moral standard of our country more. If the noble Marquess's Amendment is accepted it seems to me, although that is not his intention—he would be the last person to suggest it—that an impression would get abroad that any one under twenty-one could do as he liked.
Might I say a word here about blackmail. The Lord Chancellor in his speech did not produce, and I do not think he can produce, any case of blackmail that has occurred since the age was raised from thirteen to sixteen. I am told that the whole case against the raising of the age from thirteen to sixteen was based on blackmail. This was the bogey that was brought out at every stage of the proceedings. At last, however, the nettle was boldly grasped and the age was raised, and no one has produced a single case of blackmail arising in consequence. Therefore while I am perfectly ready to admit the force of what the noble Marquess has said, I would ask the House not to be frightened too much by this bogey of blackmail. With regard to Lord Salisbury's Amendment, I am quite prepared, as I have said, to move a clause at a later stage of the proceedings by which when both are under eighteen they could be dealt with under the Children Act, which would put them under probation.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I hope very much that the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Marquess will be accepted. I have looked very carefully into the words of the Amendment—I was not in any way responsible for them—and they appear to me to carry out what his evident desire is. Of course, as to the drafting, as the noble Marquess has said, that is a matter which might be considered hereafter; but I hope that the principle involved in his Amendment may be accepted.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, as one who has been occupied for many years in social work, may I say one or two words. I entirely sympathise with Lord Salisbury in his desire to protect young boys, and I should be ready to vote for his Amend-
46
ment, as I think the right rev. Prelate said he would, if he would substitute eighteen years for twenty-one.
LORD BARNARD: My Lords, I venture to hope that the Amendment of the noble Marquess will be carried. I have had considerable experience, not, like the noble Earl who has just sat down, in social work, but in regard to the Criminal Law both on circuit and in petty sessional courts, and I have come to the conclusion that social reformers, with the best intentions in the world, do not approach this question from the right side. They sometimes forget that the girl is very often the greater offender of the two. I have known an enormous number of cases in recent years where that is entirely the fact; and before you make criminals of young boys for an offence into which they have been led by the wiles of girls, who do not, perhaps, actually realise the harm they are doing, you should give the matter very earnest consideration. I really wonder in my own mind whether some forty or fifty members of your Lordships' House, sitting here on a hot summer evening, is the proper body to make such enormous changes in the Criminal Law as we are doing. I should have thought it would have been better to move for the appointment of a Commission or a Select Committee and ask them to draft a measure for our consideration. But I suppose we have to do the best we can now under the circumstances.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I, too, think that the Amendment of the noble Marquess is important, and I entirely agree that some unfortunate person may get entangled in the law under the right rev. Prelate's Bill unless there is some protection given to him. But my doubt is whether the Amendment of the noble Marquess goes far enough. The proposal of the right rev. Prelate is to raise the age under which it is an offence to have carnal knowledge of a girl from sixteen, which it is at present, to eighteen, and that is a change which he proposes without limitation. The Amendment of the noble Marquess is that nobody who is not over twenty-one can be convicted of an offence under the section as amended by the right rev. Prelate. The noble Marquess put what is always a telling case, the case about which we are all agreed, the seducer who seduces a girl under eighteen. We all feel that we could not deal too hardly with him; he has ruined a girl in the worst way

47
he could ruin her. That is the case we should like to deal with. But my difficulty is that that is one case as against ninety-nine cases.
The real case which will occur in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred which will come within the Amendment will be this. A prostitute is going along Piccadilly, a precocious prostitute very likely looking over eighteen years of age, and she meets a young fellow, say, up from Oxford for the Boat Race; perhaps he has dined, and perhaps he is in a condition in which he is easily amenable to temptation. But she is the temptress; she leads him into mischief; and when we talk of ruin, just let us remember that what he will be indicted for will be a crime which carries with it the liability for two years imprisonment with hard labour. You do not ruin that young man so badly as the young girl is ruined who is seduced in the hundredth case, but you are providing ninety-nine cases of ruining young men for one case in which a girl is ruined. Therefore this is an extraordinarily difficult matter to deal with. So difficult is it that I think if this clause is passed as the right rev. Prelate proposes to pass it, you will not only give a wholly new field for the scientific practice of blackmail, which is already bad enough, but you will give rise to a class of prosecution where really the offence is on the part of the woman and not on the part of the man. It is all very well to say, "She is under eighteen"; but under eighteen a girl of that class may be just as bad and dangerous as if she were twenty-eight or thirty. In that condition of things we have to consider what we are doing. It is not easy to get the right Amendment. Speaking for myself, I am not satisfied that the noble Marquess has met the evil by making the age twenty-one. I think there are plenty of young fellows of twenty-one and twenty-two years of age and over who would be worthy objects of commiseration if, after having been approached by a prostitute who was near the age of eighteen, they found themselves indicted and convicted.
There are two classes of cases, I agree. There is the case of the cold-blooded offender. I do not know how to get at the hundredth case on which the noble Lord spoke without sacrificing the other ninety-nine; but I do know how to get at a number of other people—those, for
48
instance, who keep brothels or rooms for the purpose of permitting prostitution or clandestine relations of this kind. These are people who might well be put upon careful inquiry, and if the result of the restriction put upon them was that they could not have any people there at all who did not look so old that they were obviously clear of eighteen I think no harm would be done. The same is true with search warrants when there is reason to believe that a girl is being detained for immoral purposes. The same is true of another class of case, seduction of girls that has been favoured or encouraged by their parents. All these things are dealt with by the Criminal Law as it stands at present, but the age is only sixteen. I am quite prepared to raise the age in those cases to eighteen. I think good would come of it, and I am advised by those who are experienced in these matters that that would be the proper course to take. I have therefore put down, as an alternative to the proposition which is now before the House, a proposition which we shall come to in a moment, and which I only mention now because of its bearing upon that with which we are dealing. I have put down a proposition to omit "Section 5 (1)," but to leave the clause so that the right rev. Prelate's proposal would raise the age of consent in these other cold-blooded cases of which I have spoken. Speaking for myself, I am not satisfied with the Amendment of the noble Marquess opposite. I would much prefer not to attempt to deal with the proposition to raise the age from sixteen to eighteen under which it is an offence to have carnal knowledge of the woman, not because the hundredth case, as I have described before, is not one of the utmost gravity, but because in endeavouring to deal with that you deal with ninety-nine others which are infinitely more likely to occur and under which you may inflict very grave injustice.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to safeguard, in case this Amendment is not carried, the Amendment in the name of the Lord Chancellor which comes afterwards, I suggest to your Lordships that the question now should be whether the word "in" stand part of the clause. If that word is left out, the rest will follow. If the word is not left out, it leaves it open to the Lord Chancellor to move his Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I accept the principle of what the noble Marquess has said in moving this Amendment, and if I may, on Report, I will move words more satisfactory in form.
LORD PARMOOR: Would the carrying of the noble Marquess's Amendment exclude that of the Lord Chancellor?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Not in the form in which I propose to put it. The question is that the first word after "sixteen"—namely, the word "in"—stand part of the clause.
On Question, resolved in the negative.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The natural course now would be to leave out, as moved by Lord Salisbury, the remainder of the clause. The noble Marquess would then move the insertion of his proposed paragraphs (a) and (b). But I understand the Lord Chancellor desires to move to amend the Amendment.
On Question, That the remainder of the clause stand part, resolved in the negative.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move the insertion of paragraph (a)—
(a) in section five, subsection one, in any case in which the person charged is of or above the age of twenty-one years, and.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move to amend the clause by leaving out the words "section five, subsection one" and subsequent words.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: All those words have gone out of the clause now.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Marquess has moved his new paragraph (a).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I oppose that. I move a new subsection.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, the noble Marquess desires to insert his new paragraph (a)?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Lord Chancellor desires to oppose that. The question is that Lord Salisbury's new paragraph (a) be inserted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the Lord Chancellor will let me put my Amendment in. I am afraid as it stands his will not read. Your Lordships have just consented to strike out from Clause 2 all words after "sixteen." All the remaining words in the right rev. Prelate's clause are gone from the Bill. If the Lord Chancellor opposes my Amendment then the right rev. Prelate's clause will end with the word "sixteen."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The question between us is a single point. I am afraid of limiting the protection to twenty-one years of age in these cases, and the noble Marquess desires to so limit it?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes. Let me say one word on another matter of detail in respect of this. We shall be only too delighted at a later stage to listen to any suggestion from the right rev. Prelate or other noble Lords, but at present, in spite of the great authority of the noble and learned Viscount, I must insist on asking your Lordships to support me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess said he did not regard the form of his words as final.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If he will consider another form of words and propose it on Report I am ready to take this as his principle, in which I agree with him in the main. When we come to Report I shall move to omit his clause unless he has another clause himself and will move it himself. But I must not be taken, in not dividing the House, as assenting to it as it is on the Paper.
On Question, the new paragraphs (a) and (b), moved by Lord Salisbury, agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think the next Amendment in the name of the Lord Chancellor—Page 1, line 10, leave out ("section five, subsection one")—falls out?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, that Amendment falls. But I propose to add a new subsection to provide that it shall not be a defence under Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, to prove that the person charged had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of or above the age of sixteen years if, in fact, she was under the age of fourteen. Under Section 5 of the Act it is at present a defence to prove that the defendant had cause to believe that the girl was over the age of sixteen. There was reason for putting that in, because a great many girls who are under sixteen look over that age. But I think we might advance a step. The Bill proposes to repeal the schedule making that defence available. I think it would be a very dangerous thing altogether to deprive a person of that defence; he might have very reasonable cause for so believing. It is felt that great injustice might be done if this defence were taken away. On the other hand, such defence should not be open to a man who says he thought a girl, who is in fact under fourteen, was over sixteen. My present Amendment will limit the defence in that direction. That is to say, if the girl is in fact under fourteen it is no defence for a man to say that he thought she was over sixteen.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("Act") insert as a new subsection:
(2) It shall not be a defence under section five of the said Act to prove that the person charged had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of or above the age of sixteen years if, in fact, she was under the age of fourteen, and accordingly at the end of the first proviso to that section there shall be inserted the words "Unless she was, in fact, under the age of fourteen years."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: Do I understand that eighteen still remains in the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes; and for that reason I am afraid the Lord Chancellor's Amendment will not quite do, because he has gone back to sixteen. As the Bill stands eighteen remains. The Lord Chancellor's Amendment will have to be recast, and I would suggest that he should not press the Amendment at this stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I withdraw it now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after Clause 3, the following new clause:—
Power to send young prostitutes to rescue homes.
.—(1) Where a girl is convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment without the option of a line, Or of any offence mentioned in the Schedule to this Act, and

(a) it appears to the court by which she is convicted that she is under eighteen years of age; and

(b) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that she is a common prostitute;

the court may, in lieu of imposing any other punishment, order her to be sent to a rescue home approved by the Secretary of State, the managers of which are willing to receive her.
(2) Any such rescue home may be certified as a reformatory school, and where it has been so certified the provisions of the Children Act, 1908, shall apply in the case of such a girl as if she was a youthful offender in respect of whom an order had been made under section fifty-seven of that Act, subject however to the following modification, namely, that twenty-one years shall be substituted for nineteen years as the age to which the period of detention may, and that of supervision (if any) shall extend.
(3) Where a girl having been discharged on probation under the powers conferred by the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, on her entering into a recognizance to be of good behaviour and to appear for conviction or sentence when called on during the period specified in the order of the court, commits a breach of any condition of her recognizance and in respect of such breach is brought before the court before which she is bound by her recognizance to appear for conviction or sentence, the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply as if she had been convicted by that court of such an offence as aforesaid.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I should like, before moving this new clause, to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he wants to reduce the age at the Report stage?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The age is already fixed.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I presume I can move this clause on Report?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Yes.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I would like to explain to the House that my Bill was perfectly coherent to my mind, and this new clause entirely fitted in. If we were dealing with the man and the age was raised from sixteen to eighteen I was quite prepared to deal with the woman and see that she was sent to a home of refuge, as is set forth in this new clause, but the justice of that very much depends on what happens at the subsequent stage of the Bill. If I am not able to deal with the man, I am not going to punish the woman. I shall hold this clause over, with your Lordships' consent, in order to see what your Lordships decide as regards the man before I ask you to deal with the woman. It seems to me that we have had a good deal too much legislation on one side in this matter. This clause I hold to be only just, on the understanding that we have adequately dealt with those who lead away girls between sixteen and eighteen.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is irregular for me to speak upon this Amendment as the right rev. Prelate has not moved it, but I wish to say that his clause seems to me to be a most admirable clause. It does not punish for any new offence; on the contrary, it only applies in cases where an offence is proved and there is a conviction and it then substitutes a rescue home for imprisonment. I hope that the right rev. Prelate will not omit to bring this clause up on Report.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I am very glad to hear what the Lord Chancellor has said.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Schedules:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we had better leave the Amendments on the Schedules until the Report stage.
This was agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 184.)

REGULATION OF PARTY FUNDS.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government if they will obtain, through His Majesty's Representative in the United States of America, and will publish information as to the provisions of the law which has of late years been passed by Congress for the regulation of Party funds, as to the administration of this law, and as to the effects which it has so far produced, together with similar information in regard to similar laws which have been passed by the Legislatures of any of the States of the Union; and further, if they will in like manner obtain and publish information in regard to the laws regulating election expenses in His Majesty's self-governing Dominions, in the United States of America and the several States of the Union, and in the principal countries of Europe in which such laws may exist.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, the Government have no objection to the collection and publication of information as to the laws in force on the subject to which the noble Lord has referred in the self-governing Dominions and in the principal foreign countries, and they will take steps to that end. But I think my noble friend will see that they could not properly publish anything beyond the laws in force and any reports which may have been made by the Governments concerned as to their working. It would be clearly impossible for us to ask our agents abroad to give their opinions on the working of the laws, and for the Foreign Office to publish them. But in so far as any Government documents exist commenting on, or giving information on, the working of those laws, we shall be very glad to meet my noble friend.

NURSES (CONTRIBUTIONS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES, IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, the Bill to which I had intended asking your Lordships to accord a Second Reading this afternoon is one to give powers to local authorities in Ireland to make contributions towards local nursing associations, but I have been informed that this Bill, if it were passed by your

55
Lordships' House and went down to another place, might be there considered a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. In those circumstances I do not proceed with the Bill, and I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw it.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

AFFILIATION ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according Order): Bill reported without amendment and to be read 3ª on Wednesday next.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off till Wednesday next.—

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, as there is no business on the Paper for to-morrow, I beg to move that, except for Judicial business, the House do adjourn until Wednesday.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, hall-past Ten o'clock.