To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will grant a Sunday delivery of mails at Moyschool Lahinch, county Clare. (Answer.) The Postmaster General will consider the question of establishing a Sunday post to Moyschool Lahinch, county Clare, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.—(Post Office.)

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state how many torpedo boats and destroyers have run aground or been in collision during the last two years. (Answer.) In 1900, two torpedo boats and one destroyer ran aground, and six torpedo boats and forty-one destroyers were in collision. In 1901, two torpedo boats and four destroyers ran aground, and five torpedo boats and fifty destroyers were in collision. In many cases the collisions were very slight and no serious; damage resulted.—(Admiralty.)

said if the hon. Member considered the words of the Bill were not sufficient to meet the object he had in view, he (Mr. Johnstone) would accept the new clause.

said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would see his way also to accept the new clause he now moved.

pointed out that this new clause rather went beyond the scope of the Bill, because it provided for inspection by the county. Clause 7 already provided for the homes of these women in the ordinary way. He could not accept the new clause.

did not think the hon. Member realised the extent of the evil that the hon. Member for South-West Manchester sought to prevent. Most of the homes were nothing else than places kept for the practice of criminal offences. He himself had had: to stand the strain of long legal proceedings arising out of a case that he had exposed in a newspaper. As a matter of fact, the number of these so-called lying-in homes was very large, and in many parts of the country they had become a public nuisance. As the Bill stood at present, there was very little remedy against these homes, and they would be able to flourish as well after the passage of this Bill as before. That was the point the hon. Gentleman did not realise. The hon. Member was anxious that a reform should be brought about, and in his anxiety to get some reform passed he did not realise the evil he would allow to exist if he did not accept this Amendment. It was not unreasonable to ask to have an inspection of lying-in homes. He thought it should be the duty of the County Councils to inspect these homes, and he supported the new clause.

expressed the opinion that if this Bill became law this clause would have to be passed sooner or later. These homes were very often great fomenters of immorality, and places where immorality was concealed and malpractices took place. None of them, however, could be carried on with efficiency without having a certain amount of connection with the medical profession. When any sickness or illness occurred in them, there must be a member of the registered medical profession called in to look after the cases. But this guarantee would be removed if the Bill passed in its present form. These homes would be entirely officered and worked by persons registered under the Bill; and, therefore, the guarantee against malpractices and immorality would be smaller than under the existing state of the law. Sooner or later it would be incumbent on the House, whether in this Bill or not, to look after these places when women were once licensed to practice the art of midwifery. As there was a danger to society involved, he supported the clause of the hon. Member.

said everyone recognised the immense importance of the fact that the inspection of the sanitary conditions of these homes was necessary, but he was not clear that the clause might not be held to apply to private houses. The wording of the clause was a little loose, and might give rise to a great deal of inconvenience and expense.

When I saw this clause on the Paper, I thought it hardly came within the title of the Bill. It certainly does not deal with any matter which is germane to its main principle—that is to say, that every woman who desires to practise the art of midwifery must obtain a certificate. This clause goes considerably beyond that. I think it certainly would apply to every private house, and it might be enforced against any lady who takes a relative in to nurse. I would ask my hon. friend not to press the clause at this stage. I will consider the subject in order to see whether it can be dealt with in another place, so as to prevent houses from being used for purposes for which they are not fitted.

said he only intended the clause to apply to these lying-in homes, and certainly did not intend that it should apply to private houses. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself that such a clause should be inserted in another place, he would be quite satisfied.

I can give no such pledge as the hon. Member asks. I cannot control the action of the other House. The proposal of the hon. Member is very wide, and I will consider what can be done.

thought that under those circumstances it would be better to insert the clause and let it be amended, if carried, in another place.

said there was a very strong feeling in the House upon this subject, and he hoped that, whatever was done hereafter, those who watched over the matter would have regard to this evil.

thought the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman was of an extremely vague character, and he hoped under the circumstances the hon. Member would go to a division. On the one hand there was the hon. Member for the Horsham Division and those who supported him, who were against this clause; on the other there was the British Medical Association, which was in favour

moved to leave out Clause 9, and insert the following clause—

"No woman shall hold herself out as a practising midwife in any county or county borough without having previously obtained from the local supervising authority a licence enabling her to practice therein, which licence shall be granted on proof by the woman that her name is on the midwives roll. The licence shall remain in force till the thirty-first day of December following, and shall be revocable at any time by the local supervising authority in case the holder be proved to the satisfaction of the Central Midwives Board to have in fringed any of the regulations framed under this Act. The licence shall be issued on payment of a fee of one shilling; is shall only be available in the county for which it is issued, and it shall be renewed annually on the first day of January."

add that what was proposed in the clause moved by the hon. Member was already provided for by clause 9, which was as follows—

"Every woman certified under this Act shall, before holding herself out as a practising midwife, or commencing to practise as a midwife in any area, give notice in writing of her intention so to do to the local supervising authority, or to the body to whom for the time being the powers and duties of the local supervising authority shall have been delegated under this Act, and shall give a like notice in the month of January in every year thereafter during which she continues to practise in such area.

"Such notice shall be given to the local supervising authority of the area within which such woman usually resides or carries on her practice, and the like notice shall he given to every other local supervising authority or delegated hotly within whose area such woman at any time practises or acts as a midwife, within forty-eight hours at the latest after she commences so to practise or act.

Every such notice shall contain such particulars as may be required by the Rules under this Act to secure the identification of the person giving it; and if any woman omits to give the said notices, or any of them, or knowingly or wilfully makes or causes or procures any other person to make any false statement in any such notice she shall on summary conviction be liable to a line not exceeding five pounds."

expressed the hope that the House would not accept the clause proposed by the hon. Member. At first he was strongly in favour of the licensing of midwives, but now he gladly accepted the proposal in the Bill as it stood.

supported the new clause. He did not see any reason why it should not be adopted. The authority granting a licence would have much stronger control over the midwife than if she were allowed to practise after giving notice.

said if the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division were adopted it would make the Bill practically inoperative in South London. A large number of these women would be obliged to take out licences in half-a-dozen different areas, and they would find difficulty in doing so.

said that under Clause 9 a woman would be obliged to give notice in writing of her intention to practise as a midwife, and that being so there could surely be no objection to her being asked to take out a licence, which would only cost a shilling. The fact of her taking out a licence would be an additional guarantee that she was qualified, because the local sanitary authorities would take care that the woman was qualified. Only the other evening he was called to a very difficult case, which had been going on from Tuesday until Saturday. The woman would have died if a medical man had not been called in. If the woman who was attending to the case had had a licence the sanitary authority would have struck her off the roll, but as she required no licence she could snap her fingers at any sanitary authority.

May I rise to a point of order. After voting in the "No" Lobby, I went by mistake; into the "Aye" Lobby.

If the hon. Member voted in the "No" Lobby, I presume his name has been reckoned among the "Noes."

Yes, Sir. I did not vote in the "Aye" Lobby, but the teller in the "Aye" Lobby insisted on counting me.

The hon. Member was in the "Aye" Lobby, and I insisted on counting him.

Is the hon. Gentleman's name put down on both sides?

Yes, Sir; I believe on both sides.

If the Tellers are agreed that the hon. Member's name has been put down upon both sides, of course I must ask the hon. Member on which side he first voted. If they are not agreed, I shall take the return of the Tellers. The "Ayes" are 59, and

May I ask how it is possible for an hon. Member to get into both Lobbies?

I beg to move as an Amendment—

"Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'shall,' insert 'habitually and for gain attend women in childbirth or shall."'

What I said was, "in a large proportion of cases."

When I look at the hon. Member's head it seems to me rather long. If such words as I have included in my Amendment are not inserted, fatal results in cases of puerperal fever, insanitary conditions, and abnormal presentations, will be far greater in proportion to those at present recorded in the Rotunda Hospital.

I do not wish to complain of a want of courtesy on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but I think he should have given his views to the House on the Amendment before other hon. Members were called upon to speak. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that this Amendment is very vital to the Hill; and it is not right that it should be passed or rejected sub silentio. I earnestly appeal to the promoters of the Bill and to the Home Secretary to meet the opponents of the Bill as it is drawn on this point. In the first place, the object of this Amendment is not to weaken the Bill, but to strengthen it. In the next place, the effect of the acceptance of this Amendment would be to remove what would be a great obstacle against the success of the Bill passing into law, and of the working of the Bill when passed: while it would also avoid a considerable amount of hostility on the part of the medical profession. I am asked to support this Amendment on behalf of the British Medical Association, and by the General Practitioners' Association. I believe, likewise, that the British Medical Council, the highest professional body in the country, is also in favour of the Amendment. Although I am not entitled to say that the whole medical profession stands behind me, I think I may say that the great representative bodies of the profession support this Amendment. That is a very serious state of affairs, and the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill must be fully alive to the importance of this Amendment. Of course the Amendment will be voted upon by those who have never heard the arguments in favour of it, but I am quite sure that if all the hon. Members who took part in the last division were present now, I could show them that unless the Amendment is adopted the Bill will fail in what it is desired to achieve. The desire is to reduce the large mortality and permanent injury which is caused by bad midwifery at the present moment. If the Bill passes as it stands, there will be a class of certificated midwives. I do not know whether what training they are to get will be long or short, bad or good; but I know that it will not be the training which is demanded from medical men which, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, is very severe, because no medical man can practice delivery without a certificate of efficiency on the subject. If the Bill passes without this Amendment there will be, side by side with these medical men so qualified, a class of unqualified women able to pursue one of the most dangerous operations in medical practice. My second point is that while you create a special class of midwives whom you wish to displace the Sarah Gamps, you leave the latter absolutely free to go on with their operations just as much the day after the Bill is passed as the day before. I believe that the reason why so many hon. Members are supporting the Bill, as drafted, is that they are under the impression that it will abolish the old, bad, incompetent, diseased, and dirty Sarah Gamps; but I would point out that the Bill does nothing of the sort. There is not a line, or a penalty in the Bill, which will enable the authorities to interfere with the women practising midwifery who do it now. I was discussing this question with a medical man the other day, and the suggestion was made that, in this matter, a little knowledge might be better than none at all. "No," he said, "this Bill does not give a little knowledge; it gives a title and right to nurses to take out certificates as midwives, but it does not take away the right of any woman to practise midwifery, and does not punish her at all for any evil results following incompetence or neglect." In other words it practically leaves the dirty, diseased, incompetent, I might almost say murderous, Sarah Gamps in possession of the ground. What is the objection to this Amendment? I understand it comes from the Home Office; but I tell the Home Secretary that the responsibility must rest with hon. Members if this Bill is defeated, and not on the medical profession. The objection is that the Amendment will make the practice of midwifery by uncertified women a penal offence. Why should it not be a penal offence? If a woman chooses to take upon herself all the risks involved in attending a woman in labour, and evil results follow when, for a very small fee, a good medical man could be got, or a certificated midwife, or even a parish doctor, why should she not be punished? It is said that there is nothing like that in the other professions; but I believe that if a man sets up an apothecary's shop, or if a man starts as a dentist, and evil results follow their practice, they can be punished. And then what has happened to the unqualified medical assistants? When I was a young man in this city I knew a large number of what are called unqualified medical assistants, many of them able, who had all the experience and knowledge, probably more, of a doctor who possessed a diploma. I have known men to grow old as unqualified assistants, but does any one suppose that one of these gentleman was not as qualified as any young man fresh from college with degrees with pounds of sealing-wax attached to them? Under the present law the unqualified assistant is deprived of all opportunity of making his livelihood, and is not that a sufficient punishment? As a matter of fact, the unqualified assistant has now practically disappeared. I want to know what is the use of pretending to put down the evil of bad and dirty midwives if you do not arm yourselves with some penalty? If the law is not strong enough to prevent quacks from practising, it should be strengthened, because it is intolerable that under present circumstances so many valuable lives are lost. I say if the Home Secretary could meet us on this Amendment, and accept the principle of it, the main objection of a large medical opinion on this subject would be removed. Undoubtedly a large number of these women have been in practice for a certain number of years, but they might be registered as parish midwives, and a certain period of grace be given to them. I have tried to speak in a candid and moderate spirit, and I can say that no man is more anxious than I to try and pass this Bill in an effective shape into law.

The hon. Gentleman has made two points, dealing with two different matters. One is the value of the certificates proposed to be given to qualified midwives; and the second is that the main objection to the Bill as it stands is that if it passes there would still remain certain women who could go on practising midwifery without a certificate. The House would do well to remember what the object of this Bill is. The object is a very proper one, but it is not a very wide or complete Bill. The authors of this Bill thought, I think rightly, that it was very desirable that any person requiring the assistance of a midwife should be in a position to know whether she was or was not qualified and had a proper training. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were carried, the Bill, of course, could not possibly proceed, If the proposal were accepted, no person would be allowed to practise for gain unless that person had a certificate, so that after the passing of the Act any poor woman in need of assistance would be unable to avail herself of any assistance except the assistance of a medical man, because no one would be in a position to obtain a certificate.

said the Amendment referred to any person who "habitually" practised for gain.

I should like to know whether any woman would be of any service unless she habitually practised. You would not call in any woman out of the street in a case of that kind, and, therefore, any woman to be of any use must have habitually practised; and such a woman would be entirely barred from practising if this Amendment were passed. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division spoke very strongly and with deep conviction as to the necessity for the insertion of this Amendment in the Bill. It is, however, very surprising to find the hon. Member's name in the list of Members who voted against this Amendment in Committee.

I am not ashamed to change my opinions.

But it is surprising since the Committee stage that the hon. Gentleman should have arrived at such a state of conviction as that which he has expressed to the House today. No one would imagine when the hon. Gentleman was speaking with that fervour with which he often charms the House that he actually voted against the Amendment in Committee, whore it was rejected by twenty-five votes to eight. The House is now asked to reverse the verdict of the Committee in a matter which is vital to the Bill. I certainly could not support the Bill if this Amendment were put in and I do not believe that the House will support any Amendment which would deprive poor women who need it of the assistance they are now able to obtain. That is the reason why I, as Home Secretary, object to the Amendment. I object to women who have been in the habit of successfully practising midwifery being suddenly rendered unable to do so, thereby depriving poor women of the assistance they are able to give.

I would be quite willing to consent to some period of grace being granted to women who are now practising midwifery.

That is a very considerable modification, but my own view is that it is very much better to pass a moderate Bill, such as we now have, and then, in the course of time, and I hope not a very long time, we may be able to bring before the House, with a good chance of success, a further measure. We must proceed step by step in a matter of this kind, and it is safer to go on by degrees to the end we desire. If the House desires this moderate Bill, which will ultimately have the effect of setting up a large body of trained persons in the place of those who are practically untrained, it will not accept this Amendment.

I rise to support this Amendment, and it is a matter of profound disappointment to me, and to all others who have worked for the better education of midwives, that it should not be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman bas said that the Amendment would deprive poor people of the assistance they are now in the habit of receiving. That is an over-statement which a little consideration will show would not occur under the Bill. In the first place, every one of these women who is of good character, and competent and suitable for the work, would be able to be registered if she made an application within two years of the passing of the Act. There fore, all the best of these women would be able to come under the Act. Again, no woman in the future would, under the Act, be prevented from rendering assistance to a sister in trouble. That is common humanity. But what is intended is that we should have some means pf preventing ignorant and improper people from adding to the puerperal death rate of the country. The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members associated with him are only recent converts. The last Bill contained these words, and they were struck out by certain hon. Members, who, like the Home Secretary on the present occasion, were afraid of the Mrs. Gamp of the villages. I should have thought that the Home Secretary would have had more courage, and would have secured for the poorer classes adequate and proper assistance in their time of trouble. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred to the mortality in the Rotunda Hospital. Dublin, which showed that it was absolutely necessary that ignorant and unqualified persons should be prevented from practising midwifery. We do not want to prevent poor women from being midwives, but we do want to prevent very many lives being lost every year through calling in ignorant persons to perform one of the most delicate and most important functions that any woman can perform. The hon. Gentleman told us that in some eleven hundred cases attended in Dublin under the direct supervision of medical men by women being trained in the best school of midwifery in the world there was a mortality of between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. from the most preventable of all diseases—puerperal fever. It is because I wish to save the many lives now yearly sacrificed through ignorant and incompetent persons acting as midwives that I support this Amendment. Let us look at the arguments used against it. It is contended that there is no precedent in the Statute-book for making it an offence for a person not properly qualified to practise, and that if yon enable people to find out who are properly qualified and who are not, that is all that is necessary. All experience of registration is against that view. We have had registration in the medical profession for over forty years, in order to enable people to find out who are qualified and who are not, and I say that not one patient in a million ever looks at the Medical Register. It was fondly hoped that when we had the Medical Register we would do away with unqualified practice, but that flourishes as much as ever. The Medical Register has not done anything to stop it. At the present day there are plenty of herbalists and bone setters and people who practise spiritual healing, and the Medical Act has no power whatever to stop them practising or to protect the public from such pretenders. We do not want a similar mistake to be made in this delicate and serious matter. My only objection to the Bill is that it does not do the work it ought to do, but it will have my support, and the support of those who think with me, if we can put in some words such as have been moved by my hon. friend. Look at the Bill in all its nakedness and poverty. Instead of protecting the poor from unqualified practitioners, it creates a class of practitioner who is to be certified. That does not touch the root of the matter at all. Any woman who is a midwife at present can go on practising her calling under the Act. All she can be prevented from doing is calling herself a midwife, but these persons hardly ever call themselves midwives, they are persons living in the poorer parts of our great cities and in our villages, who simply have the confidence of their neighbours through the services they have rendered. I would give them all consideration under the Bill by enabling them to be registered if they are competent, but there are a large number of persons, who are not only incompetent but so ignorant that they ought not to be allowed to perform these almost sacred functions. It is to prevent that that I want this Bill extended. It is said if you do that you will create a precedent, and you will prevent people practising in a way that does not exist even for the medical profession. The profession of an apothecary is a delicate profession, but it is not by any means so delicate or dangerous as the practice we are now considering. Under the Apothecaries Act people can be prevented from practising if they have not been examined by the Society of Apothecaries, and surely what was good enough in 1815 ought to be maintained now in connection with a more complex practice and in the interests of the poorest class of the community. I strongly press this Amendment on the House, not in the interests of the medical profession but in the interests of the very poor. The Bill gives the poor no protection. It leaves them exposed to the same dangers, and simply creates a new class of practitioners. One other argument is that this new class of practitioner will gradually replace the old. That is not the experience of the medical profession. If that were so the medical profession would have replaced the bone setter and all the other quacks. Therefore, after an experience of nearly fifty years I think we are justified in saying that the clause is worthless as against unqualified practice

What is the character of this Amendment? The women who practise in the poorer districts are called monthly nurses, and in addition to attending the wife in her difficulty, do all the domestic work. Such a woman has to look after all the other children, prepare the husband's breakfast, and do all the other household work, and she charges from 6s. to 7s. a week. An agricultural labourer cannot afford to pay more, and I venture to say that to describe this class of people as dirty and disreputable is a libel.

I must protest against the statement that I made any such charge.

I was not referring to the hon. Member. Some of these women are not scientifically trained, though they have the training which practice gives, which after all is of some value. Even supposing there were a sufficient number of trained nurses to supply the whole of the country, they would require a higher price than an agricultural labourer would be able to pay, and further they would not do the domestic work which it is absolutely necessary should be done. The Amendment would make it a penal offence for any such woman to help another woman in childbirth, and to pass it would be to inflict an intolerable hardship. What would happen supposing no trained nurse was within reach? No doubt a neighbour would come in, but the neighbour could not be expected to remain in the house for a week or more, and do all the work for nothing. I venture to say that 60 per cent. of the child-births in this country are in households where the wages earned are under 30s. a week. It is all very well for those who have servants to do the household work, but in poor households there must he someone to look after the ordinary work, and there are no servants. No doubt it would be a very good tiling if it were possible to give every poor woman a trained nurse and, in addition, someone to do the household work. But the practical difficulties are great, and the cruelty that would be inflicted on the poorer classes by this Amendment would be intolerable. It may be in the interests of medical men, I know nothing about that; but we have to consider the conditions of the poor and see what is best for them and what is possible under existing conditions. If a trained nurse is wanted, the object of the Bill is to secure that one is got who is not only a trained nurse in name but in fact, and I trust the House will not, for the economic reasons I have stated, accept the Amendment.

I rise to support the Amendment though I see no reason why some proviso should not be put in which would apply to that class of persons of whom the Home Secretary has spoken. My conviction on this matter was strengthened by an address I heard lately from a lady whose name will command respect—Mrs. Humphrey Ward. At that meeting I heard more than enough to satisfy mo that so far as London and other populous districts are concerned, the class of women who are engaged in midwifery is of a most undesirable character. I say nothing about the country because I know nothing of the conditions. There is no woman, however poor, in this Metropolis who cannot have proper assistance, either through the doctors who charge very small fees in working-class districts, or through the young medical men who are qualifying in the hospitals, and I say unhesitatingly that as far as the great centres of population are concerned this Amendment should be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made out a good case for the exemption of country districts, but the principle of the Amendment ought to be supported. I will certainly vote for the Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be prepared to accept any exemptions which the Home Office may see ht to make, especially with regard to country districts.

This Amendment has been very frequently considered, and it is one on which much may be said on both sides. I do not desire to travel over the ground which has already been traversed, but I desire simply to point out that, with the sole exception of the Apothecaries Act, the current of legislative authority is against penalising unqualified practitioners. Whatever may be said of the failure of the Medical Register Act, the lines on which Parliament has hitherto proceeded is that qualified practitioners should be distinguished from practitioners who are not qualified, and it is difficult for us to go beyond that at the present time. Sir William Priestley, who was highly esteemed in this House, and who had given great attention to this question, was in favour of this view. [The hon. Member read an extract from a speech by Sir William Priestley, and proceeded:] If I may, I would appeal to the better nature of the House, and I would ask the House to consider, if we cannot go the full length today that we might wish to go, whether that is any reason for denying that which has been so urgently demanded for years, and for allowing the lamentable condition of things at present prevailing to continue. As the House is aware, it is more than ten years since the subject was inquired into, and during that period nothing has been done to alleviate the situation. There are still untrained, ignorant, and unqualified practitioners, and there is nothing to distinguish them from trained practitioners. I earnestly ask the House to consider it from this point of view, and to realise that it is not right to leave an evil untouched and unremedied because we cannot remove it all at once. Is that a reason for doing nothing at all, and of making naught of the labours of those who have worked on this question for years past. I am not speaking of my own labours. The evil is admitted. It is admitted it inflicts an injury, especially on the poor, and if we cannot redress the whole of it, why should not we go some way in that direction, and when we have further experience to guide us we may be able to go still further. I earnestly ask the House to begin at least a better state of things. Perhaps I may be allowed to suggest that if we cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, possibly the House may accept some words which would postpone the clause coming into operation for a definite term of years. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides to pass this measure this afternoon, not because I have any personal interest in it, but simply because I wish to see the beginning of a better state of things.

May I say in answer to the appeal of the hon. Member, that if he will undertake to bring up some such suggestion on the lines he has indicated to extend the period of years during which grace should be given, I should be satisfied with that as a reasonable way of meeting my views.

My hon. friend will understand that I have not an entirely free hand, but I will do my very utmost to carry out the suggestion.

May I take it that it will have the approval of the Home Secretary?

I will undertake to consider it, but I cannot go further than that at present.

said he had received a letter on the subject which stated that nine women who had been attended by midwives had been admitted to a certain hospital in a given period suffering from disease after child birth, and that seven of the cases proved fatal. That fact alone showed the seriousness and importance of the question.

With reference to the understanding which was suggested a few minutes ago. I think we are left in a condition in which we do not know where we are. It is the wish of everybody that the great evil which exists should be removed, and as regards that I am entirely with the promoters of the measure. The only difference and the only trouble is that my hon. friend, who in this matter represents the great bulk of medical opinion, is anxious to go further than the promoters of the Bill think possible or the Home Secretary would allow. The Home Secretary bases his sole objection to this Amendment on two grounds. One is that it would deprive a great number of poor women in the country of that unqualified assistance they now receive, and the other is that the Amendment sets up a new offence. I think the first of these objections can be easily met by extending the period of grace, and I understand that my hon. friend is not wedded to any particular form of words, but only wants the principle. The period of grace under the Bill is three years from the first of January next, and supposing that period was extended to five or seven years, it would be a matter of comparative indifference to my hon. friend, because it is the principle he desires to have adopted. During that period of grace two things would happen. A great number of these unqualified women would disappear altogether, and others who are younger and better qualified to carry out these duties, would have an opportunity of becoming registered, and they would have a very strong motive in being trained. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman's first objection will be entirely disposed of by extending the period of grace, and I understand that, my hon. friend is quite willing to leave the question of the number of years to be settled by an Amendment in another place. The second objection of the Home Secretary is that the Amendment sets up a new offence. But the Bill itself sets up a new offence. The purpose of the Bill is to penalise by a fine of £5 any woman who shall take the name or title of midwife, either alone or in combination with any other word. That is not a criminal offence at present, and, therefore, the whole principle of the Bill is to set up a new offence. Where, then, is the objection to go one step further, and make the habitual practice of midwifery by unqualified persons an offence also. Evidently hon. Members who oppose this Amendment do so in utter ignorance of the first clause of the Bill, which, as I have said, sets up a new offence. It is said that the principle of previous legislalation was not to set up a new offence, or to inflict a penalty for what was done, but to give information to the public as to who were qualified and who were not. That is not the principle of this Bill, and, therefore, there is no force in the argument that this Bill is on all fours with the Medical Acts. Many quacks in this country call themselves doctors, but they are not penalised for it. Therefore, I say there is no principle at stake as against the Amendment, and I hope that the safety of the Bill will not be endangered by the answer given by the Home Secretary.

It is true that clause 1 sets up a new offence, but I see a practical difficulty as regards the transitional period. It is quite obvious that it will take some years before the country, especially the rural districts, can accommodate itself to the conditions suggested by the Amendment, but it would be very easy to put in, instead of 1905, 1910, or 1915 as the end of the transitional period. That would be an easy way out of the difficulty. I am sure the House would be prepared to accept an Amendment of that sort, and I hope the Home Secretary will agree to it.

I can not feel justified in putting the responsibility on the right hon. Gentleman. He has to consider all these matters, and may possibly have to consult others, and therefore the responsibility must remain with me this afternoon. Will it meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite if I propose to amend the Amendment by inserting the words, "after the 1st of January, 1910"? If that will meet the views of hon. Members, I am perfectly prepared to move it,

asked if that would apply to sub-Section 6.

said he thought that sub-section would come out.

formally moved to amend the Amendment by inserting the words—

"After the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ten."

asked if the Home Secretary would favourably consider the Amendment.

said he did not intend to oppose it.

formally moved—

"In Clause 1, page 1, line 29, to leave out sub-Section 6."

formally moved—

"In Clause 2, page 2, line 5, after 'London' to insert 'or the Coombe Lying-in Hospital and Guinness's Dispensary, or the Rotunda Hospital for the Relief of the Poor Lying-in. Women of Dublin.'"

, in explaining the object of the next Amendment, said that two classes of existing midwives were to be registered under the Act, one the class which had received certificates, the other being women who were in actual practise. In the ease of the latter it was laid down that they must be of good character. That was perfectly right, but he thought it ought also to be laid down that evidence should be produced that the other class were of good character. That would be no slur on the character of the certificate given by any institution, because a woman when she obtained a certificate would naturally be of good character, though something might have happened subsequently which rendered her not of good character. Therefore, he thought evidence of character should be produced by each class alike.

said he hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment. A number of persons, of what might be called the bettor class, had obtained certificates, but were not in actual practise. If they had to produce evidence as to character it would discourage them from registering at all.

said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not maintain that position. There might be even a black sheep among the persons referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and he thought it was very desirable that there should be a certificate of character. He did not want anyone to get on the register who had done anything which would bring it into disrepute.

said that, after all, a certificate of character could be obtained from two householders.

said he did not wish to press the Amendment.

said he desired to move—

"In Clause 2, page 2, line 8, to leave out "was" in order to insert "had been for at least one year."

moved—

"In Clause 3, page 2, line 22, at end to insert '(4) One person to be appointed by the Royal British Nurses' Association, who shall be a member of that body.' "

said that if his hon. friend deemed it his duty insist to on the Amendment, he would be prepared to concede it, but he hoped his hon friend would not press it.

said he felt very strongly on the question, and he hoped his hon. friend would not be unwilling to accept the Amendment. It was absolutely necessary that nursing should enter into the matter, and that the highest nursing authority should be represented.

moved to extend the scope of the Bill to Scotland and Ireland. He failed to see any reason why the Bill should be limited to England. The evils which the measure was designed to meet were not confined to that one portion of the Kingdom, and, while he was glad that they would now be able to deal with those evils so far as England was concerned, he thought some explanation ought to be given of why the Sister Isle and Scotland were to be deprived of the advantages conferred by the Bill.

said that if a Bill were brought in to confer corresponding advantages on Ireland he would support it, but it was impossible to extend the present measure to Ireland, as the whole frame-work of the Bill, and the bodies referred to in it, were essentially English. In other words, the whole of the procedure and government were English, and it would be obviously unfair to extend the Bill to Ireland.

pointed out that the same observation would apply to Scotland, as the Bill was drafted entirely on English lines.

said that this matter had engaged the attention of the promoters of the Bill. With regard to Scotland there did not exist at present any machinery which they could invoke to put the Bill into operation, and a large number of provisions and Amendments would require to be introduced to make the Bill apply to Scotland. As to Ireland, he was under the impression that under the system of dispensary doctors and trained nurses, the people there were better off in this matter than the people of England.

said that to a large extent the hon. Member was right. In Ireland they were, in this as in most other things, ahead of England;

moved the postponement of Clause 3, so that the House might know whether any Amendments were to be accepted extending the provisions of the Measure to Ireland.

remarked that if the noble Lord had referred to the debate of last year he would have seen that he made a distinct statement that under no circumstances would he accept any Amendment which extended this Bill to Ireland. He was not going to have anything to do with legislation which would be offensive to the majority of the Irish representatives.

said he could not see upon what grounds the extension of this Measure to Ireland was being opposed.

I do not think the extension of this Measure to Ireland can be discussed upon this question.

said he intended later on to move a clause extending the Bill to Ireland, and therefore he should support the postponement of Clause 3 for that purpose.