On behalf of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire, Eifion Division, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Cecil Rhodes has proposed, as has been reported, to present a medal to the soldiers that were engaged in the defence of Kimberley; and whether he will be permitted to assume the function of dispensing honours to Her Majesty's troops.

No such proposal has been communicated by Mr. Rhodes to the War Office.

And as to the second part of the question, suppose it were offered?

Order, order!

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether many of the foreign mules and horses purchased for the service have been found unsatisfactory; and whether he can state the relative numbers of the supply of animals obtained from the various countries, including Great Britain and Ireland, within the last twelve months.

:There have been no complaints of foreign horses, nor of the mules, except in the case of Italy, from which country a number of mules were despatched which (from their size and shape) proved unsuitable for South African draught. The approximate numbers purchased have been as follows:—Horses:Great Britain, 12,010; Ireland, 4,746; Australia, 406. Cobs: Argentina, 5,864; Australia, 300. Mules: Italy, 7,004; Spain, 4,507; North America, 15,903.

How many of the 12,000 horses stated to have been purchased in. England were purchased in Scotland?

I understand that the greater includes the less, and that, therefore, England includes Scotland.

No, no!

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Mr. Hamilton Gatliff proceeded to South Africa at his own expense, and has, up to the present time, undertaken gratuitously the distribution of the clothing and other comforts sent out by friends at home to the several regiments at the front; whether, as in rendering this service he is aiding in maintaining the efficiency of the soldiers in the field, this is rather a duty that should properly be discharged by the War Department, and should not be dependent on voluntary effort; and whether the Government are prepared to recognise in any way the service rendered by Mr. Hamilton Gatliff.

Everything necessary for the subsistence and efficiency of the troops in South Africa is supplied and distributed by the War Department. The work of distributing comforts sent by private persons, which are not necessaries, does not properly fall within the duties of the military staff; and Mr. Gatliff's generous offer to carry out this service without pay or reward was gladly accepted by the Secretary of State.

Are we to consider that shirts and socks are not necessary for the troops?

I suppose that both shirts and socks are necessary. The supply of such articles to the troops is considered to be sufficient for actual service; but generous individuals had supplemented it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the officers commanding the Canadian, Australian, and other Colonial forces in South Africa hold Her Majesty's commission, and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider whether, out of regard to the services rendered by them to Her Majesty and the Empire, they ought to be entitled to receive a similar commission from Her Majesty to that of the Volunteer officers in this country, and to retain on retirement the rank held and won by them in service in South Africa.

Both officers and men of the Colonial forces in South Africa derive their military status from their Colonial Governments, and it would not appear expedient to alter this. The question of retention of rank on retirement rests with the various Colonial Governments.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will see that arrangements are made for sending shamrock from Ireland to the troops in Great Britain and other countries where it could reach them in time for St. Patrick's Day next.

There is no reason for supposing that it will be beyond the powers of Irish regiments to provide themselves with a supply of shamrock, and the Secretary of State is of opinion that such a supply should be procured by regimental arrangement. The regiments are probably better able than the War Office to obtain the genuine plant.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, now that Her Majesty has ordered the wearing of shamrock by the Army on St. Patrick's Day, he will order that an additional shilling be paid to each soldier on that day to enable the men to fittingly celebrate the day.

Army funds could hardly be appropriated for the purpose which the hon. Member suggests.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the order recently issued by Her Majesty the Queen, commanding all ranks in the Irish regiments to wear a sprig of shamrock on St. Patrick's Day will be extended to individual Irishmen in every one of Her Majesty's regiments.

All Irishmen, whether serving in Irish regiments or not, will be allowed to wear the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day.

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that when I raised this question I was turned out of the House, the Government will now apologise to me?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will ask Her Majesty to be pleased to command that all Irishmen in the Navy shall wear shamrock on St. Patrick's Day.

There are no regulations with regard to the wearing of emblems on special days in the Royal Navy. I could not ask Her Majesty to issue such a command as is suggested, even looking to the fact that shamrock is not procurable on foreign stations or on the high seas. But the Admiralty will have no objection to Irishmen in the Navy wearing a sprig of shamrock on St. Patrick's Day, and commanding officers will be so informed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that Dr. Conan Doyle submitted to the War Office particulars of an invention for securing accuracy of high angle rifle fire, and will he explain the grounds on which that Department declined to investigate the merits of the invention, or to give the inventor an opportunity of explaining the invention, or of witnessing experiments, if any, made for the purpose of testing the value of it.

The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. It was thought unnecessary to trouble Dr. Conan Doyle to proceed further in the matter because a similar invention by another gentleman had been considered as recently as last December, and it had been decided that the probable practical utility of such fire was not such as to justify the War Office in pursuing the matter further.

Was Dr. Conan Doyle's invention the same as that which had been previously considered?

Both inventions dealt with high angle firing for small arms.

Was there any difference between the two inventions?

I believe there is no practical difference; the idea is the same, anyhow.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will now consider the advisability of abolishing the messing allowance with all its complica- tions, and adding in lieu thereof three pence a day to the pay of the warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Regular forces and Militia.

It is not considered advisable to make a change in the direction suggested.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in the interests of the embodied Militia and to encourage recruiting, arrangements could be made for posting Militia recruits straight to one of the Militia battalions, if stationed at home, instead of in the first instance to the regimental depôt for preliminary training.

Militia recruits can best learn their drill at the headquarters of the regimental district.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the arbitration in relation to the Delagoa Bay Railway has now been proceeding for ten years; whether repeated promises of an early decision by the Berne Tribunal have been made to Her Majesty's Government and repeated in this House during the past five years; and what is the real cause of delay in giving the award.

The first meeting of the arbitrators took place on the 3rd of August, 1891. No promise as to the date of the final decision has been given or repeated in the House of Commons. Her Majesty's Government were given to understand that the award would be delivered not later than October last. The delay in promulgating the decision is extremely regrettable.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the award will be given?

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Resolution on brokers' contract notes will include memoranda forwarded to principals of sales or purchases made on the Manchester Exchange, and in similar places, by agents receiving commission.

So far as can be judged from the description of the memoranda which the question contains, such documents would certainly attract the proposed new stamp duty. But I would ask hon. Members to be good enough to wait for explanations until they see the clause in the Bill, which I hope will be circulated in a few days.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the term "broker" in the Resolution relating to stamps on contract notes is intended to include all agents selling or purchasing on commisssion for a principal; and, if not, what distinction is to be understood.

The term "broker" in the Resolution is only to apply to persons carrying on the business of a broker, and therefore would not have the wide application suggested in this question. The Bill itself will be circulated in a few days.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of duty he estimates will be produced by the new estate duty which he proposes to establish, in addition to the duties charged by the Finance Act, 1894, in respect of settled property, the life interest in which has been surrendered to the remainderman by the life tenant within twelve months of the death of the latter.

:What I propose to do is not to establish a new estate duty, but to stop evasion of the existing duty by the process named in the question. I think, so far, such evasion has been rare, because it was not supposed to be legal; and therefore but little duty has been lost. But the recent decision in what is known as the De Freville case has made it necessary to amend the law in order to prevent what might probably become a source of great loss to the revenue in future.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to introduce a Bill this session to amend the law relating to the death duties; and, if so, can he state briefly the nature of the Bill and its objects.

:No such Bill will be introduced, but certain amendments of the law on the subject will be included in the Finance Bill, in pursuance of resolutions already agreed to.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the result of further inquiry into the recent illegal working of women over hours in textile factories having contracts for the War Office; whether it has been found that the Bradford Trades Council are justified in their statement that the absence of inspection has allowed manufacturers working illegal overtime not only to produce cloth for Government purposes, but also for private sale; and whether, as stated, firms who could have executed the orders without illegal overtime have been passed over, and in the course of the last week not only women but also children have been illegally working overtime.

Individual inquiries have been made with regard to all firms known to be working overtime on Government contracts. In a few cases it was found that the overtime had been used for private work, and this has been stopped. In one case children were found to be employed overtime, and this also has been stopped. The names have been supplied to me today by the right hon. Baronet of some firms who appear to be working overtime without the knowledge of the factory inspectors. I will make inquiry into these, and take such action as the circumstances may call for. As regards the first sentence of the last paragraph of the question, I can only repeat that the selection of firms for these Government contracts is not a matter as to which I have any responsibility or information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen an account of a calamity at Craghead Colliery, in the county of Durham, whereby a man named Robson lost his life, and another named Stenlake was seriously affected by the fumes of gelignite or foul air; whether he is aware that three miners named Cooper, Wilson, and Parnaby nearly lost their lives in an attempt to rescue Robson and Stenlake; and whether some arrangement can be made whereby the men who risk their lives in this manner can receive some national acknowledgment of their bravery.

Yes, Sir. I have had before me a report of this case, and may, perhaps, say that the accident was due not to fumes of gelignite, but to a sudden escape of noxious gas from the coal. I am fully sensible of the courage displayed by Cooper, Wilson, and Parnaby, and am sure that everyone will agree that it is worthy of cordial recognition. But I am proud to think that it is always forthcoming in greater or less degree when circumstances demand it, and I doubt whether any new national arrangements are desirable for rewarding special cases which it would be extremely difficult to select.

Would it not be as easy to give the V.C. for industrial bravery as for bravery on the field of battle?

The question of the grant of the Albert medal is frequently under consideration in these cases. I am not saying it ought or ought not to be awarded in this case. But it must be given under very rare circumstances. The granting of the medal has, in my experience, often given rise to many difficulties and heart-burnings.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in the Factories and Workshops Bill (No. 3), recently circulated, the word "not" has been omitted by inadvertence after the word "which," in page 6, line 3.

No, Sir. The Bill is accurately printed. The object of the sub-clause in question is to extend the provisions which now apply only to new factories and workshops in which more than forty persons are employed so as to include factories and workshops in which substantial alterations or additions are made, but not so as to alter the limit of forty persons.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can now give a definite date when the removal of the circulation office to Mount Pleasant will take place; and if no definite date has yet been fixed, will he, for the convenience of the staff, mention the approximate date upon which the change will take place.

Notices have been exhibited since the 26th ultimo stating that no definite date for the removal to Mount Pleasant can yet be fixed, but that it is expected to take place in April or May next.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the paucity of promotion open to postmen, all vacant postmasterships and sub-postmasterships, not exceeding in value £140 per annum, can be reserved exclusively for postmen.

The claims and qualifications of postmen who apply for any post office which is notified as vacant are considered with those of other candidates, and the Postmaster General does not consider that he would be justified in excluding other deserving officers of the Department from the appointments referred to.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can explain the prolonged delay in authorising the scheme for the revision of the sorting branch of the Edinburgh Post Office; and whether, seeing that this matter has been under consideration for more than a year, he can say when the scheme of revision is likely to be sanctioned and given effect to.

The new scheme was submitted to the Treasury a few days ago, and is now being considered.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a petition was presented to the Commissioners of Irish Lights by a number of lighthouse keepers on 27th November, 1899, requesting the consideration of certain inequalities of pay and arrangements; whether he is aware that no reply has been sent to the petitioners; and whether he can state if the matter is under consideration, and when a reply is likely to be forwarded.

I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that they received the petition referred to in the question at the end of November, and that they are giving careful consideration to the various points raised therein. They hope to be able to send a reply very shortly.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what progress, if any, has been made with the new post office in Clones, for the erection of which sites were invited over three years ago; have sites been offered; and if so, why has none been selected; are the Clones public still obliged to transact their postal business in the corner of a small general shop, under the same conditions as ten years ago, where privacy is impossible, and where customers may overhear and observe all that takes place; and when may a remedy be looked for for this state of things.

The delay which has taken place in this case is regretted, but it has been unavoidable. A site which has recently been offered is now under consideration to see whether a new post office can be provided upon it at a total cost for site and building which the Department would be warranted in incurring. In the meantime the office is necessarily continued in the present premises, one half of which is used as a shop; but, as already stated, no specific complaint can be traced of the particular inconveniences mentioned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many officials, distinguishing between Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic, are employed in connection with Dungannon Workhouse; and how many Roman Catholic, and how many non-Roman Catholic, pauper inmates are respectively in the body of the house and in the infirmary.

With the exception of the chaplains of the workhouse, the Local Government Board have no information as to the religious persuasion of the officials connected with that establishment, whose appointments are made by the board of guardians. Nor have they any such information respecting the inmates. The hon. Member would probably obtain the information on application to the guardians.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland has he observed that fourteen recruits from the constabulary depôt have been detailed to augment the strength of the Belfast police force; and is this movement intended to cope with possible disturbances in Belfast; and, if so, will he say what restraining effect upon a Belfast mob the addition of fourteen recruits to the constabulary in that town could have.

It is a fact that fourteen recruits have recently been sent to augment the Belfast police force. There is no special significance in this step, as the hon. Member seems to apprehend, the men having been detailed for ordinary police duty to fill vacancies. I don't know the precise number of police who could effectually restrain a Belfast mob; I wish I did.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that there is only one Roman Catholic professor in the medical school of the Queen's College, Cork, it is intended to appoint a Roman Catholic to the professorship now vacant; and whether it is intended that this appointment shall be filled by a physician, as in the case of every other medical school in the United Kingdom.

I have no information as to the religious denominations of the occupants of medical chairs in the Queen's College, Cork. As regards the remainder of the question I can only say that the legitimate claims of all candidates for the vacant chair will be fully considered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that Mr. Robert Greene, of Greenlawn, Ennis, an assistant Land Commissioner, is also a land agent for several estates; is he aware that on the same day Mr. Greene was fixing fair rents he was also distraining in his own name through the sheriff's bailiff in his capacity as land agent and receiver; and will he take steps to stop this anomaly, and prevent Land Commissioners acting as land agents.

This question has been referred to Mr. Greene, and pending the receipt of his observations it is desirable that the question should be postponed. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat it on Monday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to recent proposals of the Irish Local Government Board for the increase of the salaries of county surveyors in Ireland and their deputies; and whether, in view of the serious objection taken to these proposals, they will be reconsidered.

Where the duties of a county surveyor, or other "existing" officer, are increased, the Local Government Board are required by the terms of Section 115, Sub-section 18, of the Local Government Act, to fix the increase of salary proportionate to the increase of duties, in the event of the council failing to arrive at an agreement with their officer in the matter. The Board are aware that in several instances dissatisfaction has been expressed by councils at the award of the Board on the ground that it is considered excessive; but, on the other hand, equal dissatisfaction has been expressed by many of the officers concerned on the ground that the increase of salary is not commensurate with the increase of duties. The Board's award was arrived at in each case only after the fullest consideration, and cannot now be reconsidered, as suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if steps will be taken in connection with the census in Ireland to obtain the same information with regard to the Irish language as is proposed to be obtained concerning the native language in Scotland and in Wales in the Census Bill.

If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Returns of the last census in Ireland he will observe that the information mentioned in this question was obtained and published. There is no intention to depart from the practice on the occasion of the next census.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that informations have been laid against Major Haire for firing a gunshot at a man named Patrick Grue, of Kilturk North, near Lisnaskea, who has addressed the Inspector General of Constabulary asking that the prosecution of Major Haire be taken out of the hands of District Inspector Roe on the grounds, among others, that Mr. Roe went bail for Major Haire, and also went in company with Major Haire to obtain the evidence of a witness in the case, and has since been in frequent communication with Major Haire; and will he see that the prosecution in this ease be conducted by the official Crown Prosecutor.

I am aware of the circumstances under which Major Haire has been returned for trial at the assizes, and that Patrick Grue has addressed a communication to the Inspector General of Constabulary in the terms stated. The case having been sent for trial at assizes, the prosecution will, in the ordinary course, be conducted by the Crown Prosecutor.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Myles Sinnott, of Courtown Harbour, was some time within the last five years committed to Woxford Gaol for contempt of court; what was the date of his committal, and what was the nature of the contempt; how long has Sinnott been detained in gaol; and is he still in custody; if not, when was he discharged.

I am informed that the man Myles Sinnott was committed to Wexford Prison on the 17th October, 1896, on an order of attachment issued by the Court of Chancery for contempt of court. His contempt consisted in refusing to join with one Mary Sinnott in paying into court a sum of £850 cash to the credit of a suit, Sinnott v. Sinnott, and also in refusing to join in transferring a sum of £760 Consols to the credit of the same suit pending in the Court of Chancery. Sinnott was detained in prison until the 14th December, 1897, a period of one year and fifty-nine days, and on his discharge he was removed to the Enniscorthy Lunatic Asylum.

How long was Sinnott under arrest before it was discovered he was out of his mind?

Only a short time.

That makes two men sent to prison for contempt of court and afterwards put in a lunatic asylum.

What limit of punishment would the man have received had he been tried for his offence?

I am not aware of the details of the offence.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can give the House any information as to the murder of a man named Hugh Thompson, near Enniskillen, this morning.

Yes; I regret to say that a man named Hugh Thompson, who left Enniskillen about eleven o'clock this morning, was found murdered half an hour afterwards.

Is it not the fact that the unfortunate man had given evidence in favour of an evicted tenant?

I believe the man was about to give evidence or had given evidence in a case of malicious injury.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the Second Reading of the Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Bill will be taken.

I am afraid it is at present impossible to fix a day.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state positively what the business will be on Monday; also, is it intended to take the Factories and Workshops Bill today?

As to the last question, I understand there are many Members on both sides of the House who would like to have longer notice of this Bill, and I shall not therefore propose to take the Second Reading to-night, although I am afraid that that leaves us practically with no contentious business. I hope that on Monday the Army Estimates will be taken. On Tuesday the first business will be the Loans Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When that is disposed of the Army Estimates will be proceeded with until the end of Vote 1. But as to that I must not be considered as pledging myself beyond Tuesday.

When will the Second Reading of the Factories and Workshops Bill be taken?

It certainly will not be taken before ten days. I will give all the notice I can.

When will the Second Reading of the Housing of the Working Classes Bill be taken?

I hope to be able to take it before Easter, but I cannot definitely pledge myself.

Can the First Lord of the Admiralty say when the Admiralty Office Vote will be taken?

Not for some time.

I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and I need add but little to what I said on its introduction. The House will recollect that in the autumn session^* it was announced that the Government were prepared to pay to married civil servants called out for active service in South Africa one half of their salaries. I was then asked what we were prepared to do in the case of the Metropolitan Police, and many watch committees and joint standing committees throughout the country also inquired what could be done for Reservists belonging to the constabulary. I said at once I thought it was right and proper that the Metropolitan and the provincial police authorities should be able to deal with these men on terms fairly comparable with the treatment of civil servants, and I promised, if necessary, to introduce a Bill to legalise provision being made for the wives and children of police reservists called out for service abroad. I have since found there is a strong feeling on the part of the standing joint committees representing the counties and watch committees representing the boroughs that power should be given to them, and in fact I understand that many of them have taken advantage of the promise I made of a Bill, in order to deal liberally with these cases. The object of the Bill, which I now ask the House to read a second time, is simply to enable watch committees and standing joint committees, and the Secretary of State in London to make a provision for the wives and families of police Reservists who have been called abroad analogous to that which is being done for the Government civil servants, who were in the same position and are now serving in South Africa. The necessity for the Bill arises from the fact that, under the Police Act of 1890, a police Reservist called out for permanent

See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth, Series], Vol. lxxvii., page 550 (statement of Mr. Wyndham); page 575 (statement of Sir M. White Ridley).

service is no longer a member of a police force. It is, therefore, not within the power of the standing joint committees or of the watch committees, as the case may be, to give any gratuities or allowances to the families of those Reservists while they are abroad. The Bill gives the necessary power, but leaves the exercise of it entirely optional. The amount of the grant from local rates is limited by the provision that, counting in also the allowances and remittals made by the War Office, the total money received by a Reservist's family shall not exceed his full pay as a constable. The general effect of this will, I think, be that the grant from the rates will correspond to that made by the Government, viz., half-pay. It may be more or it may be less in certain cases, but, at all events, it is, up to the limit stated, entirely in the option of the local authorities. I have had the most general testimony from the police authorities connected with the Home Office, and no less from the Scottish Office, that it is their desire to be able to make some allowance within these limits to the wives and the families of these men. The Bill is limited to a year—to this particular war. I cannot myself imagine that in any quarter of the House there will be any objection to the proposal, and I therefore earnestly commend the measure to the favourable consideration of the House.

I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board did not introduce this Bill by a statement. I appear here to-day in some sense as representative of the Statistical Society. We approached my right hon. friend with a memorial setting forth our case, and I have great pleasure in acknowledging the readiness with which he complied with many of our sugges- tions. I feel that I should not be in order if I were to enumerate all the points as to which alterations have been made in the Bill, but when I mention the fact that the vague term "storey," in the description of a house, has been changed to the word "tenement," I think the House will agree that a great improvement has been effected thereby. Then the date has been altered in accordance with our suggestion, and I believe that the change of date will tend to render the returns more satisfactory and of greater value. Another addition of great interest is the provision that a person not born in this country shall state in the schedule his nationality, for I am sure that that information will prove of great value in times to come in regard to legislation affecting aliens. I do not think I need occupy the time of the House by further referring to the new details, but I will make one general observation, and that is that the Bill, as compared with the Act of 1891, is more elastic in its provisions, more flexible, and much more easily adapted to the circumstances of cases as they arise. There is another point as to which I am bound to express my acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentleman. The Government have resisted the temptation to ask too many particulars. In the United States the census involved too many particulars, and that resulted in great inaccuracy and great delay in the issue of the reports, which consequently were not of that service to the community which otherwise they would have been. As regards the subject matter of the investigation, three things are essential. One is promptitude. You must have all the returns on a given day, or they are of no value. The next is accuracy as distinct from carelessness; for unless the questions put are of a simple character you may depend upon it that there will be a great want of accuracy and much remissness and carelessness in the filling up of the schedule. The third point to which the attention of the Government has been directed is that all information sought for should be such as that a certain statement of facts can be given. If you complicate your answers there will be great uncertainty as to some of the replies. They will consequently be less reliable, and the whole result of your labours will be of little value to the country. Having said so much in acknowledgment of the action of the Government in response to our memorial, I must express my great regret that I should have to-day, as in 1890,^* to stand up in my place in the House of Commons and deplore the fact that the Government have not seen their way to adopt a quinquennial census. In the year 1890 there was a Departmental Committee presided over by my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, and the Report signed by him is undoubtedly worthy of careful consideration. This Committee recommended a quinquennial census, and they gave their reasons for so doing. I should be reluctant to ask the House to listen to those reasons, but still I think they are of such a character that they ought not to be neglected. It was pointed out by the Committee that the change of population in this country in the course of ten years is enormous, and calculations which had been made by the Registrar General were shown by the Committee to be grossly inaccurate. I do not blame that high official. He, no doubt, has done the best he could with the materials at his hand. I find, however, in the Report of the Committee, mention is made of an error at Salford to the extent of 16 per cent., another one at Oldham of 18 per cent., and a third in the metropolitan district of West Ham of 25 per cent. And if this applies to these cases to such a remarkable extent we may be sure that the same would apply, although with perhaps less force, to other districts. That is not all. During the last ten years the discrepancy has, no doubt, greatly increased, and I shall be surprised if it does not turn out when we compare the estimate made by the Registrar General with the facts disclosed by the census, that there is a wider and more startling discrepancy than any which occurred on the last occasion. We have to consider that the population of the country is becoming, to use a phrase of the day, more and more mobile. The working classes move in search of work more easily from district to district, with the result that there is a great change of population in our townships, especially in manufacturing districts Then, too, there is a great change in the areas of our towns and of country districts. The areas of Liverpool and Manchester have been largely increased in the course

^*For debates on the Census (England and Wales) Bill, 1890, see The Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, Vol. cccxlvii.

of the last ten years, and I believe that in the case of Bradford it has twice enlarged in the course of the same time. These are reasons for a quinquennial census which, I think, are well worthy the consideration of the House. I do not desire that there should be particulars of every kind collected every five years. All that we desire is that we should have particulars of name, sex, and age, and I believe that such an inquiry could be conducted without any great expense. The quinquennial principle has already been adopted in London, and all we have to do is to make a similar change affecting the whole country minus London. If we cast our eyes across the seas, we find that a quinquennial census is taken in Germany, in Sweden, in France, and in fifteen States of America, as well as in New Zealand, Queensland, Manitoba, and in some of the most important districts of Canada. These countries differ as much from one another as they all differ from us, and yet they are all driven to the conclusion that a quinquennial census is desirable. I think the time has come when we in this country should adopt that great reform. It is said that the change would necessitate the creation of a census office. I should not myself regret that change. When we look at such public Departments as the Board of Trade, the Home Office, and the Board of Agriculture, we find that they produce Returns year by year relating to production and consumption. Surely if it be worth while to have a great Department carefully collecting statistics every year with regard to trade and commerce, it is not less the duty of the Local Government Board to accumulate similar information as regards the human beings who are our masters and whom we all serve. There would be another advantage from having a census office, and that is that it would be in continual correspondence with foreign nations, and it could keep us abreast of public opinion at home and abroad. I regret, and in this matter I speak entirely for myself, that there is an entire omission on all questions as regards the religion of those who fill up these schedules. We have, as is well known, questions on that subject in Ireland, and many foreign countries adopt the same system without, so far as I am aware, giving rise to any dissatisfaction. The Bill contains a provision of great value for securing absolute secrecy. I am glad of that, and, seeing that absolute secrecy is enjoined by the Act, I do not think that any danger could possibly arise from including in the schedule question as to the religious creed of the person filling it up. I thank the House for having listened to me so patiently. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has met our suggestions. I hope that success will attend him in his great effort to give us an improved census, for I am quite confident that enormous advantage will accrue to this country from the greater care to be exercised in preparing it. I hope, too, that we shall have the information promptly. It is a melancholy thing to watch the volumes coming out slowly year after year, and I hope, therefore, that my right hon. friend will take care to have an efficient staff, so that the information may be available to the public before it is too late to render the service for which a census is taken.

I should like to say a word or two in support of my hon. friend's desire that we should have an intermediate census, and I may add that I think it would be a good thing to have a permanent Census Department. The Committee which has been referred to was one of the most interesting on which I ever had the honour to serve, thanks to the ability of many of my colleagues and to the knowledge displayed by many of the witnesses, who included some of the best known authorities. Our recommendation was that there should be a census every five years, and although Lord Welby, who represented the Treasury, put in a memorandum, thereby exercising the tyranny which that Department not infrequently displays, the document did not present an absolute bar to our proposal, but it suggested that the Government should authorise an intermediate census in a district which might be considered to require it. I think that was a very valuable suggestion. There can be no doubt, from the evidence given before the Committee, that we are behind some other countries in respect of the information which is given by our census. I should like to know something as to the character of the enumerators to be employed, especially in England. We found at the last census that this part of the work was pretty well done in Scotland and Ireland, but that it was badly done in England, because many of the enumerators were not reliable. I should be glad to know whether any security has been taken with regard to that. I believe some change is to be made in the manner in which the Scotch census is to be taken; but, as far as I can judge from the Bill, there will be no material difference in the procedure.

That is so.

I wish to allude to one or two points. The first is the date appointed for the census to be taken. I think it is unfortunate that a Sunday should have been fixed upon for doing the work, as any other day of the week would have been equally convenient for the purpose. There is nothing in the law, as I understand, which makes it necessary for the census to be taken on the 31st March, and I hope, therefore, that in Committee the Government will consider the advisability of altering the date, for I am sure that in many homes it will be extremely inconvenient and somewhat distasteful to have to fill the schedules up on a Sunday. My second point is in respect of Clause 2, which directs the Registrar General to prepare and issue such forms of instruction as may be deemed to be necessary. I think that these forms and instructions—although, no doubt, they will be framed under the supervision of the Local Government Board—should be laid before Parliament before they are finally adopted. My third point arises on Subsection D of Clause 4,which deals with the taking of information in regard to the speaking of the Welsh language in Wales. Having regard to what happened in reference to that at the last census, I think it will be necessary in Committee to consider this clause very carefully. I do not say whether or not it is desirable on general grounds that such information—which, after all, is mainly of interest to Wales—should be collected in the census. All I do suggest is that it is necessary to carefully consider the wording of the clause. The hon. Baronet opposite lamented the fact that there was no provision in this Bill for obtaining information as to the various religious denominations in this country. I think the omission is rather a subject for general congratulation. I do not believe there could be a greater mistake than to endeavour to obtain information upon such a very delicate point by means of the census. Subject to these general criticisms, I support the Second Reading of this Bill.

I also should like to say a word in favour of having a quinquennial census, for I hold that this country, through not having such a census, is dropping behind leading foreign nations in the important question of statistics. I think it is essential, too, that there should be a Census Department. At the present time we induce men to give up their permanent employment in order to do the census work, and at the end of two or three years they are dismissed and have no other work to go to. That is cruel to the men, and it does not redound to the credit of this country. If we had a Census Department, taking a proper and full census every five years, these men could be permanently employed, and the information would be collected and tabulated in a far better way. We should then get it more promptly, and it would be of enormous value, for it would enable our merchants to compete more successfully with foreign nations. It is worth while, perhaps, to remember that only one hundred years have elapsed since the first census was taken.^* The Bill for it was brought in in 1800, and it did not extend to Ireland. Seeing that there is a strong feeling among all who take an interest in statistics that the information obtained by means of these censuses would be of much greater value if we could have it more promptly and at shorter intervals, does not this afford an excellent opportunity to establish a quinquennial census?

I would like to join in the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, to consider, even at the last moment, the suggestion made in regard to a quinquennial census—even if it is not such a full census made as that made

^* In The Parliamentary History, Vol. xxxv., at page 598, will be found the speech of Mr. Abbott (afterwards created Baron Colchester), on the 19th Nov., 1800, in introducing the "Population Bill." Mr. Abbott gives particulars of "numerations of the people" made in very early times.

every ten years. Such a proposal was made by the Royal Statistical Society, and, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs, it has behind it the recommendation of a strong Committee of this House, and a considerable body of municipal, actuarial, and sanitary opinion.

I am afraid I can add very little to what, I understand, has already been said by hon. Members in reference to a quinquennial census. But as I happen to have been the chairman of the Committee appointed to consider this question before the last census, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words to express the strong feeling of statisticians and all those concerned in watching the movements and health of the people, as to the necessity of getting an enumeration of the population at shorter intervals than ten years. That has been felt in so many communities that we are really very much behind the rest of the world in having only a decennial census. The matter is of great importance in consequence of the rapid changes that take place in industrial centres as to the growth of population. In these large centres the population grows up in consequence of the development of particular industries, and the ascertainment of new sources of wealth; and sanitary legislation and organisation in many other respects which should keep pace with the growth of population are delayed for many years. There were a great many false anticipations as to the results of the census of 1881 and in 1891, showing that most careful estimates which may be made by the Registrar General as to the growth of population, so far as that can be gathered through the births, deaths, and marriages of a particular area, are often very far out. The population is sometimes very much in excess of and sometimes greatly less than what had been supposed. It is really a scandal that on account of a little expense, which would only happen once in ten years, this important reform should be further delayed. What is wanted is not that absolute reproduction in a quinquennial census of the full census taken at a decennial period. We do not want to have so complete a return of occupations, trades, and the other data which are accumulated at the decennial census; but we do want to have some check on the movement of population so as to be in a better position for social and political action than we are when this long period intervenes between one census and the other. I would urge upon the President of the Local Government Board the necessity of yielding to the pressure which is now put upon him, and which has been brought to bear upon him for so many years by statisticians, sanitary reformers, municipal organisations, and, in fact, by everybody in the community who takes an interest in the progress of the people, as to the introduction of this moderate addition to the census now about to be taken.

I wish to endorse the opinion just expressed by the hon. Member for West Denbigh. I think the Government exercised a wise discretion in excluding the subject of religion from the coming census; and for this reason: a census of the people in order to be effective must be taken with the concurrence and goodwill of the entire population. The enumerators have difficulties enough to contend with without adding to them anything superfluous; and if it were proposed to take a religious census we should enter on a bitter and exasperating controversy. Supposing it were adopted the issue would be that the inquiry, in a large number of cases, would not be answered, and ill-feeling would be raised where cordial assistance might be otherwise rendered to the Government. I hope the Government will remain firm in the attitude which they have most properly assumed.

I wish to draw the attention of the Lord Advocate rather than the President of the Local Government Board to one point. It is that the record is altered in form from what it was in the last decennial census. Hitherto there has been a separate Bill for Scotland, but in the present case there is only one Bill, and the Scotch census is put into an interpretation clause at the end of that Bill. There have been substantial differences in the way in which the census has been taken in England and Scotland. I daresay that these differences may be provided for under this Bill, but the right hon. the Lord Advocate has departed not only in this, but in other Bills, from what has been the general practice on Scotch legislation in this House. The Bill immediately preceding the one under discussion was made to apply to Scotland by an interpretation clause, whereas there have always been hitherto separate Police Acts for Scotland. The police in Scotland are under the Secretary for Scotland and the Scottish Office, and although they are not put under the English Local Government Board in this Bill, there is a tendency to do so.

I can assure the hon. Member who has just sat down that there is not the slightest desire on the part of the Department I represent to trench in any degree whatever on the province of Scottish questions. If the Scotch census has been included for the first time in the English Bill it is solely in order to save Parliamentary time in a session when less time than usual will be available for legislation. In regard to the particular clause by which this fusion is to be accomplished I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. friend the Lord Advocate for any explanations he requires. My hon. friend the Member for Wigan expressed the regret which he felt that I had made no statement in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I was under the impression that the Bill sufficiently explains itself, and moreover a statement was made on the First Reading. In all essential respects the House will see that, with the exception of the inclusion of Scotland, and of certain particulars suggested to us by the Royal Statistical Society, to whom I desire to render my acknowledgments for their assistance, the Bill is practically the same as that of 1890. There have been eliminated from the Bill of 1890 a number of what appeared to us to be superfluous clauses, which might very well be embodied in the instructions to the enumerators and give greater elasticity to these in carrying out their duties than would otherwise be possible. My hon. friends the Members for Wigan and Liskeard, and various other gentlemen, have called my attention to the desirability of having a census, not so complete and elaborate as that which is now to be taken, but still in some points of great importance, prepared quinquennially. I quite acknowledge that there would be many advan- tages to be gained in that respect; and I am aware also that a course of that kind was recommended by a Departmental Committee, although I think I am right in saying they were not altogether unanimous. What I want to point out is that the introduction of the present Bill is not in the least degree in conflict with these views. The Government considered the question, and we thought, on the whole, that if a quinquennial census is to be taken it should be provided for by a special Bill in 1905. I have stated that I agree with a great deal of what has been said on the subject on the present occasion. The mind of the Government is perfectly open on the question, and the House is not to understand, because it is not included in the present Bill, that we, should we be responsible at that date, shall be precluded from dealing with the question when the time comes. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs says we are very much behind other countries in connection with the census. I am afraid it may be so in some cases, but not in all. America has been often quoted, but I have reason to believe that the census returns in America are far less satisfactory than those in this country, and very often very much more inaccurate. The hon. Member says that the returns are good in Ireland, better still in Scotland, but altogether to be condemned and very bad in England. I can only point out that the instructions which the Local Government Board are by the Bill empowered to issue will leave a very wide discretion to the Department, and if the charges made against enumerators in England are founded upon fact it will be necessary to make better selections in future. The hon. Member for West Denbighshire complains of the day selected for the census, both on the ground that it is fixed for March 31, and also on the ground that that day is a Sunday. Sunday is not the day on which the work will be done, but it has been chosen because it is a day on which the majority of people are likely to be at home. I am glad to think that, on the whole, the Bill has been favourably received, and I hope that on an early day it will be allowed to pass into law, because there is a great deal of work to be done in connection with the collection of the returns; and the Registrar General's Office is very desirous to have an opportunity of proceeding with the work at the earliest moment.

pointed out that the sole reason given for the change in respect to the taking of the Scotch census was that it would save Parliamentary time. A Bill of this kind was always a non-contentious measure, and he saw no reason for the change being made.

always understood that the counsel of perfection was to have measures which dealt equally with the three kingdoms. That was the whole tendency and desire of modern legislation. The only difference between England and Scotland in this matter was that in Scotland the names were rather different. A house in Scotland meant a tenement in England, but matters of that kind could easily be put right. So far from the Bill being a retrograde step, it was in his opinion a great step in the opposite direction.

said he desired to know if there were any penalty clauses in the contracts connected with the ordnance factories for non-fulfilment of contracts. If there wore, did the contractors get off scot-free, or were the penalties enforced, and if not, why not?

There are penalty clauses in the contracts. Whether they are inflicted or not depends upon the excuse which the contractors make. The hon. Member who has asked the question knows as well as any hon. Member in this House the difficulties which the contractors have had in fulfilling their contracts, owing to the difficulty of obtaining materials.

No, no!

Well, if he does not know it I know it. Some of the contractors have failed to fulfil the terms of their contracts in a good many cases from circumstances over which they had no control. In some cases the penalties had been exacted, and in others they had not.

thought, if the War Office would invite tenders from a larger field instead of tying themselves to a small number of firms, the difficulties would not arise. The War Office confined themselves to two or three firms, and when there was a rush of orders they could not get them out. He was sure, if they spread their orders over a larger area, they would have an unlimited supply.

There are only two or three firms who do certain particular kinds of work, and, therefore, it is impossible to invite tenders from a larger number.

I desire to call attention to the question which was raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-east Manchester,^* whether it is true that two of the transports to South Africa had been supplied by the Admiralty with beef pickled in 1893. I think the accusation that seven-year-old beef was supplied is a very serious matter, and what I should like to have explained is what punishment has been inflicted upon the people who willingly and openly supply this beef? Some officer must have been responsible for having sent this beef to the victualling yard. It was supplied by the Admiralty, and not by the contractors for the transports. As it is a very serious matter that this state of things should exist, I want to see that care will be taken that it shall not happen again, and that those responsible for it should suffer to some extent.

said he thought if it was necessary to take stringent precautions with regard to the inspection of the food supplied to the mercantile marine, it was equally necessary to prevent the Admiralty re-issuing old provisions of that kind. He would like to know how it was that this 1893 beef escaped the inspection.

With regard to this particular beef of 1893 no complaints have previously been made with regard to it. It was landed from H.M.S. Raleigh, and after it had been surveyed by the officers of the victualling yard it was sent to the transport. There were only two con-

^*See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxix., page 1414.

demnations in regard to this beef during the voyage of the transport. The remainder of the salt beef supply was landed at the Cape, and it has been surveyed by the Board of Naval officers there, who have passed it as satisfactory. I quite agree that we should take every care to see that no beef of an undesirable character should be issued to the Navy or to the transports. In this case, however, every regulation was carefully attended to, and in my judgment no officer is at fault in the slightest degree, and I do not think there is any necessity that any special order or direction should be issued in connection with the matter. I will look very carefully into the whole of this matter, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is not the slightest reason to suppose that there has been any dereliction of duty on the part of anyone connected with the victualling yard. With regard to this question, however, I may tell the hon. Member opposite that it is not at all an unusual thing for seven years old salt beef to be in good condition, but the whole question of salt beef rations is now under the consideration of the Admiralty with a view to considering whether measures should not be taken to diminish the amount in the future.

Does beef that is seven years old require a Board or an officer to condemn it before its reissue can be prevented?

Yes, a survey. I have myself eaten salt beef which was a good deal older than that.

Shall I be in order in asking the First Lord of the Admiralty upon this Vote whether his Department will consider the question of sending a ship from time to time to protect our fisheries?

I must press the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to answer my question, and unless I get a satisfactory answer or some encouragement I shall feel it my duty to take a division against this Vote. The sums of money asked for here are very considerable in respect to Half Pay and Retired Pay, and I take it that it is not an unreasonable thing that we should get some return for this expenditure in the shape of the presence of a warship to protect our fisheries. I do not wish to delay the progress of these Votes, but I think I am entitled to some sort of a reply.

If the hon. Member is going to discuss Retired Pay, he is in order; otherwise not.

I am giving as a reason why we should pay this money that in return for it we should have a warship sent to protect our fisheries.

Upon those lines the hon. Member might discuss any subject he pleases.

If the right hon. Gentleman does not think it of sufficient importance to give me a reply—

Order, order! I should have to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from giving such an answer, because he would be out of order in dealing with fisheries.

I beg leave to move the Second Reading of this Bill. There is a great amount of interest taken in it not only on this side of the House, but also on the other side, and there is a general consensus of opinion that something should be done. The whole Bill is contained in one clause, which is almost word for word the recommendation which has been made by Lord Peel's Commission, both by the majority and the minority. That Commission was practically unanimous that the age at which intoxicating liquors should be supplied to children should be raised to sixteen. It is not necessary for me to give many arguments in its favour, because the infinite mischief which is being done in this country at the present time by the sale of intoxicating liquors to children of very tender age is very well known to hon. Members, and great mischief is done by such children going for liquor to public-houses. I know very well that the friends of temperance on the other side of the House are also very anxious that something should be done to minimise this evil.

I beg leave to move, "That the House do now adjourn." I think this motion is justified on the ground that there was an understanding that the House should adjourn after the Government business had been disposed of.

I protest against this course being taken, and I do not think we ought to assent to this proposal. I know of no such understanding as that which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to. The only understanding I know of is that the House should devote Friday evenings to Supply. If the Government, for reasons of their own, can appropriate Friday evenings for Government Bills, why on earth, at twenty minutes to six o'clock, when all the Government business is disposed of, should the House be prevented from discussing a Bill of great importance to the social interests of the people? This Bill is founded upon the unanimous recommendation of a Royal Commission, and I do not think, under these circumstances, that I am not using too strong language when I say that it is little short of a scandal that the House of Commons should be asked by the Government to assent to this proposal to burke this most useful and most important measure.

With what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife has just said I think the majority of the House will cordially agree. It certainly does seem an extraordinary state of things that, because the Government have had their business facilitated this evening from every quarter of the House, they should now wish to prevent private Members from proceeding with Bills of this kind. Does the right hon. Gentleman object to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which has the approval of all sections of the House? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife has used the word "scandal," and I do not think it is too strong a word at all in regard to this proposal. I ask what will the people of the country at large think if they are obliged to read in the newspapers that, at a quarter to six o'clock, because the Government had done their business, they insisted upon adjourning the House without giving private Members an opportunity of dealing with this Bill. Certainly this session there has been no Bill proposed of more importance than this now before the House. It is a temperance Bill, and it is one which I do not believe those connected with the drink trade in the country would object to very seriously themselves. Are we now to be told that a Bill of this kind is to be strangled and blocked not because a majority of the House is against it, but because the Government desire to have a night off? I dare say private Members in this House are just as anxious to have a night off as hon. Members opposite, but it is a monstrous thing to say that the Government should come here and prevent those willing to remain to do some useful work from doing it because the Government work has been disposed of. Private Members occupy a different position to members of the Government. It is the duty of the members of the Government not only to see that Government business is done, but to give private Members assistance upon occasions like this. So far this session private Members have had absolutely no opportunities, and a private Member might as well have been absent from the House altogether. The Government have transacted their business without consulting the wishes of private Members at all, because they have appropriated almost every hour of the time of Parliament since the session began. I hope, under these circumstances, hon. Members will oppose the motion for the adjournment, and let this Bill be considered. I believe a Bill which has for its object to prevent young children going to public houses, where they would probably learn to drink and become demoralised, will be passed by an enormous majority. I see the hon. Member for South Belfast in his place. On some questions of temperance legislation he and I have not always agreed, but this Bill I heartily support, and I appeal to the hon. Member, in the interests of the temperance cause, which he is always so ready to support, to oppose this motion. The proposition of the First Lord of the Admiralty is so unreasonable and preposterous, that I do not believe the House will sanction it, and if it does it will be universally condemned throughout the country when it is known that, instead of allowing private Members to discuss a Bill of this kind, the Government, having voted all their money, want to go off to spend the evening at the Empire or the Alhambra.

May I appeal to Her Majesty's Government not to persist with this motion. I do not know a more important measure than the measure which has been referred to, or one which the best people in the land more earnestly desire to see passed into law. Both the minority and majority Reports of the Royal Commission which was appointed by Her Majesty's Government to inquire into the Licensing Laws, and which gave three years hard labour to the subject, were unanimous in support of this measure. I can hardly imagine that Her Majesty's Government are going to burke discussion on such a Bill, and in making a most earnest appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury I can assure him that hundreds and thousands of the best supporters of the Government are thoroughly in favour of this Bill. It is only ten minutes to six o'clock now, and we have an opportunity of passing the Second Reading of a Bill which will be beneficial not only to the present generation but to all future generations in the country. I most earnestly appeal to Her Majesty's Government, which is anxious to be known as a Government desirous of promoting domestic legislation, to give us an opportunity of discussing the Bill to-night, otherwise I will certainly be under the painful necessity of voting against the motion.

After the appeal of the hon. Gentleman, I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will see his way to withdraw the motion of the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is very clear that there is a general concensus of opinion in favour of the Bill. I submit this question to the First Lord of the Treasury. Their great majority was given to the Government in 1895 for a specific purpose, and that was that they were to devote their attention to matters of social legislation for this country. Are we to understand now that this great majority is to be used for the purpose of stifling a measure which touches the young life of the country, and would prevent children of twelve or thirteen years of age being sent to public-houses, where they would come under the evils and the vicious influences of the drink traffic? Will the Government, in face of the emphatic opinion expressed in this House, insist on the motion for the adjournment? The Bill can be discussed in about an hour. There is not any serious difference of opinion upon it, and it has not been sprung newly upon the country. The hon. Member for East Clare talked about the Alhambra and the Empire. I do not think the Government are acting from any such motive, but I think that they have not realised the great volume of opinion against selling drink to children. I make an appeal to the Government as one knowing the people of this country. I come from a great industrial centre—one of the most congested industrial centres in this country—and I know the feeling of the people on this question, and I do not think that the Government, if indicted at the bar of public opinion, can give any satisfactory justification for the course they now propose to take. I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury, now that he has heard the opinion on his own side of the House—an opinion which is strongly shared on this side—to withdraw the motion for the adjournment.

I join in the appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury not to crush the first attempt made this session to carry temperance legislation with a measure which had the unanimous approval of both the minority and majority Reports of the Royal Commission. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to celebrate the Queen's visit to London by allowing us to carry a measure which is in the best interests of the Queen's younger subjects. I regret exceedingly to take up a position of even apparent hostility to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, but on this occasion, feeling intensely for the cause for which I have been working all my life, I join in the appeal to the Government. I should regret extremely to be under the necessity of voting against the motion.

I wish to associate myself with the appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to allow this Bill to be proceeded with. Having served on the Royal Commission, I can say that, of all the disputed questions we had to consider, the practical proposal in this Bill was received with entire unanimity, and was supported not only by temperance; reformers, but also by those who do not ordinarily work for temperance reform. It is one of those questions which appeals to every man. The Bill would prevent the degradation of young children in this country by removing the opportunities which they have at present of visiting public-houses in a way which I am sure no one wishes. The opportunity having accidentally occurred, I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will allow us to deal with this Bill. I am a little afraid Her Majesty's Government are not very active in bringing forward some of the reforms—

Order, order! The only question is the adjournment of the House.

I will only appeal again to the First Lord of the Treasury to give us this opportunity.

I need not say that I thoroughly understand the motives which have influenced my hon. friend who has just sat down, my hon. friend the Member for South Belfast, and hon. Gentlemen opposite in appealing to the Government to allow this Bill to go on. Their reasons are not based on reasons of procedure; they are based on an earnest desire that this opportunity should be taken to help to carry into law what they believe, and what certainly I am not going to deny to be, a great temperance reform. I am not going to discuss the merits of the Bill, because it is not in regard to the merits of the Bill that I should be disposed to support the motion. But the general convenience of procedure is a motive which should not be lightly thrown aside by hon. Members because of their predilection for any particular measure. It will be remembered that it was the desire of the Government that the Factories Bill should be brought on to-night, and if it had been taken I suppose we should have a long and interesting debate on it. An appeal was made to me by hon. Gentlemen interested in that Bill to defer it on the ground that they preferred a longer time to consider its provisions. That Bill also deals with the health and social condition of the people; it is, moreover, a measure of the very greatest importance, but we were appealed to by various hon. Members interested in it to put it off for some time longer in order that they might have a better opportunity of considering its provisions in detail. Why is the same justice or injustice not to be meted out to the private Member as was meted out to the Government?

The Government can take a day any time they like.

The Bill we are now asked to consider came on, by the admission of my hon. friend, accidentally. Not a single hon. Member interested in the Bill yesterday conceived that this measure would come before the House of Commons to-day. I have my doubts whether of the ten or twelve hon. Members whose names appear on the back of the Bill there is one now present.

Four Members at least are present.

They are Mr. Souttar, Sir Robert Reid, Sir James Haslett, Sir Thomas Gibson Carmichael, Mr. Herbert Pease, Mr. Whittaker, Mr. Herbert Roberts, Mr. Provand, and Mr. Douglas. I do not consider that on Friday nights it is for the general convenience of the House that these Bills should be allowed to come on without notice. That principle has been pressed on me by hon. Gentlemen opposite Friday after Friday, and I do not think it is in accordance with the general judicious conduct of our debates that we should depart from a rule which, so far as I know, has been universally accepted during all the sessions in which Fridays have been devoted to the purposes of Supply. The Bill itself is one whose object, at all events, everybody in the House would desire to see carried out. Its object is to promote temperance among the young, and I cannot conceive a more important subject; but, whether this Bill provides the proper machinery to carry that object out, or whether it is a Bill which, in its present form, ought to pass, is a question on which I am quite incapable of giving an opinion, because, like the rest of the House, I had no idea that it was coming on, and therefore I did not prepare myself for the discussion of the subject. My case is that, I am sure, of the great mass of those who are listening to me; it is the case of a large number of gentlemen who are not here, but who would have been in the House had they thought the Bill was coming on. Under these circumstances I should not advise the House to dissent from the motion of my hon. friend.

The argument with which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has just concluded his speech is an argument that would apply to any Bill on any Paper except the first two or three, which are usually Government measures, and which the House expects to come on. The right hon. Gentleman puts forward the best plea he can; but if I had any regard, which I have not, to any party advantage over the right hon. Gentleman, I should very much like to go to a division now, and let the country see that we have, on the one hand, an opportunity of debating this undoubtedly useful Bill carrying out the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission, and, on the other hand, we have the somewhat pedantic and little considerations which the right hon. Gentleman has just addressed to the House. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that a Bill of this sort, in ordinary circumstances, is not expected to come on on a Friday; but who is it that has "un-Fridayed" this particular Friday? Who is it that has unfrocked the Friday? It is the Government themselves, not from any fault of their own, because I quite admit that we have no right to blame them for any confusion into which their business has fallen owing to the lamented illness of one of their numbers—the Member in charge of the Army Estimates. But the right hon. Gentleman having no Estimates which he could propose to the House to-night, took a stage of three important Government Bills, which was unexpected except for the very short notice given at midnight last night, and which could have had no effect on those hon. Members interested in these Bills, who had gone to the country for the week end. Surely, these small considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and which are out of place to-night, because, as I have said, the Government themselves have departed from the usual Friday practice, will not prevail with the House. I trust the House will take the advantage of this opportunity, which we hail with satisfaction, of passing a most important and vital stage of a measure which is universally accepted by all shades of opinion on the subject of licensing as a reform urgently required in the interests of young people.

I am not one of the promoters of this Bill, but I most certainly say that I shall vote against the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, on the ground of the rights of private Members alone. I ask whether this session there is to be an understanding that private Members are to have no legislation at all. This is the second time this week that the Government have supported a motion for adjournment immediately on the conclusion of their own business. The old practice used to be when I first came into the House that, if there was no Government business, private Members got the advantage. Why on earth should not private Members have the crumbs which fall from the Government table? At any rate, if this rule is to be laid down, let it be an open and well established rule. It was said that this Bill came on unexpectedly, and that hon. Members were therefore unprepared for it; but the proper way to meet that was to move the adjournment of the debate, not the adjournment of the House. This is really a question of the rights of private Members. If, as a matter of course, we are simply here night after night to register the decrees of the Government in granting them Votes in Supply, I for one, as a loyal supporter, would have been ready and willing to do so; but I do think that when private Members get a chance, as they have this evening, they should not be deprived of their rights and privileges by the Government.

If my hon. friend will allow me to say it, he seems to think that the action of the Government is directed against private Members. I can assure him that is not the case. We may be right or we may be wrong in the action we have taken; but we conceived ourselves to be acting as the guardians of the rights of private Members in taking care that a measure which private Members did not expect to come on should not be taken on a day when such measures are not usually discussed.

If this is the way the Government propose to protect private Members' rights, I can see that very soon private Members will have no rights to protect. There is another consideration. All of us have been struck within the last few months with the tone adopted by a large section of the press of the country in regard to the attitude of the Government to the House. I think that that attack upon the House of Commonswill be to a large extent justified if we abrogate in this way all the powers of legislation by private Members. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there are a large number of Members, even on this side of the House, who strongly object to the threatened extinction of all private Members' rights, and especially the action of the Government in doing their best to adjourn the House the other night and to-night.

The right hon. Gentleman has taken credit that the Government did not go on with the Factories and Workshops Bill to-night. I do not think the Government can claim any credit for that; for it is a very large and complicated measure, and was only received by Members yesterday morning. I am surprised that the Government, which professed at the general election to be such advocates of social reform, should have blocked a measure of social reform by moving the adjournment of the House. This is not the first time that this has occurred, because on Tuesday last a very useful measure introduced by my right hon. friend below the gangway (Sir C. Dilke) was also blocked. I protest against the action of the Government.

I make a very strong appeal to the Leader of the House to give way in this matter. My name is on the Bill. I am one of those who had the honour to serve on the Royal Commission, and heard the evidence from beginning to end, and I wish to urge the strength of the evidence in favour of the single operative clause of this Bill. The House of Commons may well spend an hour in discussing a measure which will be of undoubted benefit to the community.

I oppose the adjournment of the House. It is a monstrous thing that such a large House as is present should be asked to adjourn in daylight, when there is a Bill before it for discussion in which so many Members are interested. It is a non-contentious Bill, and, from my own knowledge, the trade in Ireland do not oppose it. I may say without any disrespect that the First Lord of the Admiralty has blundered in moving the adjournment of the House. The First Lord of the Treasury is almost always happy in difficult situations, but to my mind he did not make out a good case for putting off the discussion of this Bill. I would therefore appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty to ask leave to withdraw his motion, which I am sure will be given. After all, the discussion will not take so very long, and the Second Reading may be agreed to on the understanding that the Bill goes to a Committee, where it may be improved. Probably some of the members of the Government want to go to some entertainment. If so, they can go, and leave us here to do the business of the nation. I appeal to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who takes such a deep interest in temperance, to induce the First Lord of the Admiralty to withdraw his motion.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have entreated the Government to withdraw the motion on the ground that this is a good Bill, but whether the Bill is a good one or a bad one is not the question. The question is whether we shall alter the procedure of adjourning on Fridays after Government business, a procedure which has obtained for the last four or five sessions, and which has worked well. It would be impossible, after Government business, to consider whether or not there happened to be a Bill down which, in the opinion of the few Members generally present on Friday evenings, was a good one, and therefore should be taken; or whether all the bills were bad, and therefore should not be taken. If the procedure is altered, all Bills, whether good or bad, must be taken, and the result would be that many Bills would obtain a Second Reading which ordinarily would be rejected. The late Home Secretary said the Government had "un-Friday'd" Friday. That is true, but it was done in the interests of hon. Gentlemen opposite; and, had the Factory Bill, which was to have been taken, and which also was abandoned at the request of hon. Gentlemen opposite, been proceeded with, the whole evening would have been taken up.

The fact that there are such a large number of Members in the House is a sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Without going into the merits of the Bill, which touches a subject of great importance and excites a great deal of interest throughout the country, I think it would be almost a disgrace to the House of Commons to adjourn at a quarter past six on a Friday afternoon, when we expected to be here the whole evening, and not to afford time to discuss this Bill. If it passes the Second Reading, and should turn out incapable of amendment in Committee, it can easily be thrown out on the Third Reading. We should expose ourselves to the charges of cowardice if, having this Bill brought before us, we could not afford time to discuss it. It is always with great regret that I go against the Leader of the House, but unless the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty withdraws the motion, I shall be compelled to vote against the Government.

I only want to point out that this Bill is practically unopposed. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No, No," and "Agreed."] There is scarcely a Member in the House who would venture to go before any constituency in the country and say he opposes the Bill. It is the manifest wish of the majority of hon. Members present that the Bill should be discussed, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of meeting the wishes of the House.

I would suggest to the Leader of the House that the question should be put to the House without the Government Whips taking charge of the division.

I do not think that my hon. friend's suggestion would be a proper one, for the motion was made by a member of the Government in my absence, and it would have been made by me had I been present. I wish, however, the House to understand that, while I give them the best advice in my power, it is not my intention to attempt to drive the House. According to my judgment the course pressed upon me is not a very wise one, and possibly there may come a time when the Leader of the Opposition would come to see that himself. The only wish I would utter at the present moment is, that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will recollect that his view is that if a Bill is down on the Paper, even if it comes on in a most unexpected manner, there is no reason why it should not be fully discussed by the House. I will remember it.

That might be a very good reason for moving the adjournment of the debate on an individual Bill, but not the adjournment of the House.

I really do not see any distinction between the two. There were two Bills which came on absolutely without notice, and the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is no reason why they should not be discussed, and that he would take the same view, whether the Bill was a Government Bill or a private Member's Bill. I take a different view, and I only wish that the doctrine now uttered by the right hon. Gentleman from his responsible position will recur to his mind on some subsequent occasion when the Government is desirous of passing a Bill which, owing to some Parliamentary accident, has come on somewhat earlier than was expected, or on an occasion not anticipated. However, so far as I can collect the general view of the House, it is that they are so desirous of this particular measure that they are prepared to abandon the general principle of procedure which usually appeals to their minds. I do not agree, as I have said, but if they take that view I shall not insist on the motion for which I am practically responsible.

I cannot help thinking that this Bill, coming on without warning, has put some of us in a somewhat unfortunate position, for we have not had time to consider it, or to read the evidence of the Royal Commission on which it is based. Everybody will agree that it is wrong to sell intoxicating drink to children, but whether this Bill will effect the object for which it is intended I think is extremely doubtful.

I think the House will approve of the very few words I have to say. At the first glance this Bill seems admirable, but on mature consideration it appears to be less admirable. My objections to it are twofold. In the first place, a very large number of children under sixteen years of age represent themselves as over sixteen, and those who value truthfulness should not put temptation in the way of children to make them untruthful. In the second place, I wish to point out that this is not in my opinion temperance legislation, but legislation to prohibit children under sixteen years of age from purchasing drink. Now, who sends the children to purchase the drink? Their parents. Who will fetch the drink in future if the children do not? Why, the parents. [An HON. MENBER: Who will drink it? The parents.] Is it not likely that the parents will remain in the public-houses to drink, and that will not promote drinking at home? They will, therefore, drink very much more than if they drank it at home. It seems to me that an evil, which I recognise, is going to be superseded by an evil which, for anything I know to the contrary, will be greater. If I were a publican I would support the Bill, because more drink will be consumed if it is passed than at present. Hon. Gentlemen may say that the parents will send children for the drink who are over sixteen years of age, but I would far rather send a child of thirteen or fourteen to a public-house than a child, especially a girl, over sixteen.

I must admit that, like the rest of the House, I have been taken completely by surprise by finding that I am expected to deal with this subject this evening. As hon. Members very well know, the question before us is not devoid of difficulty, and is one which has occupied the attention of the House before. It was referred to a Select Committee of the House some years ago, and a Bill was brought before the House in a different form from that now before the House, in which very considerable alteration was made. I am told that an argument is derived from the recent Report of the Licensing Commission, where both the majority and the minority of the Commission agreed at all events with the principle of this Bill. When I look into the details of this Bill I am almost inclined to think that they go beyond the provisions which ought to be made. To say that children of fifteen or sixteen are not under any circumstances to be at liberty to fetch their parents' beer is going a long way in the direction of interfering with the liberty of the working classes, who would be the first to complain if this or other measures were passed hastily on the strict lines which the Licensing Commission has taken. Although I regret I have not had further time to look into this matter, I may say that, so far as the Government is concerned, they will offer no opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill.

I think the House would do well on this occasion to let this Bill go through without a division. We are all agreed that the sale of drink to children under sixteen for their own consumption is wrong, and it is quite possible that the Bill may be so amended as to condemn the sale of drink to children for their own consumption while not preventing them from fetching their father's dinner beer. If that were done the Bill might be a useful one.

I do not think that anyone will say that I would oppose any measure tending to promote temperance and thrift, but in a measure like this we are very liable to run away with sentiment and overlook the practical bearing of it. Are we prepared to say it is a crime for a working man to have beer with his dinner? If it is not a crime, can it be said to be a crime for him to send a member of his family to get it? You say it is a great evil to send younger children, therefore he must send the older ones. But it seems to me you are increasing the danger by making this age limit of the child sixteen. It is a most impressionable age, especially in girls, and in my opinion it would be far more dangerous to send girls of between sixteen and twenty, who are liable to temptations from which younger children are exempt. I am fully in accord with any measure to promote social improvement, but on this occasion I take the same line as that taken by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who, when some years ago a similar measure was proposed, opposed it on those grounds. I regret the heat which has been imported into the discussion, which cannot by any possibility be a party measure, and I am strongly of opinion that this change, if effected, will not benefit those people whom we wish to benefit.

said he understood that in order to discuss this Bill hon. Members had been prepared to go to the verge of beating the Government. No explanation had been vouchsafed from the other side in reply to the arguments which had been put forward, and in the absence of arguments in favour of the Bill he should vote against the Second Reading. Of course this was a well-intentioned Bill; every Bill was that did mischief. Intoxication was not the only or the most serious vice in the world, there were others which had more serious and material effects, and the Bill as it was framed might lead to serious evils. Of course nobody was in favour of intoxication, unless it were the Kitchen Committee, and he did not suggest that even they approved of it. If the Bill simply prohibited the sale of liquor to children for their own consumption he should be prepared to vote for it, but having regard to the vagueness of its language, he was not prepared to take that course.

I cannot understand why this subject should take the Home Secretary by surprise, for it is one with which the man in the street is very well acquainted. Neither is it a surprise to the magistrates, or chairmen of quarter sessions, or the Royal Commission which inquired into the subject. If this question was put to working men's political clubs of all shades of opinion the unanimous answer would be, "Let us save the children from this temptation." Whether the age of the children should be fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen is a point for a Committee, but on the broad question as to whether children should be allowed to go into beerhouses and off-licensed houses, hon. Members will agree that children should be kept from the baneful influence of such places. There is another point. Intemperance, though decreasing among working men in poor neighbourhoods, is increasing very rapidly among the women. There is a class of women, commonly known as "soakers," who lose self-respect and put on slatternly habits, who are given to secret drinking, and who regularly employ children between the ages of nine and thirteen to fetch their drink at various public-houses. The result is that in some districts scores of boys and girls earn money regularly by fetching drink for these women, who would not but for the children be able to indulge their craving. By frequenting the public-house children mix in evil associations which influence them in later years. I appeal to the House to revert to its instinctive common sense, and to pass a Bill which the Commission recommended, and which everybody interested in the welfare of the people has long demanded.

complained that the Bill had been sprung on the House, and said that although hon. Members had stated that everybody was in favour of the Bill, it was not in fact a good Bill. No age could be worse than sixteen for girls to go to a public house—an age when children were most impressionable, and most likely to be influenced by their surroundings. He also thought that it was a monstrous thing that the publican should be compelled to decide as to the age of children who came to his house. He was not in a position to discuss the Bill at any length, and concluded by moving the adjournment of the debate.

I think that I ought not to accept that motion. The unanimous decision of the House to allow the motion for the adjournment of the House to be withdrawn is substantially the expression of a desire to continue the debate.

The whole object of this discussion was to pass this Bill, which was supposed to be so short and simple. That being so, there is no reason to remit it to the Committee on Law. A Committee of this House is quite competent to judge the age at which a girl shall be allowed to enter a public-house.

I hope there will not be any disposition to press this motion upon the House. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would have opposed the Bill if they had thought it was not going before a Committee of the whole House.

said that if the motion were accepted the Home Secretary would have an opportunity of considering the details of the measure.

said that he hoped the motion would not be pressed. The general sense of the House was in favour of the Bill being discussed in Committee of the whole House.

I need detain the House with but few observations in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. This is the only country in Europe where women, without being qualified by skill or good character, are allowed to practise as midwives. The present Bill has been carefully thought out, and its promoters have been aided by the advice of the General Medical Council. It provides for the establishment of a General Midwives Board, largely composed of medical men but partly composed of laymen. This Board will frame rules for the examination of women wishing to follow the profession of midwife; and there will also be provision for the registering of women now in practice, who can produce evidence of good character. Under the Bill no woman will be allowed to practise for gain without a certificate which will be granted and issued by the Board after examination of the candidate, With this certificate there is coupled the further provision that before a woman commences to practise in any district of the country she must take out a licence from the local supervising authority. The county council is recommended as the supervising authority under the statute, with power, if need be, to delegate that authority to the sanitary authority. The general effect of this will be that some satisfactory proof of training and capacity should be given before a woman is allowed to take up the practice of midwifery, and that when she does begin her practice there shall be control, wherever she is carrying on her practice, of the supervising authority. I know that I should not be justified in detaining the House further, but I wish you to consider what are the sufferings of the poor women in England from the treatment of rough, ignorant, and in many cases dissolute women, of whose former career they know nothing, and of whose qualifications they know nothing. Those who have been about among the poor will know the immense amount of suffering caused to the women and children by unskilled nursing. I dare say I shall be told that the poor law is strong enough. I have not been a member of a board of guardians for many years without knowing that this is not the case. When you consider the number of women who require attention of this kind, I hope the House will not reject this Bill lightly or unadvisedly, but will give it a Second Reading on this occasion, and allow its defects, if it has defects, to be considered in Committee. If it can be improved and put in a more workable shape, let that be done in Committee.

I would ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. It has been before the House a great number of years, and it has had the support of several Select Committees. I believe the House will be doing its duty and attending to a great need if it gives this Bill a Second Reading. For some years the medical profession was against any Bill of this nature being introduced into this House, but I am glad to say that now there are unmistakable signs that the opinion of a great number of medical men on this subject has changed. Those connected with large working-class districts know how much suffering arises from midwives who have not had adequate medical instruction. Their medical instruction is provided for in the Bill. We have carried out as far as we were able the representations of the Privy Council, and leading medical bodies, as to what is desirable, and we have removed those obstacles which might stand in the way of the support of the public and of the medical profession. The right of friendly neighbours to assist in cases of labour has been preserved. We all know that in country districts there may be cases where a midwife is not within reasonable distance, and where a friendly neighbour has to be called in to give assistance. That has been provided for, and has removed much opposition.

Instead of being fully agreed, I certainly mean to oppose this Bill as vehemently and persistently as I can, and I believe I will get the support of some hon. Members in the House, if not a majority. Let me acknowledge at once the persistency of the hon. Gentleman who has brought forward the Bill. He has kept me in attendance at this House while he has been attempting—I will not say to smuggle through the measure, for I recognise in him an honourable as well as an honest antagonist—but while he has been endeavouring to get this Bill through in all kinds of unseasonable hours, and without discussion. You have here an admitted evil, and immediately some ardent philanthropic reformer, conscious of the evil and deeply and honourably moved by it, brings before this House a remedy which at first sight may seem good, but which you will find on examination will aggravate the evil with which it proposes to deal. Nobody denies that there is a great deal of bad nursing in the country, but there is also a great deal of good nursing as well. I altogether take exception to the picture drawn by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Johnstone), and by the Gentleman who seconded the Bill, of the way in which women are attended to in their confinements. What happens in country districts is this. A woman is called in to a confinement as an attendant. But a confinement is a natural process, and usually is effected successfully. The picture drawn of the drunken, incompetent nurse is entirely the result of an imagination inflamed by philanthropic feeling.

I have known two cases this winter in my own small village, in which from no lack of sympathy, but on account of unskilled assistance on the part of friendly neighbours, confinements have been attended by most sad results.

If this Bill passes you will have the sad results multiplied by ten. If the Bill would diminish by 5 or 10 per cent. the sad results—to use the language of my hon. friend—then I would support it, and I would say it is a step in the right direction, but my contention is that it is a step in the wrong direction, that it is retrogressive and not progressive, and that it will accentuate and not retard the evil of which you complain. The hon. Member said there was a change in medical opinion in regard to the Bill. What is the proof of that statement? I have in my hand a letter from the editor of the Lancet—and everybody knows that that journal is the most influential authority of the medical profession—in which he states that a circular letter was issued to the medical profession in England with a view to ascertaining the opinion of the profession on the Bill. He received 7,250 replies, and an analysis of the answers shows that 1,547 medical men are in favour of the Bill, 640 are indifferent, while the remaining 5,000 odd are opposed to the measure. I think I am entitled to give that as a specimen of the kind of argument by which this Bill is backed up. What does the Bill propose to do? In regard to the subject of midwifery, medical education has made enormous progress during the past few years. There was a time when a midwifery degree could be obtained by any medical man. The midwifery form of degree was the last that a medical man got. But medical men have seen that it is most important to take up this part of the medical profession with proper training, and the result is that to-day a man is not entitled to take up midwifery practice unless he has a medical and surgical certificate. The proposal of my hon. friend is that women are to have three months training for the work for which a medical man requires five years.

There is nothing about three months training in the Bill. The rules are to be approved by the General Medical Council.

I have not read the Bill for a few days, but I understand that the Bill will only insist on women having three months training. What I maintain is this: if you are going to entitle a woman to act, not merely as a midwife, but to act as a fully trained medical practitioner—["No, no!"]—I wish to make my statement in my own way, with- out unfair interruption. The effect of the Bill will be to make a midwife assume the duties and responsibilities of a medical practitioner. I protest against that to the utmost. Ignorance is very bad, but half knowledge is sometimes worse. The inadequate training you give to these midwives will give them all the pretences and privileges of the properly qualified, and whatever safeguards you may put on it, the result will be that, instead of calling in a fully-trained medical man who has spent five years of his life in qualifying, the certificated nurse will be called in, and the results will be very serious. Another point is this. My hon. friend, and all those who are in favour of the Bill, speak as if confinement were a serious disease. It is a natural process which, if nature be allowed to take its own course, will usually be attended with successful results. Ignorance and interference may convert confinements into surgical cases in which incompetence will

seconded the motion.