To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the announcement that the Government of India have recently laid down principles which will secure liberal treatment to landowners in future settlements of the land revenue, can he state approximately for each province what percentage the land revenue will bear to the gross produce. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The Resolution of the Government of India in which these liberal principles are laid down explains in paragraph 16 why it is neither possible nor equitable to fix the demand of the State at a definite share of the gross produce of the soil. In paragraph 17 an estimate is given of the proportion of the gross produce taken by the present assessments in the several provinces, and it is there stated that the average rate, so far from showing an inclination to enhancement, is everywhere on the downward scale.

To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that the additional land revenue receipts derived through the irrigation of State canals in the united Provinces of Agra, and Oudh, Punjab and North West Frontier Province, Madras, and Bombay, are estimated to produce £821,900, will he state how much of this sum is derived from each of the four Provinces. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) United Provinces, £89,100; Punjab, £91,300; North-West Frontier Province, £3,000; Madras, £527,000; Bombay, £111,500; Total, £821,900.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is yet able to say when the Government of India will adopt a system of inter-communication between passengers and guards on Indian railways. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on the 26th of February last.† But the matter is receiving, and will continue to receive,

† See (4) Debates, cxviii., 912.

the attention of the Government of India and of the Indian Railway Companies.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of persons in each Province of India who have been inoculated with plague serum since this system was introduced; and will he say how many of these persons have since died of plague. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The Returns, so far as they are available, are given in the subjoined statement:—

	Number of Persons inoculated.	Number of Persons inoculated who have since died of plague
Madras	21,404	Not known
Bengal	34,332	31
United Provinces	8,538	26
Punjab	480,737	1,158
Central Provinces	10,649	34
Coorg	3	0
Berar	2,407	9
Bombay	599,857	1,482

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state whether there is any rule, and, if so, what, preventing natives of India being given access to higher appointments on Indian railways. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) There is no such rule. In the Public Works Code (vol. 4, cap. 8, paragraph 37) it is laid down that "Promotions from class to class will be made on the occurrence of vacancies in the sanctioned cadre, and they will be made wholly by selection of the fittest persons."

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will explain why the Indian Government recommended that the Army Order, No. 9, of January, 1903, should be limited to troops engaged in the operations previous to 3rd March, 1893; and whether they will extend the date so as to include the Sima Relief Column under Captain Davies, D.S.O., which started from Bhamo in April, 1893, and which was the last expedition that season; and whether he can explain why the Army Order, No. 9, of January. 1903, conferring medals upon troops engaged in India in 1893 has been so long delayed. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The Government of India, with all the facts before them, fixed the 3rd March, 1893, as the date on which active operations in the Kachin Hills ceased. The column under Captain Davies, D.S.O., which left Bhamo for Sima on 12th April, 1903, met with no opposition. The delay in the grant of the medal was due to the fact that, at first, the operations in the Kachin Hills in 1892–3 were not considered to be of sufficient military importance to justify the grant of a medal.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he is now prepared to give the names of the gentlemen to serve on the promised Committee to investigate the grievances of the Post Office employees; and whether he can state the terms of reference to the Committee. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am not yet in a position to make any further statement on this matter.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can give any explanation of the condition of the trunk telephone lines between London and Brighton, and of the constant interruptions which occur. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The trunk lines between London and Brighton are in good condition and work very satisfactorily as a rule. Three new lines were brought into use in November last, and there is little delay in obtaining communication with London. On three days recently the time occupied in trunk calls has exceeded thirty minutes owing to the temporary interruption of some of the lines. These interruptions were chiefly due to alterations of wires in progress on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that it is proposed to allow millers a rebate on duty paid corn which may be in stock on 30th June, but not to allow to those who have not stock sufficient to produce a rebate of £25, he will, in the interest of small millers, reduce this amount to one of £10. (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) No, Sir; I cannot go beyond the limit which has been already announced and is laid down in the Finance Bill.

To ask the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state to what extent swine fever now exists within the county of Essex; and whether he can see his way to the removal of the restrictions now in force. (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) There has been a distinct improvement in the position of Essex in regard to swine fever since the restrictions to which my right hon. friend refers were imposed in December last. In that month there were twenty-four outbreaks of the disease, whereas last month the number was eight. In these circumstances the Board have felt justified in withdrawing the restrictions as from the 12th instant. I may add that the local authority have recently decided to adopt regulations which will, we believe, if properly enforced, very much reduce the risk of the re-introduction of the disease into the county.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether, seeing that the sewage from the marine barracks and hospital at Walmer is discharged crude into the sea immediately opposite the town, he will explain why the Admiralty has declined to join the authorities of the town in establishing a system of treatment for this sewage. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The Admiralty have not declined to join the local authorities in establishing an improved sewage system. They have for a long time past been urging them to establish such a system.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the total cost of the registration of births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland, and the relative proportion of such cost paid out of the rates levied for relief of the poor and from Imperial sources. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The amount paid out of voted moneys on this service during the year ended 31st March, 1902, was £13,341. The amount paid out of local rates in the same period, by way of fees to registrars of births, deaths, and marriages, was £9,303.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that, in April, 1891, the Judge of the Land Court in Ireland issued an absolute order for the sale of the Massarene and Dean's estate, situated in the counties of Limerick and Tipperary; and that, in February, 1897, the estate being still unsold, the matter was brought before Mr. Justice Ross for delay, and also in December, 1899, May, 1900, and July, 1902, for the same purpose, he can state upon what grounds the sale of this estate has been deferred from April, 1891; when will it be finally disposed of; and what is the loss to the incumbrancers by reason of the delay in the proceedings. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The applications made on the dates mentioned in respect to the delay in the proceedings for the sale of this estate were, on each occasion, the subject of judicial decision. I am informed that the entire property, with the exception of some holdings to which the Land Purchase Acts do not apply, has now been sold. It is not possible to form an estimate of the loss, if any, caused to the incumbrancers by reason of the delay in completing the sales.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the number of rounds of ammunition allowed to each rifle volunteer for match shooting and private practice at the range has been reduced to ten; and whether he will reconsider this decision. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) A regulation has recently been promulgated which limits the expenditure on prize competitions and matches to ten rounds per efficient, in consequence of the desire of the military authorities that the ammunition available for private practice should be employed in improving the general musketry efficiency of the corps, rather than that it should be utilised for match shooting by a few experienced shots.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state if it has been decided to establish the canteens in the Army at home and abroad on the tenant system, or on what is known as the regimental system, and, if the latter, whether he has considered the advisability of imposing the additional duties of stock purchasing and book keeping on officers whose principal duty is to train their men as soldiers; or whether, in view of the responsibilities connected with such a system of regimental training, he would recommend the appointment of an additional officer, selected on account of his qualifications for this special purpose, and who should have no part in the military training of the soldier.

General Officers commanding Army Corps at home and districts at home and abroad have recently been informed that in future they will decide the particular system of management to be adopted in the regimental institute and canteen of each unit in their command, subject to certain general principles to be laid down by the Commander-in-Chief. No serving soldier will be allowed to be employed. No alteration in establishment such as that suggested is contemplated.

Will the commanding officers of the several units have any voice in this matter?

I do not think there is the slightest doubt that the General Officer Commanding will consult the commanding officers of units

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many changes have been made in the uniform of the officers of the Army since 1st October, 1899, and give particulars of these changes; whether these changes were made to enable the officers to discharge their duties more efficiently, or whether the object has been to reduce the cost to the officers of providing and maintaining these uniforms; and whether he can state that the object has been attained.

The only material changes in officers' dress since October, 1899, were those promulgated by Army Orders 39 and 40 of 1902, by which a service dress, frock coat, and great coat were introduced; gold lace was removed from trousers, also mess jackets, and a great reduction in lace ornamentation of tunics was made. These changes have not existed sufficiently long for officers now serving to feel the benefit, but, eventually the changes referred to must of necessity lessen officers' expenses in the matter of uniform. I entirely concur with my hon. and gallant friend in thinking that all such changes should be reduced to a minimum.

Is it not the fact that within the last six weeks a new great coat was ordered for officers and withdrawn less than three weeks afterwards?

I cannot say. That is not a matter which would be brought before me. But I know that for every change proposed by the War Office there are fifty asked for by the officers themselves.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any reason to believe that certain British officers are in the hands of the Somali Mullah; and whether preparations are being made for the active resumption of hostilities in that country.

The War Office has received no official information to the effect that certain British officers are prisoners in the hands of the Mullah. As regards future movements it has been necessary to give considerable orders for camels to replace wastage, and to enable General Manning's force to carry out the concentration on Bohotle.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, will he state why the construction of the military railway between Chatham Barracks and Tor Darland has ceased; the cost of the portion already constructed, and the cost when the whole of the work is completed; and, further, at what dates he anticipates the work will be resumed and finished.

The construction of the railway has been suspended, as the General Officer Commanding does not consider its completion necessary for the training of the school of military engineering, which formed part of the reasons for the work in question. The cost of the portion already constructed is about £2,000. The total estimated cost of the line is £11,500.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the proposal of the New Zealand Government to open shops in Great Britain for the sale of meat at cost price; and whether, if this proposal is carried out, he contemplates the imposition of a countervailing duty on New Zealand meat.

The answer to both questions is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received the Reports he had undertaken to call for from the local authorities relating to the treatment of certain British-Indian subjects in the Transvaal, and also with regard to the murder of a Mahomedan fruit seller at Durban in February last, and the trial of a person named Kennedy in connection with the death of a labourer at Ladysmith in March last, and, if so, will he state the contents of the Reports and place the Papers upon the Table of the House.

I have not yet received the Reports referred to, but they were asked for by despatch on 1st May.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to hear from Lord Milner?

Roughly speaking, it takes three weeks to send by mail, and I must allow some time for making inquiries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the regulations laid down by the Boer Government are being enforced by the present Government. Will he send orders for the suspension of the regulations?

That is not the case. The law is not being enforced in all the vigour with which it was carried into effect by the Boers, and considerable modifications have been made.

I will furnish the right hon. Gentleman with information to the effect I have stated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is a protective duty on matches entering the Colony of British Guiana; and if so, whether the duty applies to matches made in the United Kingdom; and whether there is more than one match factory in British Guiana.

The answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative. As regards the third there is no recent information, but I am not aware that there is more than one such factory.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has received from the Government of India any statement in connection with the mission of delegates sent from Natal to settle the conditions regarding indentured Coolie labour; whether any settlement has been arrived at on the point of allowing the labourers to remain in the colony after the expiry of their indentures; and whether he will lay all Papers relating to the conference upon the Table of the House.

I have received the proposals of the Government of India, and they are under consideration; but I cannot at present say whether it will be possible to lay the Papers on the Table, as the correspondence is still incomplete.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is proposed to bring to the notice of the signatories of the Berlin Act of 1884–5 the desirability of now constituting the River Commission for the control of the navigation of the Congo, which it was contemplated should be formed under the provisions of that Act.

No complaints have reached His Majesty's Government as to any difficulties in connection with the navigation of the Congo; there would seem, therefore, to be no good reason for raising the question of the desirability of constituting the River Commission alluded to by the noble Lord.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Austro-Hungarian Government with regard to the proposed increased duties to be levied by those countries on British manufactured machinery.

No representations have been made on the subject. I understand that the proposed new Austro-Hungarian tariff is not likely to be disposed of by the Austrian and Hungarian Parliaments before September at the earliest. The proposed tariff is to form one of the subjects for consideration at a meeting of the Commercial Intelligence Committee of the Board of Trade next week.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question, of which I have given him private notice, whether he is able to communicate any information to the House with regard to the revolution which has broken out in Servia; whether it is the fact that both the dynasty and the Ministry of Servia have been changed by the method of assassination; and whether the safety of British subjects in Belgrade is assured.

We are officially informed that King Alexander and Queen Draga were assassinated last night. A new Government has been formed under M. Avakumovics, a former Prime Minister. The constitution of the Parliament of 1901, recently abolished by King Alexander, has been restored, and the National Assembly, dissolved in March last, has been summoned to meet at once. That is all the information I have to communicate officially to the House.

Has the noble Lord any information as to whether Ministers were also murdered?

I am aware that the statement is published in the Press, and I have no reason to doubt its truth.

Is there any information as to the safety of British subjects at Belgrade?

We have no information that there is any danger to them there.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount of income derived by inhabitants of the United Kingdom from investments abroad, and the corresponding amounts ten years ago and twenty years ago.

It is not possible to state definitely what is the income derived from investments abroad. The following figures represent the income so derived, so far as it can be identified in the Statistics of the Income Tax, but such figures must not be regarded as representing the whole of the profits derived from British capital invested abroad. 1881–82, £30,600,000; 1891–92. £54,700,000; 1901–02, £62,600,000.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer at what, rate it is pro posed to pay rebate on stocks of flour on 1st July.

The rates of repayment of duty on flour will be as follows:—On flour which remains in the same condition as when imported, at the rate of duty paid, viz., 5d. per cwt.; on flour manufactured in the United Kingdom from foreign grain, the same rate as allowed when exported on drawback, viz., 3½d. per cwt.

Will all millers have the advantage of this?

It does not matter in whose hands the corn is so long as the duty comes to £25. We cannot go below that.

Why confine it to that?

In this particular case we are making a very considerable concession, and a very important one. It is quite impossible to go down to the lowest sums as the hon. Gentleman desires, because it would enormously increase the difficulty of the work.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of accidents caused by covered vehicles in the streets of the Metropolis during the year 1902 which have resulted in personal injuries; and will he say how many of such accidents have proved fatal.

In the year 1902 1,203 persons were injured by covered vehicles in the streets of London—not including the City—and in forty-two cases the injuries proved fatal.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the number of accidents in the streets of the Metropolis caused by covered vehicles, he will consider the expediency of introducing legislation to require the proprietors of these vehicles to have them so constructed as to enable the drivers to see passing and following traffic.

The desirability of some remedy on this point has long been felt by all those concerned in the question of street traffic, and an attempt is now being made, as no doubt the hon. Member is aware, by the London County Council to deal with the matter by a by-law which they have submitted for my approval, and which is now under consideration. Objections have been taken to the by-law, and pending the result of this attempt it would be premature to enter on the consideration of legislation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will state the number of dogs which have been subjected to experiments without anæsthetics at University College, London, from 1st April 1902 to 31st March 1903, by Dr. Bayliss and Professor E. H. Starling respectively.

The answer is "None." Perhaps I may be permitted to correct an error in the answer which my right hon. friend gave the hon. Member on the 11th May as to the number of dogs used for experiments in the year 1902 at University College. It was stated that in seventy-seven cases experiments were conducted in the Department of Pathological Chemistry without anæsthetics. As a fact, in only four of these seventy-seven cases were anæsthetics not used.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to a petition signed by 125 residents and ratepayers of Great George Square, Liverpool, complaining that out of thirty-four houses in the square no fewer than eleven are used as common emigrant lodging houses; is he aware that these houses are frequented by Italians, Russian Finns, Polish Jews, Gallicians, and Scandinavians, and are frequently so overcrowded as to constitute a source of danger to public health; and that one house was found on the 25th March last to contain eighty six persons in excess of the licensed number, and another sixty-one in excess; and, if so, will he consider the expediency of having these facts brought under the notice of the Commission on Alien Immigration and the Corporation of Liverpool, by whom these houses are let on lease.

The hon. Member has given me an opportunity of seeing this petition and I have communicated with the Corporation on the subject. I am informed that there is no foundation for the suggestion that certain houses are frequently so overcrowded as to constitute a source of danger to the public health, but, as I stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on the 14th ultimo†, proceedings were taken by the Corporation in respect of the overcrowding of two houses on the 25th March last. I see no advantage in bringing this matter before the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration. I understand that evidence has already been given before them by the Liverpool Medical Officer of Health. I am informed that in all cases where complaints are made by residents in the square, of emigrants' lodging houses being a nuisance, the Corporation make inquiry, and use every endeavour to ensure that the premises are used in accordance with the conditions of the lease or of any licence which may have been granted by the Corporation to any lessee, allowing the premises to be used otherwise than as a private dwelling house.

† See (4) Debates, cxxii, 689.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he has received recently reports as to the means of extinguishing fire, the provision of fire escapes, and the general safety of the inmates in the case of fire in respect to the workhouses of the United Kingdom; and, if so, will he state their nature and what steps he is taking upon them; and, if not, will he take steps to instruct the inspectors to make such reports at the first opportunity.

The Inspectors of my Department have received instructions when visiting a workhouse always to consider the arrangements for extinguishing fire and for the escape of the inmates, and to draw attention to any cases where the arrangements are insufficient. From time to time they report cases of this kind, and in any such case pressure is brought to bear on the Guardians with a view to steps being taken to secure the safety of the inmates.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board has his attention been drawn to the fact that the order of the Wirksworth, Derbyshire, magistrates for distraint upon the goods of certain persons who have refused to pay the education rate for the county of Derby has not as yet been carried out, owing to the refusal of the local auctioneers to sell the goods; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter; and whether he will now reconsider his decision not to advise local authorities to accept as much of a rate as is offered.

I have seen some newspaper references to this subject. As regards the second part of the question I do not propose to take any action in the matter, and I do not think I can add anything to the answer which I gave the hon. Member last month.†

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Wiltshire County Council has

† See (4) Debates, cxxii, 690.

issued a precept to the Guardians for the payment of a rate in respect of elementary education payable as to the first instalment on 10th June, 1903, and as to the second instalment on 10th August 1903; and, if so, whether, seeing that the appointed day for the purposes of elementary education under The Education Act, 1902, is in Wiltshire 1st October, 1903, he will state whether the issue of such precept payable before the appointed day is within the powers of the Wiltshire County Council.

I am not aware of the facts of the particular case referred to by the hon. Member; but, as regards the general question, I am advised that a County Council may legally issue a precept payable before the appointed day, for the purpose of meeting their expenses in bringing the Education Act, 1902, into operation.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, having regard to the fact that glycerinated calf lymph produced at the Board's laboratory is supplied free of charge to public vaccinators in England, will arrangements be made for parochial vaccinators in Scotland to be provided free of charge with sufficient lymph to meet their requirements. I beg also to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland will consider the expediency of obtaining from the Local Government Board laboratory in London the lymph required for the use of parochial vaccinators in Scotland.

In reply to the hon. Member's Questions I would refer him to the Lord Advocate's answer to his Question of 25th March, 1903,† in which the Lord Advocate said that parochial vaccinators receive free, on application, supplies of glycerinated calf lymph from the Local Government Board for Scotland. I would add that the lymph so supplied is obtained from the Local Government Board laboratory in London.

† See (4) Debates, cxx, 178.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether provision has been made in the Education Estimates for the year for increasing the grants on account of students in undenominational day training colleges, wherever those students are housed in hostels in accordance with the undertaking given during the debate on the Education Bill of last year; and, if so, when it is proposed by the Board of Education to issue regulations affecting the dispensation of these augmented grants.

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Board cannot at present state when they will be able to issue the regulations referred to.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, under the Education Act of 1902, the whole of the managers of any non-provided school are jointly responsible for such expenditures on the upkeep of the fabric of the school as are not covered by the Local Education Authority; and, if so, whether any funds obtained in order to meet such portion of the upkeep of the fabric, either from Government Grants under the Act of 1897, from grant balances at the appointed day, or from moneys collected for the denominational share of the upkeep of the fabric, will also be under the control of the whole of the managers.

If the Question is intended to ascertain whether the whole of the managers of any non-provided school are personally liable for the expenditure referred to, the Board are advised that no manager is personally liable unless he chooses to make himself so by becoming a party to a contract, Money which comes into the hands of the managers for the upkeep of the fabric will be under the control of the whole of the managers.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that fees are charged for the inspection of weights and measures in the rural districts of Ireland; and, if so, will he state what is done with these fees, or whether they are paid into any, and, if so, what public account.

By Section 19 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, these fees are applied for the benefit of the Royal Irish Constabulary, upon whom, outside the metropolitan district, is placed by the Act of 1878 the duty of inspection. The fees are brought into a public account which is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

But why should the police have the benefit of the fees?

They do the work.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps the Congested Districts Board intend to take in extending the early potato industry in South Kerry, in view of the fact that potatoes have been produced in the Cahirciveen district in the latter end of May, and considerably in advance of any other district in Ireland.

The cultivation of early potatoes in this and other districts has been promoted by the Congested Districts Board and the Department of Agriculture. The experiment is being closely watched by both Departments. When the potatoes have been placed on the market, the two Departments will consider what further steps should be taken.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that landed proprietors and tradesmen have purchased land under the Irish Land Purchase Acts; and, if so, can he state to what extent such purchases have been made; and whether, under the Land Bill now before Parliament, provision will be made to prevent persons who do not themselves cultivate land, or require land for their own use, taking advantage of its provisions.

Advances under the Land Purchase Acts can only be made to tenants holding land under a contract of tenancy. When the advance has been made, the proprietor becomes subject to the provisions of Section 30 of the Land Law Act, 1881, which prohibits the sub-division or letting of the holding while subject to the annuity, without the consent of the Land Commission. This provision is being further developed by Clause 49 of the present Land Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is a number of cases where tenants of town parks, as defined by the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, 1870, 1881, surrendered these holdings on the ground that the rent was too high, and that they are now in the occupation of the landlords; and, if so, will he insert a clause in the Irish Land Bill, giving these tenants the right to purchase same at a price to be fixed by the Land Commission.

No, Sir. I have no knowledge of cases of the kind mentioned. Such holdings, however, would not come within the scope of the Land Purchase Acts. I cannot give the undertaking suggested at the end of the Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now communicate to the House the result of his inquiries into the prison treatment of the hon. Member for North Leitrim.

The hon. Member in question has been granted by the visiting committee of Sligo Prison all the rights and privileges to which he is entitled as a misdemeanant of the first division, and which it was in the power of the committee to grant. These privileges will be found enumerated in Parliamentary Papers Nos. 129 and 189 of 1902. In addition he has been allowed, on the recommendation of the medical officer, the use of tobacco and two hours' extra exercise daily. He has also been transferred to a well-lighted room in the hospital wing of the prison, and permitted the use of gas until ten o'clock nightly.

Is it not a fact that these privileges were at first refused?

It would not be accurate to say that Mr. M'Hugh was first put in an ill-lighted cell and has since been placed in a well-lighted room.

What will be the term of his imprisonment?

As the hon. Member is aware, that rests entirely with the Judge who committed him.

It is in fact unlimited.

Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Judge—

Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to an appeal under the Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children) Act, in which the Lord Chief Justice said that the whole spirit of the Act was frustrated by the omission of a provision for punishing a subordinate who violated the Act without his employer's knowledge; and whether, in view of the approval of the Act manifested on its Second and Third Readings, he will, this session, introduce, or give facilities for, a short Act to amend this omission.

I can make no promise of legislation this session. I understand, however, that the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice raises a very important question, and the matter is being fully considered by the Secretary of State.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Tower Hamlets, Poplar Division, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence that took place with the German Government in reference to the denunciation of the Commercial Treaty of 1865, and any further correspondence with the German Government that ensued in reference to the grant by Canada of preferential duties to British goods. I may explain that as the first part of the Question was answered yesterday, I now wish merely to press the latter portion.

The further correspondence with the German Government with reference to the refusal to grant the most-favoured-nation treatment to Canada is not yet complete, and for that reason it cannot be laid on the Table of the House at the present time.

Will it be laid when complete?

I should like to have that Question put again when the proper time comes. I cannot imagine that when it is complete there will be any difficulty.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state when it is proposed to take the Committee stage of the Sale of Adulterated Butter Bill.

This Bill is waiting the Grand Committee stage, and I have no power to determine the order of business before Grand Committees. That is entirely left to the Grand Committees themselves.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question, of which I have given him private notice, with reference to the telegraphic message which is published in this morning's newspapers and which appears to have been received by a public office on the 6th inst. from the Governor of New South Wales. With reference to that message I would ask whether the view therein expressed of the intentions of his Majesty's Government with regard to preferential duties and retaliatory tariffs is accurate. Perhaps I may make my question more explicit by saying that the message refers to a certain declaration, and expresses great satisfaction at the declaration of the British Government of certain intentions. [Cries of "Read it."] When and where and by whom were these declarations made?

As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, the Question does not refer, and indeed, can hardly refer, to the whole of the message which is published in the newspapers. I presume it refers to this paragraph—

"Also realising that what is Canada's turn to-day may be Australia's to-morrow, they express great satisfaction at the declaration by the British Government that every self-governing colony shall be secured in the free exercise of its right to enter into closer trade relations with the mother country."

That, I understand, is the paragraph to which the right hon. Gentleman calls my special attention. I do not know what declaration the Governor of New South Wales referred to in this statement; but I have to say on behalf of the Government that we certainly could not look with indifference on any attempt to penalise a British colony in the exercise of its right to enter into specially favourable commercial relations with the mother country.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Governor of New South Wales has to do with this matter, having regard to the fact that it concerns the Commonwealth of Australia?

What is referred to in that declaration?

That is precisely what I informed the House I cannot say. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will address any Question on the subject to the Colonial Secretary, as being more competent to answer it.

Then I will ask the Secretary for the Colonies whether it is not the constitutional fact that these matters depend on the Commonwealth and not on the six colonies?

That is perfectly true, but I do not see how that interferes with the expression of opinion on the subject by any Government of any of the self-governing colonies in Australia.

pointed out that a Vote of this magnitude necessarily ranged over a wide field of subjects, covering as it did the administration of the law relating to public health and the relief of the poor. He wished in the first instance to draw attention to one point which was exciting a certain amount of disquiet in the public mind. During last session a Bill was passed relating to cremation, and legalising that process of disposing of the dead. That Bill had caused the public to consider more carefully than hitherto the dangers which prevailed in connection with the present methods of administering the laws relating to the registration of deaths and the opportunities thereby offered for the commission of crime. Not long since there was a murder trial in which it was shown that a man had been able to poison three women, and might have even then escaped detection had not the friends of the third victim determined that there should be more investigation than usually takes place in such cases. The learned judge, in summing up the case, pointed out that if the bodies had been cremated the opportunity would have been lost of bringing the criminal to justice. In saying that, however, the learned judge forgot to mention that nobody was ever cremated in this country without tenfold more precautions being taken than were now taken in ordinary cases of death. So loose was the law and its administration in connection with ordinary burials, that there was abundant evidence that crime constantly escaped detection, and the meshes were drawn so loosely that criminals were easily able to carry on their iniquitous practices. There were cases brought before the Select Committee of 1893 in which in one case eleven, and in another twenty, murders were perpetrated by persons who, under the present loose system of death certification, were able to escape detection, it only being towards the end of a long series of crimes that it was possible to bring them to justice. Surely such a system of administration deserved some consideration at the hands of Parliament. I have thought it my duty to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this matter, and to ask him some questions which will enable him to give us some information as to the steps he proposes to take, with a view to improving the administration of the law in this respect. Every person who dies in this country has to be buried under a system of death certification laid down in the law of 1874, and in the previous Act of 1836. The Departmental Committee of last year which sat to consider the question of the disposal of bodies by cremation, in the course of their report stated that in some cases it had been found that the bodies of murdered persons had been buried without any certification of the cause of death, and that in other and more numerous cases certificates were given without sufficient inquiry, sometimes by medical men who had not seen the dead persons in their last illnesses or even after death. That Departmental Committee, which only reported this year, gave, as the result of their investigations, statements calculated to create a great amount of public disquietude and apprehension as to the proper detection of crime. He wished the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee to take particular note of the criticims of that Committee, which were made with a view to making if possible the administration of the law more stringent. As the law now existed people might be buried without any certificate whatever, these being called uncertified deaths. He thought he might congratulate the right hon. Gentleman that, during the last few years, the number of these deaths had been diminishing. On looking at the statistics in regard to the number of persons buried without any evidence being forthcoming as to the cause of death — a thing which ought not to occur in any civilised community—he found that the percentage in the five years ending 1882, was 4·36; in the following five years it had fallen to 3½ percent. in the succeeding quinquennial period it had gone down to 2·8 per cent., while in the five years ending 1897, when the question was receiving attention at the hands of a Select Committee, the percentage was 2·32. Finally, in 1898–99, it was just under 2 per cent., and he believed that this satisfactory state of affairs was due to a stronger administration of the law. The Registrar-General, in one of his Reports, had pointed out that in some cases as much as 15 and even 18 per cent. of the deaths in certain districts were uncertified. This was a really scandalous condition of things. In 1893, when it was examining into that question, the Select Committee found the astounding fact that while only 3 per cent. of the deaths were uncertified in Glasgow, no less than 42 per cent. were uncertified in Inverness shire, thus showing the enormous possibilities for the occurrence of crime in some of the less densely populated districts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The Select Committee at that time said they were forced to the conclusion that vastly more deaths occurred annually from foul play and criminal neglect than the law recognised. That was a statement which, in his opinion, ought to exercise the public mind, and to lead to some definite improvement in the administration of the law. The Committee also made a remark which he thought every one should take to heart. It was as to the proper basis for bringing about a better administration in connection with this matter. They said it should be made impossible for any person to disappear from his place in the community without satisfactory evidence being obtained of the cause of his disappearance. That was almost a truism as regarded the safeguarding of human life in a civilised community. So loosely, however, was the law administered that in 1893 a distinguished medical witness asserted that he saw no difficulty for anybody to perpetrate a crime, to get the whole matter certified, and registered, and the body buried, without anybody detecting it. That was a deliberate statement made before a Select Committee of this House ten years ago, and it was an unfortunate fact that since then the administration of the law had not been improved to any great extent. With reference to these uncertified deaths, they were certified on the information of a person who was called a "qualified informant." What occurred was this. A person died without being medically attended, and someone representing him went to the registrar and made a statement as to the death. The statement might be fictitious or fraudulent, but, on that statement, and after, probably, a comparatively cursory inquiry by the registrar, who was not in all cases a fit person to undertake such duties, a certificate was granted and the body got rid of. The other day not very far from that House an extraordinary incident occurred. A medical man was called upon, I am informed, for a death certificate for a patient whom he had seen a little time previously. The doctor was a little more suspicious than some doctors are. Possibly he was a better reader of human nature than many. He doubted the statement as to the death, and went across to the house in which the supposed corpse was lying. He was shown the bed gear, but found that it only covered a dummy. Had it not been for the suspicions entertained by that doctor the man would probably have drawn his insurance money and have had a jolly time for himself. Seeing that such a thing was possible in the present state of the law, did it not point to the necessity for a stricter administration with a view to preventing such occurrences? It was also a fact in connection with the insurance of infant life that an appalling state of affairs existed in some populous centres, and the Select Committee discovered that numbers of children, insured for various sums, were, by neglect, sometimes criminal, and by actual crimes, got rid of and the insurance money drawn from the companies. Now, they wanted an administration so exact, so strict, and so thorough that these things should be rendered impossible in the interests of the community. So much for the ordinary uncertified deaths. There were a certain number of bodies which were buried after inquiries held by the coroner. Unfortunately these inquiries were not made by the coroner himself in the form of an inquest; very often they were made by the coroner's officer, who was not always a competent person to find out whether a person had come to his or her death by fair or foul means. These inquiries, therefore, were not altogether satisfactory. Even coroners juries' verdicts were in some cases extremely unsatisfactory. A Committee of that House which sat a year or two ago—the Water-Gas Committee—especially drew attention to this matter by observing, in their Report, that they were so much impressed with the insufficiency and untrustworthiness of the statistics relating to particular causes of mortality, which could be gathered from the returns of the verdicts of coroners juries, that they ventured to strongly recommend that some steps should be taken to secure that those verdicts should lend themselves more readily to clear classification by the Registrar-General. They went on to recommend further that where the coroner was in possession of a medical certificate, or where medical evidence was taken at the inquest, a copy of the certificate or an abstract of the evidence should be appended to the coroner's certificate when it was sent to the Registrar-General. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman would express a desire that this should be done by the coroners throughout the country it would render the statistics of mortality much more accurate, and be useful in causing a more careful investigation into many of the uncertified deaths. An illustration was given to the Committee, by an official from Somerset House, of the unsatisfactory nature of these verdicts. An inquest had been held on the body of a child three months old, found dead, and the verdict was that there was no evidence to show that this child was born alive. When they had a verdict like that sent up as a deliberate expression of opinion as to the death of a child three months old, they could easily understand what remarkably little value attached to those verdicts in connection with the preparation of vital statistics. He thought he had said enough to show that, in connection with these uncertified deaths, there was great opportunity for crime, because no sufficient care was taken to examine into the condition and circumstances under which people had died. Some municipalities had taken up this matter and arranged that where there was no evidence how a person came to die there should be a local investigation. In Manchester when a person died and the death was not properly certified, the local officer of health employed one of the sanitary inspectors or visitors, to go round the locality and inquire into the circumstances under which the person died. It was an inquiry simply carried out by the local authority in the way of administration. It was an inquiry which led to the detection of fraud and sometimes to the detection of crime. In Glasgow and Edinburgh the municipalities adopted a similar method. The local medical officer of health reported these cases to the Procurator-Fiscal, and he held what was equivalent to an inquest in England, or granted a certificate for burial on the application of the medical officer of health. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might well encourage that system, and especially in the more populous centres. Another matter which he wished to press on the attention of the Committee was that a large number of death were certified, but they were called uncertified because they were notified by illegal practitioners of medicine. Those persons often gave their certificates on their own forms and not on the prescribed forms. Although these certificates were not regarded as certifying the cause of death, they were regarded as information on which burial was allowed to take place. Consequently by this practice they had the door open widely to what might lead to the commission of crime. It also afforded an opportunity for the spread of disease and injury to the public health, which, in some instances, became serious. In the county of Durham cases of infectious disease had ended in death and had not been notified, and, not being notified, the disease was liable to spread through the districts and cause epidemics to occur. The County Council of Durham called the attention of the Registrar-General to the fact, in the interest of public health, and the Registrar-General decided that such certificates should in future be referred to the coroner for inquiry, in order to check the loose method of administration. Unfortunately a few months afterwards—probably without the cognisance of the President of the Local Government Board—the Registrar-General withdrew that salutary arrangement and allowed the old system to go on of permitting burial on the certificates of those unqualified practitioners. The same danger to public health was now going on in the districts. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might encourage registrars to go back to the more wholesome system, and so prevent uncertified deaths from being a danger to the community. Medical practitioners moreover often gave certificates of death in a very loose fashion. Deaths were sometimes certified by medical men who had not seen the patient in his last illness; and sometimes months after the patient had been seen by the doctor. One striking instance was narrated to him when Chairman of the Select Committee that inquired into this matter. A gentleman, who was known by his family and his doctor to be suffering from heart disease, died in London. The doctor, at the request of the family, was willing to grant a certificate that the gentleman died from heart disease. On examination a wound caused by a pistol shot over the region of the heart was found. The gentleman had died from suicide. That case opened up a whole vista which showed a way in which people with chronic disease might be got rid of, sometimes by their own action, and sometimes by the criminal action of others. Such things ought not to be possible. There ought to be something done in the way of stricter administration of the law to prevent such occurences. If medical practitioners granted certificates without having seen the patients for weeks or months before death, then the possibilities of crime were absolutely appalling. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to turn his attention to this matter, and to endeavour to bring about a better administration of the law. An alteration of the law might be required to remedy this state of matters, but he could not help thinking that something more might be done than at present to make the administration of the law more strict, and to guard the public against the commission of crime. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the registrars throughout the country had been warned to accept certificates only on the prescribed forms, and so check the acceptance of loose forms of certificates that were often sent to notify death; whether any steps had been taken to induce registrars to refer uncertified deaths to coroners with the view of preventing the spread of disease and the commission of crime; and whether any steps had been taken to carry into effect the recommendation of the Water-Gas Committee. He further asked what steps the right hon. Gentleman or the Department had taken to encourage local authorities to carry out local inquiries into the cause of death in all uncertified cases within the area of their jurisdiction as was done in Manchester, Glasgow, and Edinburgh. He believed that if some such steps were taken they should guard against, not only danger to the public health, but also opportunity for the commission of crime.

said the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division had introduced his observations by proposing to reduce the salary of the President of the Local Government Board. He would like to see the right hon. Gentleman very much better paid instead of having his salary reduced. They would all agree that that Department was overworked and underpaid. He failed to understand why the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board should be placed on a different pecuniary basis to the Home Office and other Departments where the work was less hard. Since the introduction of the County Councils the work of the Local Government Board had very largely increased, whilst it is known that the work of the Home Office had diminished year by year. A Parliamentary inquiry was wanted into the status and emoluments of the different officers. It was a curious thing that the clerks of the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade were paid a less salary than the clerks of the Home Office and other Departments, who were said to belong to a higher grade. In answer to questions asked on several occasions, they had been told that higher qualifications were required, for the Home Office than for the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade. He would have thought that the case was exactly opposite. They all appreciated the highly scientific investigations that were carried on by the Local Government Board, and which showed that the qualifications of its officials were higher rather than lower than those of the Home Office, where the work was that of the ordinary jogtrot routine. He had always been an advocate for the appointment of a Minister of Public Health. It would be an excellent arrangement to have a Minister to take charge of difficult and delicate questions relating to public health, which were now discharged by the Local Government Board. That Department was under-staffed, and there should be established a bureau for collecting information for which a medical man or sanitary officer could apply, and for establishing public laboratories for scientific and hygienic work. They had heard a great deal about infected bedding. The Minister for War was asked the other day to carry out a scientific investigation into the question of blankets, but they were told that no investigation could take place until the Officer Commanding in South Africa had sent in his report. Was it not possible, he asked, to have an investigation before the means of carrying it to a successful conclusion had been removed? There was no real evidence that the boys in the training ship were infected by these blankets. There was a school who alleged that such diseases were borne by the air, and he thought it would be of very great importance if the right hon. Gentleman, in combination with the Minister for War, were to investigate the matter. A unique opportunity was now afforded of finding out what were the real facts of the case. He was glad that his hon. friend had brought forward the question of registration of deaths. He had sat on a Commitee on the question, of which his hon. friend was chairman. That Committee gave in a Report, which was entirely conclusive, that some legislation was necessary. Ten years ago 5,000 people died without any registration; and at the present moment a large amount of crime was going on undetected by the law, in consequence of the loose and insufficient method of death registration. Moreover, poisoning was now carried on by a much more scientific method than in the old days with arsenic. If any scientific person were to lay his mind to making murder a fine art—by the use of these terrible alkaloids which came from decomposing fish and other foods—fearful results, which would be entirely unchecked under the present law, would follow. He pressed on the Government to take up this question before long and introduce a Death Registration Reform Bill. He should like to see the French system introduced into this country, by which a scientific man, detached from ordinary practice, should be appointed to every registration district, whose sole duty would be to attend all cases and see that all the evidence was complete so as to enable him to certify that death was due to natural causes. He had always taken an interest in the poor children under the Local Government Board—their education, morals, and health. He must confess that while certain benefits had been introduced by recent legislation, and a great deal had been done by the Local Government Board to improve matters, the state of things was still not highly satisfactory. He would not speak of the morals or the education of these poor children, but he was entitled to speak of the medical conditions under which they were brought up and of the unsatisfactory nature of the physical training which they received in these establishments. The system of segregating children in large masses, in barrack schools could not be good for them. They could not stamp out many of the blood diseases from such prisons—for they were far more like prisons than hospitals or schools. Then they were managed with hard officialism; and it took a very strong-minded, highly-educated man to stand up against such management It would be much better to break up these schools altogether and put the children into little homes where they should have something like the care of a father or a mother, and have their health, morals, and education improved all round. The present system was, at all events, bad physically for the children.

said that this question had been brought so often before the Committee that it seemed to be a well-worn topic; but it was so important as to justify their bringing it again to the attention of the Local Government Board. It was a fact that there were in England and Wales 50,000 children under sixteen years of age who were under the control of the boards of guardians. That constituted a problem in itself of very considerable magnitude. This sum-total of 50,000 might well be reduced if the guardians were from time to time to adopt the policy, carried out by some boards of closely examining the circumstances of each child for which they were responsible. He believed that the result would be a very startling reduction in the number of the children with which they would require to deal. He referred to the experience of the Whitechapel Union. An exhaustive examination wag made there in collaboration with the Charity Organisation Society, with the result that thirty-five out of seventy-six children were discharged to the care of parents and relatives. The Lambeth Guardians on one occasion were able to discharge eleven out of fifty-three children in six months; the Edmonton Board got rid of eleven; and the Norwich Board seventy-four; and only a fortnight ago the Gloucester Board of Guardians found, on close investigation, that they were maintaining many children whose parents were residing in the town. He thought the Local Government Board would do well to call upon all boards of guardians to have a more frequent call-over of the children depending upon them. He agreed with the hon. Member opposite as to the evil results which followed from the segregation of children in these large barrack schools; and it was a matter of regret that the tendency towards institutionalism was still receiving some favour and support from the Local Government Board. He know the difficulties which the Local Government Board had in dealing with the plans and projects of what he supposed would be termed popularly-elected bodies; but he thought that the Local Government Board could do a great deal more than it did by Provisional Order with regard to the disposal of those children. Certainly it was remarkable that out of the 50,000 children of whom he had spoken, up to the present only about 8,500 were boarded out. Every hon. Member would recognise that the boarding-out of those children, if wisely and thoughtfully carried out, was an ideal method of disposing of them. It was not only that it was far and away the most economical method, but it was the best for the children morally and physically, and would relieve them in their after career, as far as possible, from that taint of pauperism which was so painful to think of in connection with a young and opening life. The Local Government Board might do more than it had done in encouraging the system of boarding out. He thought that the difficulties which had been alleged against the extension of the system were theoretical rather than practical. Certainly, one had only to apply to the institutions which boarded out their children to find that, by taking a little care and a little trouble, they had no difficulty in finding suitable foster parents. The secretary to the Home for Waifs and Strays stated that the boarding-out system, in his opinion, was one of the best possible methods for providing homes for young children. He added that his Society had always adopted that plan, during its existence of twenty-two years, for all young children under the age of seven, and that the reports received every fortnight from the Society's lady inspectors, one being a qualified doctor, showed that, with very few exceptions, the 700 children boarded out were thoroughly well treated and cared for by their foster mothers. It frequently happened that when children were old enough to learn a trade in one of the special industrial homes of the Society, the foster mothers preferred to adopt them entirely rather than part with them. The children, therefore, not only got a real home, but, oftentimes, also a mother's affection. The secretary of the Children's Country Holiday Fund said that they commenced with sending nineteen children for a month into the country; now they sent 35,000 every year. The experiment was attended with the greatest success, and the secretary was of opinion that no difficulty need be found in obtaining visitors in the country willing to undertake the supervision of the children. The inspectors who visited the villages during August found very little to complain of in the treatment of the children, the villagers displaying extra ordinary kindness and generosity towards their London guests; and the Fund had a considerable number of applications from persons who were willing to adopt children permanently. He would appeal to his right hon. friend to do what he could to extend the system of boarding out. If projects from boards of guardians for the erection of large buildings for schools for children were sanctioned by the Local Government Board, a considerable expenditure of money would inevitably be incurred, and a step would be taken which it would be very difficult indeed to retrace. He described the system as an ideal system; and he would remind the Committee that it was also a very economical system. The contrast between the various average amounts expended per child per annum under the different methods was really quite remarkable. The average annual minimum charge per child per annum in a barrack school was from £28 to £30. In one large school of 640 children the average cost was £34 per annum, and in another school of 350 children the annual cost was £40. That in itself was a strong argument in favour of boarding-out. He would appeal to his right hon. friend to extend the power of boarding out beyond London so that children adopted under the 1899 Act could be dealt with in that way. Another method of dealing with children—the method of scattered homes—had also a considerable measure of success. In the city of Bradford, which he himself represented, that system was in force, with highly satisfactory results. The plain fact of the matter was that the best way of dealing with those children was to endeavour to bring them as much as possible within the ordinary child life of the locality in which they were placed. Many guardians already did that; and he knew of no instance where the experiment was ever regretted. The Stepney Board of Guardians sent their children from Stepney Workhouse to a Board school in the Tower Hamlets. That certainly was better than a barrack school; but he did not regard it as an entirely satisfactory solution as the children returned every evening to the workhouse. They were treated with kindness and consideration, but he did not want to have children in a workhouse at all. It seemed to him that those institutions were admirable for abnormal children, but altogether undesirable for normal children. The ordinary child was much better dealt with by some such separate method as he had suggested, either by boarding out or in a scattered home; but for children who were mentally or physically deficient, institutional life was almost inevitable. He wished he could think that there had been more progress in the matter; but he was sorry to say that that was not the case. During the last five years no less a sum than £48,000 had been spent in adding to the existing Metropolitan Poor Law schools. The Local Government Board had sanctioned, on a large scale, schemes which were a more or less modified form of institutionalism. The Woolwich Board of Guardians, with 350 children, had built a village community at a cost of £77,000 for building alone; the Greenwich Board of Guardians, with 600 children to pro vide for, had laid the foundation of a village community which was to cost about £150,000; the Stepney Board of Guardians, with 300 children to provide for, was building an institution at a cost of about £40,000. The evils of such an aggregation of children had been pointed out with great force by his hon. friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, who had spoken with great knowledge of medical matters on the subject. Unfortunately, from time to time one heard of the outbreak of easily preventable disease, but not easily preventable if a large number of children were aggregated together. During the past twelve months in those schools for only thirteen weeks were they free of illness. The same story ran through the whole of the schools. He drew attention to the condition of things at the Holly-mount School, Tottington, Lancashire. Out of 200 children, only eighty-three were free from disease. No condition of things could be more painful, and all these diseases were such as spring from want of cleanliness and proper nourishment. The diet was—

"Breakfast—tea without milk, and bread and butter. Dinner; potatoes mashed with the water they were boiled in—on one day peas and pea water, and on another day rice and rice water."

It would be seen there was neither milk nor meat in the dietary. For tea and supper, weak tea without milk, and bread and butter. Such a diet was not sufficient, and a board of guardians which handed over its children to such an institution should be blamed, and some censure should be passed upon the inspector of the Local Government Board who passed such a dietary. As a result of the inquiry that was instituted the President of the Local Government Board declined to certify further Hollymount School, and withdrew the certificate. Some changes had taken place in the management of the school, and it had now been recertified. So far as this school was concerned it had now been placed on a proper basis, but what a reflection it was for the Committee that this school should have been carried on for so many years before the full facts came to light. He concluded with an earnest appeal that his right hon. friend would do what he could to extend the system of dealing with these children by means of boarding-houses and scattered homes. It would be hard, no doubt, for the Local Government Board to withstand the demand of boards of guardians and to reject their proposals, but much could be done by advice and sympathetic encouragement to those working in the direction of reforms.

said he had listened with considerable interest to the two previous speakers, and his mind had been carried back to the practical application of the systems of the suggestions made. He had seen the system alluded to at work, and he complimented the Local Government Board on the enormous improvement which had take place in the conduct of these schools in the last ten years. The hon. Member for Bradford had quoted several authorities who had successfully boarded out, but the Waifs and Strays Society would have nothing to do with either Poor Law officials or Poor Law children, nor would the Country Holiday Society. When dealing with Poor Law children a totally different condition arose. Twelve years ago there was no warmer advocate for the settlement of the whole difficulty by the system of boarding out than he. It was an ideal system in theory but its success by practical application had yet to be proved. They were limited as to the class of children who could be boarded out. They were only allowed to board out orphan and deserted children; that limited the number to begin with; they were also limited to the number of homes. Many applications were made by old people to be allowed to adopt children on charitable grounds, but when inquiries were made as to the incomes of these people the guardians generally discovered the charitable reason which actuated them to board these children. He knew one case where a widow boarded four children, which was two more than she ought to have done according to the law, for which she had 16s. a week. She lived in a district where the labourers' wages were 11s. and she went about like a duchess in the district. In another case which he personally investigated, he wanted to see the child, and asked how the boy was getting on, and he was told, "Oh, all right; but he is growing so big and eats such a lot. Could not you take him away and send me a smaller boy?" The boarded-out children, so far from losing the pauper taint, were known frequently more by the name of the union from which they came than by their own names; in fact "boarding-out" was the staple industry of the village. Instead of being merged into the village life, the boys were frequently sent into the Navy or the Army. When boarding-out was good there was nothing better, but the difficulty was to find suitable homes, and then only a special class could be dealt with. Then as to scattered homes. Sheffield was the Mecca of Poor Law administration, and it was there the scattered home system was really started. The children in the homes were said to be so contented and so lovingly looked after that they really did not know they were Poor Law children at all. He did not believe it. A child had only one mother; everything else was a substitute. A "scattered home" with fourteen children under one woman was nothing like a working man's home; it was a little workhouse, and not a home at all. As these children were playing with others in the school-ground, he was challenged to pick out those from the home, but as they marched past he placed his hand on the shoulder of every one. How did he do it? It was Friday afternoon. The boy with the dirty collar or the boots with untidy or broken laces was going home to his mother; the boy with the spotless collar and carefully cleaned boots was going back to the institution. He went to the home and asked whether the boys ever played in the streets. He was told that they did sometimes, but when he said the place was their home and they ought to go out to play every night, he was met with the reply "That's all very well; you haven't to keep them clean; I have." So that although it was a "home," institution law prevailed. He disagreed entirely with the suggestion that institutions were wanted for abnormal children; they were just the class for whom small homes were necessary. With regard to the physique of the children in the so-called barrack-schools—although he objected to the term, which was equally applicable to Eton—he invited Members generally to attend an exhibition of physical training to be given at Church House to-morrow by these very children. It would then be seen that the schools were not such dreadful places as they were sometimes made out to be. An open mind should be kept on these matters. He was glad to say that that was the attitude of the Local Government Board. Wherever they saw a good thing they should be ready to adopt it. Foster-mothers could not be had for the asking. It seemed to be thought that they had only to put a penny in the slot in order to get the finest mother in the world. Plenty could be secured who would make the children do all the work, but that was not the class desired. He agreed that children should not be kept in the workhouse a moment longer than was necessary, but when one union was quoted against another difficulties arose. The conditions and circumstances of every child had to be inquired into. Whitechapel had seventy-six children in the Forest Gate School, as against Poplar's 600. At first sight that seemed to be a magnificent achievement for Whitechapel. But Whitechapel had an enormous Jewish population, the children of which were looked after by the Jewish Board of Guardians. Much the same thing happened in St. George's-in-the East, although this union has schools at Upton Park. But the poverty in these districts, where they were supposed to have abolished outdoor relief, was simply awful. The whole question of Poor Law administration had to be looked at broadly; it must not be narrowed down to particular districts where they went on the Charity Organisation principle of giving nothing until diligent inquiry had been made into a person's antecedents. The Local Government Board recognised the principle that the need of a person was the reason he should be helped at once, and his antecedents inquired into afterwards. Poplar had 900 such children. Stepney had just opened schools at Stifford for their children. Woolwich union also had erected homes recently, and I question if hon. Members could improve upon either of these places. The boards of guardians could not be told to inquire into the circumstances of each individual child, and to turn a number into the street. Guardians had a greater responsibility to the State than the mere turning out of the child. They had to see that he was not brought up a beggar, ne'er-do-well, or anything of that sort. Each case must be dealt with as it arose, as the Poor Law child had no parallel in any other class. He congratulated both the late and the present President of the Local Government Board upon the success of the new dietary scale. Now there was no earthly excuse for any board of guardians to under-feed the children. It was not the fault of the Local Government Board but the fault of many boards of guardians that the present dietary scale was not put into operation long ago. He wished to put three questions to the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said that in the near future the duties of boards of guardians would, in all probability, be delegated to the Borough Councils. He questioned whether any authority they might delegate these powers to could do the work so efficiently as the men and women who were now doing it. He wished to have a clear answer upon that point. He also wished to know whether the Local Government Board had considered or would consider the desirability of equalising the charges in London for outdoor relief. They found in London that the poorer the district the greater expense it incurred in dealing with the poor. That was to say, it was to the advantage of the richer parishes that there should be an aggregation of workmen in other parts, and the toilers who broke down in health would be more frequent there than in the richer parishes. The poor they had to deal with, both indoor and outdoor, ought to be as much a charge upon the richer parishes as upon the poorer parishes of London. He did not offer any objection to the richer parishes being allowed such control as the Local Government Board might think desirable. Boards of guardians were not now inclined to say to every applicant, "You must come into the House, we cannot give you outdoor relief." It seemed to him that they ought not to be compelled to so enlarge their workhouses as to embrace all who applied, because the people inside were a charge upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. They should not be compelled to enlarge their workhouse when they could help to keep people outside the workhouse. Therefore he wished to ask if the President of the Local Government Board would consider the desirability of equalising the charges upon all localities for outdoor relief. Did the Committee realise that in England and Wales, under the heading of the Poor Rate, about £26,500,000 was raised every year. That was an appalling sum, but on the top of that they were going to ask for old-age pensions. The Committee would scarcely believe that this £26,500,000 had nothing to do with the poor as far as more than half of that charge was concerned. No less than £14,500,000 was for charges that had absolutely nothing to do with the poor, for only about £11,500,000 was for purposes absolutely connected with the Poor Law. When they got to still closer quarters they would find that the £11,500,000 included superannuation allowances, buildings, furniture, maintenance, and officers' expenses, but for the poor, indoor and outdoor, only £5,250,000 was spent. Consequently only £5,250,000 went to the people for whom this £26,500,000 was collected. Did the right hon. Gentleman not think it was a shame that his Department should be credited with the raising of £26,500,000 for the poor when they only actually got £5,250,000 of it. This always seemed to him to be an appalling state of things.

said he wished to say a word or two in defence of the boarding-out system, but would first allude to Hollymount School which had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford. He believed that an absolute and radical change had taken place there, and its present condition was such as would satisfy hon. Member's who desired that the children should be properly dealt with. At a private inspection made a day or two ago, a gentleman in the neighbourhood found the children in excellent condition, and the state of things there had been entirely changed. In regard to the outbreak of ophthalmia, it was gradually disappearing under the care of a specialist who was called in before the inquiry took place. One ground of complaint had been that there was not a responsible Committee on the spot, but that had now been altered, and a responsible Committee of seven persons had been appointed. Another complaint was that the children had not been properly looked after because most of the sisters were unaccustomed to English ways. Now almost all of them were either English or British. Formerly in regard to medical attendance the doctor was paid for each visit, but now he received a salary and was under an engagement to pay so many visits. The old system in regard to medical attendance led perhaps to economy in calling the doctor in, and was consequently an objectionable system. The Nursing staff had also been improved by placing a certificated nurse of experience in charge of it, and the teaching staff had been improved by the appointment of a certificated teacher. As to the dietary scale, he had it in his possession, and his hon. friend sitting near him had examined it and declared that it was a very good scale. He had had some experience of the dietaries in similar institutions, and he thought this was a very good scale indeed, and if it was adhered to, the children at all events would not suffer from lack of food. A considerable number of the children attending these schools were in the scholars procession which took place in Lancashire towns during Whit week, and he was told that they looked remarkably well, and were exceedingly well clothed. Whilst he did not advocate these aggregations of children, he did not see how they were to do without them at the present moment. The special point upon which he desired to address a question to the President of the Local Government Board was with regard to the regulations and conditions on which children were boarded out, and he also wished to know whether they could not expedite the rate at which children in the workhouses were being taken out and dealt with. There were various methods of dealing with these children, but the one method which was not desirable was that they should be retained in the workhouses amongst other paupers. Children who had to mix up with the other inmates in workhouses were under the most unfavourable conditions, because they were surrounded by life's failures, and they had not those incentives which either cottage homes or the boarding-out system gave them to exercise their own intellects and advance themselves in life. The children had no opportunity in the workhouse for any home training, and the food they received there, so far as they knew, might come down from heaven. They did not know how it was cooked or prepared, nor did they feel that their own comfort and happiness depended upon their own exertions. Their own individual faults and failings were not discovered in the workhouse, and when children were taken out of the workhouse and put into a cottage home very often a number of them were found to have objectionable habits. That, however, was not the fault of the home to which they came, but the fault of the home from which they had been taken, The self-reliance and fitness of children for responsibilities was not developed under the workhouse system and children had been frequently returned after being sent out, because they were not familiar with the ordinary routine of daily life. He thought the boarding-out system had its own special dangers, which were recognised by those who were familiar with the system. These were dangers which had to be guarded against. There ought, of course, to be adequate inspection by lady inspectors and by capable voluntary committees who ought to be well kept up to their work. There was plenty of philanthropic aid available, and, properly directed, it could be usefully employed. His own experience was provincial and not metropolitan. He had no doubt the conditions in the Metropolis were very different indeed. As one safeguard, it might be advisable to increase the number of lady inspectors at present in the service of the Local Government Board. Of the 50,000 children for whom the administrators of the Poor Law were responsible, 8,000 were boarded out, an increasing number, but he was sorry to see the numbers boarded out outside their own unions decreasing. As to the objections which had been taken to the system, he found that children did get into the stream of life when boarded out in properly selected homes. They, to a certain extent, formed home ties with their foster parents, which had a great steadying influence upon them when they grew up. The hon. Member for East Bradford had stated that in one union the number of children directly under the control of the guardians had been reduced by one half after the adoption of boarding-out. That was also his own experience in the union with which he was connected. Many of the objections to the boarding-out system mentioned by the hon. Member for Woolwich were well known to those who advocated the system. They had been warned by the Local Government Board that there should not be too many boarded-out children in any one village. This instruction was given so that boarding out should not become the industry of the village. Even if the children were not merged in the life of the village he held that the training they received when boarded out, was healthier, better, and cheaper than the training they received in a large establishment, and was better for them if they afterwards went into the Army and Navy. In reference to Local Government Board limitations, he wished to ask definitely whether the age limit could not be removed for boarding-out beyond the union. He had found occasions where the limit of ten in the case of a dull child was rather an obstacle. He was afraid that the regulations of the Local Government Board were overlooked in those cases, and it might be better that the limit should be relaxed. With regard to the downward limit he thought a strong case could be made out. Children could not now be boarded out below two years of age. If a child of two could be boarded out he did not see why a child of one should not. As soon as a child passed the absolute nursing stage he thought the guardians should be allowed to board it out. When children were as young as two years of age they sometimes learned habits which were difficult to get rid of. He did not see the necessity for the limit. He believed this relaxation was recommended so long ago as 1896 by a Departmental Committee, and it had also been favourably considered by the North Western Poor Law Conference. Referring to children adopted under the Poor Law Act of 1899 the hon. Member said these were frequently children of very unfortunate antecedents. He thought the relaxation of the boarding-out beyond the union order should also apply to these children because it would certainly be of advantage for them. He thought it would be advisable that the formation of voluntary committees in the union should be encouraged if not made absolutely necessary. There were strong arguments in favour of making it absolutely compulsory in regard to the boarding-out of children within the union. These committees could visit the children more frequently than the officers, and their visits were not so objectionable. Members of the committee frequently interested themselves in the lives of the children, and kept an eye upon them afterwards. He disliked chiefly the association of the children in the workhouse with the older paupers who were necessarily there. Many of them might be compared to old hulks lying up there with no prospect but to stay there in such comfort as was provided for them, until they died. But the children were young vessels starting out, and everything possible should be done to give them a fair chance of making a successful voyage through life.

said that as a member of a Bradford union which was the third largest in England he had had opportunity of gaining some experience in the administration of the Poor Law. There was one law which he thought must be universally applied, and that was that children ought not to be admitted into any workhouse. In his opinion it was totally unnecessary that any child should even for a moment enter those gloomy portals; it should be in some room entirely separate from the workhouse or Poor Law sentiment. He also thought that the "barrack" schools were wholly unnecessary; they were not required in the large union of Bradford, and he believed they were not necessary in any union in the country. They must remember the unhappy condition of some of these children, in far too many cases they were physically and mentally feeble, often diseased both in mind and body. He did not think that in dealing with them it was possible to condemn any one system. Several speakers had denounced the boarding out system, and others had spoken of separate cottage homes. He believed there was no arrangement that was not open to dangers and criticisms, and he believed the best and wisest plan was to make use of all these different institutions, which, if not quite suited to all cases, would in many cases be found of great value. In Yorkshire they had found great benefit from the boarding-out system, but he agreed that it was a system which required most careful administration and continual thought-fulness. In many cases where the children were wholly and absolutely separated from the pauper community they had found great benefit from the system of separate homes. It was perfectly true that if there were fourteen children in a home that was not an exact reproduction of a working man's family; but they were dealing with what was possible. It was wholly impossible to find homes for all these children in working class families where there were only five or six children. They could not completely produce the family life which existed in the homes of the working people in the manufacturing districts; but the children were trained differently from those in the large institutions—their life was conducted by simple appliances instead of by pompous arrangements. They went to school—Anglican, R. C., or undenominational—and mingled with children of the same age. There was one great difficulty in connection with separate homes, and that was the industrial training. A recommendation was made in one report that the children should be sent to some industrial training school. He believed there was much in that suggestion, and he hoped some system might be devised whereby these young people might have some part of their dependent life devoted to industrial instruction which would fit them for taking a place in society and obtaining an honest livelihood. In last year's report there was a reference to the practice pursued in the counties of Sussex, Surrey, and Kent. It stated that the girls were most carefully trained in industrial work of every kind, and the result was that the number of applications for children going out to service was so large that the committee, who took the greatest possible interest in the work, were able to make a very careful selection of the places to which the girls were sent. The children, it was added, did better than the workhouse children, and in point of fact their training was a real education. There was a difficulty in the supervision of these homes. The utmost care had to be taken in the selection of the foster mothers, and the supervision of their conduct should be firm and at the same time gentle. He wished to refer to the great success which had attended the labours of the board of guardians of the Bradford union in dealing with the aged and deserving poor. The care taken in the investigation of these cases was, the ventured to say, absolutely exemplary. It was a great pleasure to find that, owing to the care taken by the guardians, the aged and deserving poor now received such an amount of outdoor relief as raised them out of the evils of penury. And as regarded those in the workhouses there was the most careful supervision to secure every comfort and solace for those of advanced years or debilitated by old age.

said the Prime Minister had informed the House yesterday that he had been nine years in the House when he made certain suggestions to Mr. Gladstone with, he hoped, becoming modesty. He had been in the House for exactly that term, and he trusted to make the few suggestions which he was about to make with a like becoming modesty. The hon. Member who had just sat down stated that many suggestions had been made as to the treatment of these pauper children—some of them good and some bad. Everybody however, he thought, believed that the system of large aggregations of these children was bad though it might be difficult to do away with. He wished to call attention to a few of the results of the system. At Ipswich, ring-worm was so bad that the children, against the wishes of the board of guardians, had to be boarded out. At Norwood the death rate was thirty-six per 1000, or double that of the borough itself. At Hanwell eighty-eight children were in danger of their lives from suppuration, and 283 children were suffering from ophthalmia. In another union a child died from pneumonia only the day after it was discovered that it was suffering from the disease. That showed that in these institutions there was not proper supervision. At Richmond, scarlet fever broke out, and there were five cases in the home. His hon. friend had drawn attention to the mental and moral improvement that might be secured by putting the children into small homes. The development of character must necessarily be bad with such an enormous aggregation of children in some of these institutions. The system under which these children were treated was dull and mechanical, there was an absence of that healthy interest in the world about them which one would like to see developed in children. They were necessarily denied all affection and love in these large institutions. There were 1,000 children at Hanwell Asylum, and he understood that it was proposed to certify what was now called the Ophthalmic Block as a barrack school for over 750 normal children. He maintained that that building, which was only of corrugated iron, ought not to be licensed for such a purpose. The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman had given an undertaking, that his Department would decrease the number of children in these schools, and in no case allow an addition to them to be made. As to the Hollymount case, he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having withdrawn the certificate from that school. It was an abominable case which one would have thought could hardly have existed in this country. But how came it about that the certificate was returned to that school? His hon. friend had already stated that the system of dietary was completely altered; he hoped it was; it had need to be. But it was not only a question of diet; it was a question of the general treatment of the children. The Committee would hardly believe it, but when the children were examined and placed in a bath they screamed loudly, and the girls were found to be suffering from sore heads, eczema, skin eruptions, and other diseases. Further, they were practically starved. The Report said that "now and again" the children were suffering from ophthalmia. What were the facts? As soon as they were examined it was found that out of 230 children only eighty-four were free from disease, and only forty-nine out of 212 were found to be free from ophthalmia. That was what the gentleman who wrote the report described as suffering from ophthalmia "now and again." That was, of course, a form of deception, but was not quite so bad as what followed. A certain girl, Kate Mallon, was found to be suffering from phthisis, and was not expected to recover. That girl was supposed to have written a letter in which it was said that they had a jolly time, that Father Christmas had brought them sweets and toys and other things too numerous to mention, and that they were in the best of health with rosy faces and bright eyes. That letter was shown to the girl, and she was asked why she wrote it, and she replied that she had never written it at all. That disclosed a very serious state of things. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman withdrew the certificate from that school on the 14th October; but he was also informed—he did not know whether correctly or not—that the right hon. Gentleman recertificated the school before the end of the year. Considering all the right hon. Gentleman had ascertained as to what had happened in the school, it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was very rapid in the measures he took in order to secure that the children should be treated in a better manner in future; that the diet, for instance, should be sufficient to nourish their bodies, that care should be taken that their health should be decently looked after, and that the system of intimidating the girls should not be continued. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to assure himself on all those points. It appeared to him to be of the utmost importance that, in a case like that, an example should be made of the school. He was informed that this was only one of many religious institutions all over the country where similar things, were going on; and it seemed to him a crying shame that they should be permitted.

said he should like to make a few observations on the general treatment of pauper children. His first observation was that the public authority should have complete control over all children whose parents received Poor Law relief, because, in asking for relief, the parents would have to submit to any conditions which Parliament, the Local Government Board, and the board of guardians prescribed. Those conditions should be conceived solely in the interests of the children themselves. He believed it was now generally accepted as both just and expedient that the public authority should do the best it could for those children; that it should give them the best education, and in every way fit them to become citizens. It was good economy to spend money in that way. The old idea of the time of Oliver Twist, to make the education of those children as cheap as possible, was now scouted by everyone. All they differed on now was not the object but the means of attaining it. It appeared to him that it was a very wrong thing for either the State or the local authority to use children for the purpose of putting some kind of coercion on their parents. He said that for two reasons. In the first place, a child was far too costly an object to be expended in that way. To sacrifice the whole future of a child in order to make the parent do his duty was an asset too costly for the object to be carried out. His second objection was that it was wholly illusory, and did not make the parent in any way do his duty by the child. He did not think that the public or the Local Government Board sufficiently realised the fact, which was unfortunately true, that a child was a very valuable asset. A child could be used for all sorts of purposes, such as begging, or performing in public, and so far from children being a burden, they were often brought to theatres, racecourses, and public entertainments of that kind, and were hired out to persons who found it worth their while to pay for their use. Many years ago a Departmental Committee of the Local Government Board under the presidency of the late Mr. Mundella was appointed to consider the condition of pauper schools. He himself was a member of that Committee. The Report which the Committee presented attracted a great deal of attention, and the Local Government Board, under the presidency of his right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford, gave certain assurances to the House of Commons and the public that some at least of the recommendations of the Report would be carried out. The first point to which he wished to call attention was a point on which everyone was agreed, and that was that children should not be allowed to remain in workhouses. There were differences of opinion on other points; on that there was none. That was brought very clearly home to all the members of the Committee, not only by the evidence but by personal visits to workhouses, and by seeing the actual condition of the children. He defied anyone to see the condition of the children as the members of the Committee saw it, and not hold earnestly the opinion that no child should under any circumstances be in a workhouse. The great objection was that those children were in most workhouses mixed up with the adult paupers; very often they were attended by pauper attendants who were frequently people of extremely bad character, and quite unfit to look after any respectable and decent child. The children heard all the foul language which, he was sorry to say, prevailed in workhouses, and which was one of the chief objections which decent people had to workhouse life. In some workhouses where the children lived in the workhouse it was very deleterious to the children, but in others where the children were sent away to the Board schools and had separate quarters from the adults the conditions were not so bad as they usually were for the children in the workhouses. The Board of Guardians of Chelsea and Kensington kept the children outside the workhouse. They had a receiving house for them, and the children never came into the workhouse, and since the plan had been adopted by Chelsea and Kensington other boards of guardians had done the same. Having said all that, he pointed out that there were at this moment according to the Returns of the Local Government Board more children in the London workhouses than before the Report was made. At the time the Report was furnished there were 2,294 children in the London workhouses. At the present moment the returns showed a total of 3,004. In the country generally there were in the Home Counties upwards of 20,000 similarly circumstanced, and in many cases those children were in the charge of pauper superintendents, and had no education worthy of the name. He appealed to the President of the Local Government Board to issue some compulsory order forbidding the guardians taking the children into the workhouses and compelling them to make some other provision for them. The next point was what was to be done? There were four ways in which the children could be dealt with. One was to put them in those large schools which still existed; the second to place them in village communities where the houses were grouped together, but where the children lived in separate houses, and attended school, Church, and recreation in common. Then there was the system adopted many years ago by the Sheffield Board of Guardians, to have scattered homes, and the fourth system was boarding out. The one objection to the large schools was that it had been proved by experience that it was impossible to prevent in them epidemic disease, and particularly that scourge of the school, ophthalmia. Every effort, and there had been many, made to put a stop to ophthalmia had failed, and that disease was continually breaking out in these schools. The greatest proof of that was the large institution opened the other day by the right hon. Gentleman for the provision of 360 children suffering from ophthalmia. The treatment which the children received was excellent in every way, but anyone who witnessed the sufferings they endured; who had seen them stagger under the pain of having their eyes sponged out with a painful lotion, necessary though it was for their cure, would regret that such institutions were necessary. In recent times this Committee had come to a unanimous conclusion against the maintenance of these large boarding schools. The one school at Sutton was broken up, and a promise given by the then President of the Local Government Board, the right hon. Member for Sleaford, that no addition should be made to the existing schools. Under those circumstances, he learned with astonishment that it was proposed to extend the accommodation of the school at Hanwell.

said that proposal did not emanate from him.

expressed his satisfaction at the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and said he did not wish in any way to reflect on those who had the management of these institutions and who had been successful in mitigating many of their disadvantages. The village communities were undoubtedly an improvement on the great schools, and he learned with regret that instead of their being restricted to houses where a small number of children were boarded, large blocks were being put up, thus doing away entirely with the good of the village community, and making them like the large schools. It was also said the village communities were costly, but he did not object to them on that ground, because whatever money was spent if the result was good, was money well spent. Then there was the system of scattered homes. He had seen these scattered homes, and, so far as one could judge, a more excellent way of providing for the children not boarded out it was difficult to imagine. Many boards of guardians have imitated the plan, which he believed was better than either the big schools or the village communities. He could not help thinking that the experience of the hon. Member for Woolwich in regard to boarding-out had been rather unfortunate. If the boarding-out system was unsatisfactory, he thought it was rather due to some error of machinery on the part either of the Local Government Board or the local guardians than to any failure in the system itself. In the inquiry of eight years ago, nearly all the members of the Committee came to the conclusion that of all the methods of treating children, that adopted by Dr. Barnardo was by far the most humane and successful. He previously had a strong prejudice against Dr. Barnardo, but, after seeing his institution and having practical experience of his work, he became a complete convert. Dr. Barnardo tried both the institution and the village community systems, but fell back on boarding out the children as being by far the best way of bringing them up. He was not certain about the cost; but he should not think it was so great as that of the large institutions, but, judging by results, it was by far the best system. Whatever system was adopted, he earnestly hoped the President of the Local Government Board would at once turn the children out of the workhouse. As to the desirability of doing that all were agreed. After the evidence given before, and the conclusion arrived at, by the Committee some years ago, it would be a great pity to extend the big school or the village community system. As many as possible should be boarded out, and those who could not be boarded out should be put in scattered homes. The greatest possible deterrent of pauperism was to take the children out of the hands of worthless parents. That was done in New Zealand, and the law had the effect of immediately diminishing the number of persons who became chargeable to the rates.

said that when they considered the large number of children in charge of the State, they could not but feel that it was most desirable that such methods should be used as would save the children from becoming paupers in the future. He believed that if the guardians were urged to do their duty and wise methods were employed, the bulk of the children could be made into useful citizens, and be restored to industrial and normal life. Nearly twenty years of his life had been spent in connection with pauper children, as chairman of a large union in the North, and he believed the best work of his life was that which he did as chairman of the schools connected with that union. The first method they adopted was that of separating the children from the adult paupers; they built schools and engaged separate managers and teachers. Then they endeavoured to improve the physique of the children, who were stolid and dull, having the stamp of the workhouse child upon them. Gymnastic exercises were introduced, and in an industrial school the boys were taught tailoring, shoemaking and other trades. But the best thing they did was to send the children to the public elementary school, giving them a variety of dress so that they should not be marked among the other pupils. The children improved in health and energy; their manner altered, and in a year or two they were like ordinary working men's children. One difficulty which they had to tackle was that of dealing with the girls when they left the workhouse. Many of them were taken by relations, who had been quite content to allow the State to bring them up but who wished to use them for their own purposes when they were able to earn money. Many of the girls, especially in large towns, were in great danger, and some became immoral. It was found that the best thing for the girls' welfare was to send them to Canada, and some hundreds had been sent out. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how far the Local Government Board were now dealing with the question of emigration. With regard to the boarding out, it was necessary to know the character of the parents and the homes, and to be sure that the children would be treated as they should be. In large towns boarding out was not the best system, although it might be in villages where everybody was known. By using such methods as he had described, by taking an interest in the children and by keeping in touch with them by correspondence after they had gone out into the world, he believed the guardians could do good work for the community and for the future.

said the question of the inspection of Poor Law schools had been discussed for a long time, and he noticed that in the present session the President of the Local Government Board had stated that the correspondence with the Education Department had been reopened. It was very awkward from the educational standpoint that the inspection of these schools should be in the hands not of the Education Department, but of the Local Government Board. Nothing could be said in defence of such an arrangement, and he hoped his right hon. friend, among other reforms, would not lose sight of that point. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give them some assurance that the Report in regard to the disposal of sewage would be speedily presented. The question of the boarding out of children was a subject upon which there was more misunderstanding than upon any other subject connected with the Poor Law. A great many people thought that the barrack school system was responsible for all the mischief upon this question. The barrack schools were condemned; that went without saying; but to involve all these schools in a general condemnation was to make a mistake. Sutton had afforded the worst case; but he understood that that school had been broken up and that the girls' school was now set aside for children suffering from ringworm. It was often said that these Poor Law children were quite dull, but he thought if any Member of the House were to see these boys in the cricket field or in the gymnasium he would agree they were just as pleasant and joyful children as could be found in the whole of London. He never could understand why these children were charged with being specially dull. What was the difficulty the boards of guardians had apart from the Local Government Board? Boarding out had been suggested. Yes; but they had first of all to get their homes. That might be easy enough to do in the rural districts of the country, and he should say that boarding out was the real remedy in those districts; but when they came to deal with the urban districts the difficulty was greater. They had then got to find the homes and the foster parents, and to get a committee to take an interest in these matters was perhaps the greatest difficulty of all Hon. Members made a great mistake if they thought that the boarding-out system was a delightful thing to undertake. Then there was the religious difficulty to be considered, particularly with regard to Roman Catholic children. They could not board out Roman Catholic children, because that would raise the religious difficulty at once. Having looked into the question most thoroughly, he could say it could only be settled by the establishment of schools of a moderate size, by village communities, by boarding out, and by scattered homes. The question of scattered homes was rather an interesting one. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board what had been the results of the Camberwell experiment. There was an experiment thoroughly tried in a London community, and he desired to know whether it bad met with success, and whether the Local Government Board thought the experiment ought to be carried farther. There had been a charge made against the late President of the Local Government Board in allowing additions to the barrack schools. He thought he could say that more than one application had been made to add to those schools, but the late President found himself bound by the Report of the Committee on the subject. It was not the case that any real additions were allowed. What was done was to grant applications for increasing the size of the kitchen department, and applications as regarded expenditure on ventilation were rightly sanctioned. He did not think any application to enlarge the scope of the schools to provide for additional children had been allowed, and he did not think such an application had been granted since the Report was issued. He thought the House was perfectly unanimous that children ought not to be in workhouses at all. They must always bear in mind the difficulties in London, for example. They had in London to deal with an enormous number of ins and outs. A woman or worker arrived with three or four children at the workhouse at night, for instance, and left again in the morning. But they were reckoned as being in the workhouse. Supposing they had receiving houses; they were no good unless they had got places to send them to from the receiving houses. They were bound to have a certain number of these children in because of these ins and outs. All these difficulties could only be appreciated by guardians, and he confessed he had never listened with more pleasure to a speech than to that of Mr. Crooks, the hon. Member for Woolwich, who went practically into the whole question. He believed the guardians were doing their best under difficult circumstances, and he believed the Local Government Board were encouraging the guardians to provide for these children in the best way they could.

said he wished to ask for some information with regard to the administration of the Vaccination Acts. He did not wish at this time to challenge the policy of compulsory vaccination, or to restate the objections to the order of 1898, whereby the boards of guardians were deprived of discretion with regard to prosecutions, recognised for thirty years as almost a statutory power, or to refer to the circular letter issued by the Local Government Board in 1901, which seemed to him to interfere with the discretionary powers of magistrates in dealing with this question. What he wished to raise was two specific issues on which there might be common ground for those who wished good administration, without raising any controversial issues. It seemed to him that the whole scale of fees and charges introduced under the Order of 1898, and by the administration of the Acts by the Local Government Board was enormously high. Before this Order and the other circulars came into effect in 1898, the cost of the vaccination administration by boards of guardians in England and Wales was £72,655. In the following year, after the Act of 1898 was put into operation, the cost was raised to three times that amount—namely, £237,000, and, so far as he could see, it stood at that rate at the present time. The hon. Member for Aberdeen shire might think that the doctors who carried out this administration deserved to be well paid. He would admit that domiciliary vaccination did justify an increase in the expenditure, but with that exception he thought he represented the feelings of many boards of guardians when he said that this enormous growth of expenditure was a matter which deserved the attention of the Local Government Board with a view to reconsideration and revision. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could introduce any suggestions or modifications which would lead to economy in that expenditure. The second point he wished to raise was this—without raising any question as to the legality or otherwise of the vaccination officer being made absolutely independent of the board of guardians, he wished to point out that the vaccination officer was placed in a position wholly exceptional amongst all the other officers, as far as he knew, of any local authority at the present time. The vaccination officer was under the board of guardians, but received instructions from the Local Government Board which practically gave him a free hand, and this enabled him to defy the authority of the boards of guardians. The Local Government Board might claim that the boards of guardians were not acting within the letter of the law, and therefore the vaccination officer was properly carrying out his duties by resisting his board in matters in which, he submitted, according to the ordinary principles of local government, boards of guardians ought to have some authority and discretionary power over their officials. The particular case he had been requested to bring before the Committee was that of the Welling borough Board of Guardians, the principal union in the division he represented. He hoped that question would be considered by the right hon. Gentleman apart from any argument ad invidiam from the past. He was not going to raise any question as to the attitude the board might have had at some previous period in regard to the Vaccination Acts. He would deal with the question as it now stood. The board acquiesced in the carrying out of the Acts at the present time. They appointed two vaccination officers—one for a large district and one for a small district. The officer for the smaller district had carried out his duty with vigilance and precise inquiry into the facts. He had brought something like 200 cases before the Courts, and had carried out the whole procedure without imposing on the board of guardians any solicitors' fees whatever. None of the cases brought before the Courts were dismissed, so that whatever expenditure was incurred by the guardians was justified. The officer appointed for the larger district had dealt with some 400 cases in the same period. He had insisted from the first on being accompanied in Court by a solicitor, whereas only in one, or two, or three, or four cases since the commencement of the vaccination prosecutions had the defendants been represented by a solicitor, or had any legal point been raised. By insisting, in the face of repeated protests, on being accompanied by a solicitor, this officer had imposed enormous costs on the board of guardians. In nearly all the cases the solicitor did not require to say a single word in court. The total cost in eighteen months amounted to no less than £431, and up to the present time they amounted to £583, which was equal to a ¾d. rate in the district, and a ½d. rate was actually imposed last year in order to meet these extra charges. Further, with regard, to this vaccination officer no less than ninety-eight cases were dismissed by the Court owing to the omission of inquiries prescribed by the circular of 1901. In some cases the child had died, or the parents had obtained a certificate, or had removed from the district. In these cases the solicitors' charges had to be met, although the dismissal of the cases was due to the neglect of the officer to carry out the regulations. It seemed to him a scandal that these costs should be imposed against the will of the board of guardians and the locality, when there was absolutely no necessity. He was informed that the guardians had offered the officer other advice which could be obtained at a lower cost to the ratepayers. The magistrates were willing to adjourn the hearing of cases in which a defence was offered. He submitted that it was a serious and improper course for the officer to employ a solicitor in circumstances where there was no need whatever for his services. The officer apparently had a perfectly free hand to impose on the ratepayers any expense he chose to incur. It was notorious in the district that the solicitors employed by the officer were not those to whom it would be natural to go. One was a young and inexperienced solicitor, and one had abandoned practice for some time but came back into the district. An offer was made by the officer that he would take the whole thing over himself at 2s. 6d. a case, but very properly the Local Government Board refused to authorise such an arrangement. Were the words in Section 29 of the Order of 1898, which compelled guardians to pay the reasonable costs and expenses of vaccination officers in obtaining legal assistance consistent with the extraordinary proceedings he had described? Some time ago he brought this matter privately before the President of the Local Government Board, and an inspector was sent down to inquire. The result of that inquiry was practically a refusal on the part of the Local Government Board to remove this vaccination officer. In view of the officer's misconduct—he could not use a milder word—he thought it was a scandal that the Local Government Board had not dealt with the case on its merits and asked him to send in his resignation. They require the boards of guardians to appoint officials, and these boards should be required to provide their officials with proper funds to enable them to carry on their legal proceedings in a proper and effective way. But the Act never contemplated that any official should be set up in a position to expend the rates for his own advantage and that of his solicitor friends in this reckless and intolerable way He hoped his right hon. friend might see his way to do more justice to the people in the union which he represented that day, and that vaccination officers should not be exposed to the danger of corruption.

said it might be convenient that he should deal with the question raised by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down and one or two other points, before he came to the subject which had occupied the attention of the Committee during the greater part of the afternoon. He did not intend to discuss the attitude of the boards of guardians towards vaccination; but in the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred there was no doubt that the vaccination officer did incur unnecessary expense in taking legal advice, when he could probably have dispensed with it. He would, however, remind the hon. Gentlemen that when this officer was appointed he found an accumulation of arrears of work, and since he had been in office he had done his work very well The number of cases had enormously increased, and there was nothing disclosed in the report of the inspector of any dishonest intention on the part of any member of the board of guardians or of the vaccination officer. The worst that could be alleged against him was that he had not sufficient confidence in himself or in the legal advice given to him. The matter, however, was to form the subject of local inquiry; and therefore, he would say nothing more about it now, except that he had seen nothing in the case to justify him in removing the officer from his position, though he had indicated to him, through the inspector, the way in which he thought he might do his work in the future, not less successfully, but at less cost to the guardians. With regard to the question of death certification, he entirely agreed that it was a subject with which it would be well to deal if it were possible. He did not think the facts were quite so alarming as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston would have the Committee believe; but none the less the subject was a very serious one; he should be very glad if he could see his way to legislation. The difficulties of dealing with the question were, however, of a serious and practical character. Very shortly after he came into office he had the advantage of prolonged communications with Sir William Turner, Sir Dyce Duckworth, and with the Registrar-General and his advisers, who speak with singular authority on this and other questions. The Registrar-General was impressed with the desirability of doing something in certain selected localities, but the difficulty was that in many counties there was no medical officer. The practical difficulty was that if the proposals of the Bill which was prepared in 1894 were enforced, not only would very considerable additional expense be incurred, but very considerable difficulties in the indefinite and altogether undesirable postponement of burial would probably result. The matter, however, had been engaging his attention, and if he saw his way to an amendment of the law which would be practicable and would carry out what they all desired, the hon. Gentleman might rely upon it that he would not fail to do his best to carry it through. Turning to the question which had formed the main subject of debate, he was glad the Committee had devoted its time to the discussion of a question which went so deep to the root of our national life, because there was no doubt that the steps we took now to train and educate the children of the poor must have a lasting effect upon the nation. He had found himself in agreement with a great deal that had been said that afternoon. His right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University said that notwithstanding they were all agreed that children ought to be taken out of the workhouse, there were more children in the workhouses in London now than when the Committee reported. Figures were more than usually deceptive in this case. As a matter of fact, the number of children in the workhouses varied enormously from year to year, and even from month to month; and if the Committee would put aside the more comparison of figures, and would look at what had lately been done both in the Metropolis and in the provinces, be thought they would see that real efforts had been made by boards of guardians to deal effectively with this difficulty. His right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University said he hoped the Local Government Board would issue an order compelling the guardians to take all children out of the workhouses; but he did not think the Local Government Board could do a worse thing, in the interests of good administration, than to attempt to drive the guardians in that way. The boards of guardians in London and the provinces had made great strides during the last twenty-five years, and they deserved not only gratitude but commendation for the work they had done; but if we attempted to drive them all of a sudden into a course which would involve so complete a change, and of so expensive a character, it would not advance the cause of Poor Law administration. They were all agreed that children should be taken out of the workhouses and dealt with in another way; but the great difficulty was found in selecting another way of dealing with them. One hon. Gentleman advocated an extension of the boarding-out system, and urged that it should be simplified and made more comprehensive. By the Act of 1899 guardians were given power to deal with deserted children; but he thought they should proceed very carefully when it was proposed to board out children who had both parents or one parent living. There was a danger of interference by the parents of the child with the foster parents. He hoped, however, to be able to extend the boarding-out order, so as to enable boards of guardians to board out children more freely than they could do now. It had been said that, notwithstanding the promise made by his right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford, additions to these large Poor Law institutions had been sanctioned by the Local Government Board. That was a complete misapprehension. It was true that in some cases when the necessity arose for the improvement of the existing accommodation that improvement had been sanctioned; but he believed he was right in saying that in every such case the number of children accommodated had been reduced. Therefore, so far from its being true that the Local Government Board had sanctioned an actual increase in the number of children accommodated, the reverse had been the case; and the Local Government Board had taken advantage of every application to impress on the guardians the necessity of reducing the number of children accommodated in those schools. Surely where buildings were in existence, and where there was a heavy local expenditure, it was impossible immediately to force upon the guardians a fresh expenditure; but when the guardians had come to the Department with practical proposals they had taken advantage of the application to reduce the number of children. In so doing they were loyally keeping the pledge given by his right hon. friend. The boarding out, cottage homes, scattered homes, and barrack systems had been referred to. He confessed he thought the barrack system had been a little hardly dealt with, but it was too late to take that view now. They were tried and were condemned, and in the case of the great Sutton schools had already been broken up. When the guardians now made proposals for dealing with their children, the Department never lost an opportunity of recommending them to adopt the cottage home or the boarding-out system. But the guardians were in possession of the facts of the case as well as the Department, and it was for them to make proposals. If those proposals appeared to depart from the principles that had been laid down, the Department insisted on their alteration. There was no doubt great truth in the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich. The boarding-out system was only superior when they got good foster-mothers and a very active and energetic committee. He had had before him cases where the boarding-out system was as bad and unsatisfactory as anything they could find in a barrack school or any other form of accommodation. A great deal depended on the locality. In some parts of the country it was comparatively easy to get plenty of foster parents of the right sort; but in other parts of the country it was extremely difficult. In each case the guardians must be governed by their own local knowledge, and what they believed to be best in the interests of the poor, and also in the interests of the ratepayers, whose trustees they were. But the Department would do their best to guide and help them to carry out what Parliament had practically decided they should do—namely, that they should not keep their children in the workhouses, but should provide for them in establishments outside. As to the Hollymount School, that was not a Poor Law school, it was a religious institution certified by the Local Government Board, and thus enabled to take in children sent by boards of guardians. He entirely agreed that the condition of things that had existed there was extremely unsatisfactory and much to be regretted. It was extremely unsatisfactory that such a condition of things as had been described should have existed at the Hollymount School as long as it did without having been discovered by the inspector. Nothing would have justified him in declining to renew the certificate if he had satisfied himself that there was a complete change both in the system of management and in the general conditions of the school. What were the conditions which he imposed upon the school. He insisted on an entire alteration of the management, on the appointment of a committee of seven, that the majority of the sisters should be English, and that there should be a thoroughly satisfactory dietary. He had also given instructions that the school should be periodically visited and that Returns should be made to the Local Government Board. He could assure the Committee that nothing would have induced him to issue a fresh certificate if he and his advisers were not satisfied that there had been a complete change in the management and general arrangements of the school, which would make it, not only probable, but as certain, humanly speaking, as anything could be, that the future conduct of the school and the care of the children would be altogether different from the disgraceful state of things which had prevailed before. As to the educational inspection of Poor Law schools, they had always been in favour of the transference of this work to the Board of Education. He hoped he should succeed in advancing the matter a little further very soon, and no difficulty should be raised as far as his Department was concerned. He was sorry to say the Sewage Commission was still sitting; it had been sitting a very long time. They had no power over Royal Commissions, but hoped the Commission would present its Report as quickly as possible. He hoped it might reach the ears of the Royal Commission that there had been anxious enquiries regarding it in the House; and that might induce it to present its Report as early as possible. With reference to the Camberwell Homes they had only been in existence three years; and that was too short a time in which to form a definite conclusion as to the result that was expected to flow from them. All the reports which had reached him, however, led him to believe that it was a very satisfactory experiment, and that it would give favourable results. He had now dealt with the various questions which had been raised by hon. Gentlemen, and he would only repeat, speaking for himself and also for his Department, that nothing should be wanting on their part to improve the condition of children depending on the Poor Law, an improvement which they all desired to see. They would do everything they could in conjunction with boards of guardians, who were also anxious to improve the condition of things, to secure that the number of children in workhouses should, as far as practicable, be reduced to the lowest possible number; and they would do their best to secure that the provision made for those children should be the best and most humane that could be obtained. He could assure the Committee that he would do all he could to advance the cause they had all so much at heart.

said the state of the highways, owing to the manner in which motor cars were driven, was a question of extreme urgency. It was common knowledge that the Local Government Board was not attempting to take the slightest interest in the great problem which was presented. Question after Question had been asked with regard to continual abuses of the law, and the necessity for fresh regulations had been urged, but they had been met with indifference. The question was of great importance to the whole country. In many places in Scotland, for instance, the children of the poor had been accustomed to play in the streets from time immemorial, having no other playground The right hon. Gentleman had the power of control—

How?

said the Act passed a few years ago gave the right hon. Gentleman power to enforce a limit of speed.

said the Act passed a few years ago gave the right hon. Gentleman power to enforce a limit of speed. The present law, he contended, threw the whole responsibility on the right hon. Gentleman and his Department in this matter, and they did nothing, and attempted to do nothing. To those who took any interest in it, this was a most important matter, and they were justified in bringing this grievance before the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman had, as he said, no information as to the casualties, it was his own fault, because he must have seen what a number of casualties there were if he took the slightest interest in his morning paper. The public looked to the right hon. Gentleman and to their own local authorities for protection in this matter; but, while the local authorities did everything they could, the action of the right hon. Gentleman impeded and hindered them in every way. The present position was that a few people claimed the right to build cars of enormous weight and speed and to monopolise the public roads for the running of those cars. They claimed the right to drive the public off the roads. Harmless men, women, and children, dogs, and cattle, had all got to fly for their lives at the bidding of one of these slaughtering, stinking engines of iniquity. He could not be accused of electioneering, as he believed there was not a motor-car in the whole of his constituency, but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that a strong feeling of irritation was growing up in country districts at the fact that, owing to his inaction, apathy, and carelessness, these cars were monopolising the whole of their public roads. He did not complain that these persons sought to amuse themselves and to gratify a satiated and vitiated palate by trying to come into as close contact with death as possible, but he did complain most bitterly that they should seek to gratify their taste at the expense of the general public. If these people wished to race they should build tracks for themselves, and not use the public roads for that purpose. The law was on the side of those who protested against this practice, and all that they wanted was that the law should be faithfully and hon stly administered. He desired to move to reduce the salary of the right hon. Gentleman by £100, as a protest against his want of action in this matter.

said he supported the Motion of his hon. friend, though he did not enter into all his feelings on the subject. His experience had led him to the conclusion that something more ought to be done than was done to regulate the speed of motor-cars. He timed the speed of the car on which he was travelling the other day, and, though it was no business of his, he found it was going at over thirty miles an hour. Car after car was racing along the same road, palpitating, throbbing, and turning the whole of the thoroughfare into chaos and confusion. It was unjust. This was not a matter of motorists and non-motorists. It was a question of the common right of citizens. A man could not take his family for a walk along the roads within a distance of thirty or forty miles of London with either comfort or safety. The danger was a very real one, but quite apart from the danger the inconvenience arising from the existing state of things was extremely great. This thing must be stopped. It was not a matter of wild shrieking, but it must be remembered that, after all, a motor was the luxury of a few, who could take their pleasures in many other ways. To people in poorer circumstances the avenues of pleasure were limited, and the time had come when the rich should be pulled up. Two thousand years ago it became necessary to restrain Roman heroes from racing in the streets of Rome because it was a public nuisance, and this matter had become a public nuisance, not in one street of one great city, but in every road and lane in the country. The many ought not to be thrust on one side for the few. The law in this particular respect was being brought into complete contempt, and that in itself was a very dangerous thing. The right hon. Gentleman, although, as he understood, he had the power to do so, had not taken any precaution to identify motor-cars.

was understood to say that he had no power without legislation to require the numbering of motor-cars.

said he understood that under the Act the right hon. Gentleman had power to regulate the traffic, and somebody ought to have the power to identify the cars. It was simply absurd to expect the police to check the speed of the cars as they rushed along one after the other. Their roads were not meant for racing tracks, and if the owners of the motor-cars wanted racing tracks they ought to build them themselves. Perhaps the Government could do with motor-cars as was done with certain other conveyances, viz., restrict them to travelling between the hours of six o'clock in the evening and six o'clock in the morning. In his own business he had an instrument called a recorder, and he would suggest that motor-cars should be compelled to carry a certain machine by which would be recorded not only the number of miles they had travelled but also the distance covered in each hour. This could be inspected by an official, and if excessive speed were shown for any particular hour a penalty might be imposed. He believed that some such system would check the speed. In any case, a means of identifying motors ought to be devised.

said he condemned reckless driving and motor-racing on roads except where authorised by special Act of Parliament. He did not object to identification, which, he thought, was a practical remedy. Last year he introduced a Bill on behalf of the motoring community which provided for identification, and gave the Local Government Board power to make regulations for the control of motor-cars. He proposed to bring in another Bill of a similar character on an early day. He understood that the President of the Local Government Board was also having a Bill prepared. A great deal of the legislation which had been passed on this subject had been legislation passed in a hurry. He therefore asked the Committee not to be carried away by what he admitted was the strong feeling of the public at present against motoring in general. He thought the speed now authorised in towns was too great in some cases, but in his opinion the present hard and fast limit of twelve miles an hour in town and country alike was ridiculous. If they could trust people not to use their speed where it would be an annoyance, there would be very little outcry on behalf of the public. Unfortunately a good many people with powerful machines did not use them wisely, and he hoped they would be caught and properly dealt with. The fact that children played in the roads in villages should not, however, be used as an argument against motoring in general, because, primarily, the roads were intended for vehicles. It was not fair also to say that motor-cars were only the luxury of the rich. A great number of cars were being constructed at prices ranging from £100 to £150, and they eventually would be used by the class of people who now used small pony carts or dogcarts. A few years hence the motor-car would be the best friend of the poor man, because in towns it would greatly assist in the solution of the housing problem, and in the country it would provide a means of communication between villages and railway stations. He hoped that the Government would give facilities for the passing of the Bill which he proposed to introduce. If the right hon. Gentleman brought in a Bill he hoped it would provide for identification, and would at the same time remove the twelve miles an hour speed limit. That limit led to reckless driving, because when a motorist could break the law by travelling fourteen miles an hour he thought he might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb and went at a far higher speed. Possibly the difficulty might be met by having safe spheres and dangerous spheres with a speed limit for the latter.

could not agree that identification was all that was necessary. He had spent the Whitsuntide recess in the country, and there he found in the minds of most people a feeling of great exasperation against motor-cars. This feeling was not confined to farmers, but extended to solicitors, doctors, and business men generally. The cars were driven in the most reckless manner, and frequently by women. Some of them might be experienced drivers, but many of them were not, and to see dangerous engines, for as such he regarded them, driven at high speed by beginners was too trying for the nerves of ordinary people. Identification was not enough; the speed must be limited. They desired not only to punish the people who did damage, but to protect persons who used the roads in the ordinary way. Cars were being built which could easily be run at the rate of sixty miles an hour: probably few Members realised what the speed of a train going sixty miles an hour was like when looked at from outside the train. He had himself taken great interest in the speed of trains, and had often stood to watch the passage of trains at high speed. Anyone who would take the trouble to do that would realise at once that, if motor-cars were allowed to be driven at anything like that rate, they must have a monopoly of the road. Motor-cars might very likely be driven properly when the responsible owners were in them, but, as in the case of horses and carriages, the trouble arose when they were empty, and the driver had no one to interfere with recklessness consequent on his desire to get home quickly. Was there to be no restraint on chauffeurs who went thirty, fifty, or even sixty miles an hour, except the fear of penalty if they did any actual damage? They would very likely do no damage because, if these speeds were allowed, no one else would dare to use the road, except in fear and trembling, and everything would have to get out of their way. Did the public wish that the roads should be given up entirely to motors, or did they wish that motors were to be allowed to take their place among the ordinary traffic, on the condition that they were not driven at rates of speed which must inevitably interfere with the ordinary use of the road by ordinary people? It had been said that motor-cars would eventually drive horses and carriages off the roads altogether, but meanwhile he thought they were entitled to use the roads in decent comfort and safety.

said he wished to protest against the great speed at which motor-cars were driven. He thought the danger would be increased and not decreased when motor-cars came more generally into use, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman to meet this danger in time. It had been suggested that there should be a sphere of danger and another sphere of comparative safety, but he thought those in the danger sphere would have a very bad time indeed. It was no use being able to recognise the number of a motor-car after they had been nearly killed, and the only effective way to deal with the question was to make cars illegal which ran at more than about fifteen or twenty miles an hour, or whatever speed was fixed as reasonable. He hoped something of this kind would be done, otherwise what was now a great nuisance might become a great danger.

said he did not propose to vote for the reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary, because he did not believe that he had omitted to do anything which he could have done in this matter. He thought, however, that something should be done to stop what he believed was a growing evil. He did not object to motor-cars because they belonged to rich people. The real question was that the roads of England were made for the people, and they should not be monopolised by a certain section, no matter whether they belonged to the poor or the rich. It appeared that no sooner did a motor-car cause an accident than, instead of stopping to assist, the car drove off just as if nothing had happened. An hon. Member told him that his servant was driving a dogcart along the road when a motor-car passed, and the horse shied and got nearly over the hedge. Although there were five men in the motor-car it never stopped to give the slightest assistance to the man in charge of the dogcart, although there was no one else with him. Some means ought to be taken to stop that kind of thing. He also agreed that excess of speed should also be stopped. They should not allow anything to run at express speed along a road which was meant for people walking and driving. They could not take even a dog out without the danger of its being run over. If a reasonable speed of, say, fifteen miles an hour was in force he did not think there would be any interference with the motor-car industry. If people continued to use the roads like railway lines, to travel at sixty miles an hour, then the Government should do something to stop what was a very serious matter.

said that although he agreed that there should be some means of identification, he could not agree with some of the proposals which had been made with regard to speed. He thought three-quarters of their difficulties were due to having fixed the speed, because whenever they fixed a maximum it had a tendency to become the minimum. Twelve miles an hour might be too quick to travel in some parts of the country, but there were some roads where they could see seven or eight miles ahead, and he thought everybody would acknowledge that twelve miles an hour was a ridiculous speed upon such a road. He did not think anybody with a fast pair of horses would drive along a road like that without exceeding that speed. He had every confidence in the magistrates and authorities in country districts, and it should be left to them to decide in regard to furious driving. If this were done, the motor-car industry and the safety of the public would be in a much better position. They did not want to check the motor-car industry; and any one who noticed how motor-cars were going, and how convenient they were as a means of intercommunication away from main lines of railway, and how very much they added to the power of getting from place to place, could not doubt that they would be a very great addition to the power of production in this country. If this attack on the motor-car industry led to legislation which would check that industry, it would only cause it to increase in other countries, and in that way very serious harm would be done to this country.

expressed the hope that in any legislation the Government introduced the right hon. Gentleman would be fully cognisant of the enormous importance this industry was likely to assume. Motor-cars had come to stay, and would develop into an enormous industry in this country. Nevertheless, he thought motor-car drivers should be licensed, and they ought to be examined and obtain a certificate before being entrusted with the driving of a motor-car. He thought if a certificate had been insisted on in the past, many of the accidents which had taken place never would have occurred. He hoped the Local Government Board would take that important matter into consideration in any Bill they might introduce.

said that feeling in his constituency was very strong. The hon. Member below him had appealed to the House not to do anything that would check the motor-car industry, but he wished to remind the Committee that motor-cars were checking another great industry, and that was the production of horses. What they felt in country districts was, that if a man drove a horse furiously he was at once punished for it, and the same law ought to apply to motor cars.

, continuing his speech when the House resumed, said he desired to point out that a waggoner who drove his waggon without reins was amenable to the law, as was the farmer whose waggon was found in the road without the name being legible on it, although these offences were not half so dangerous to life and limb as a motor-car, which ought to be amenable to the same law. It had been suggested that the speed limit should be entirely removed, and that compensation should be paid for damage caused by furious driving. That was a proposal with which he had no sympathy. Any compensation that was paid for the death of a bread-winner was very poor indeed. He submitted that it would be an extremely dangerous thing to do away with the speed limit. Stock which was being removed from one field to another was in danger from motor-cars. It seemed to be assumed by motorists that they could safely ride at greater speed in the country districts than in towns, but that was not the case, because horses in towns were more used to motor-cars than in country districts. If a car were travelling at great speed, there was no time to get out and hold the horse's head, or take any steps to prevent it taking fright. His constituency would not be satisfied unless the twelve-mile limit of speed was retained, and the cars were so numbered as to be easily identified. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in the Bill foreshadowed, would take care to protect the interests of pedestrians and all users of the roads. It was unfair that motorists should endanger the roads for those who had hitherto maintained them.

said this was a question of the most serious character, and he was in entire agreement with all that had been said by the hon. Member for Tavistock, and in order to give the hon. Member an opportunity of supporting his observations by his vote, he would support a reduction of the Vote by £100. He lived in the same county as the hon. Gentleman. The roads in that county were extremely narrow, and therefore the regulation of motor-cars was a most important question. No one would deny that the present position of things was extremely unsatisfactory. The law, as it existed, was broken by everybody, from the Prime Minister downwards. A motorist seemed to think he could go at any pace he liked so long as he could escape a fine. There was no demand on the part of trades which availed themselves of the use of motor-cars for any increase in the speed limit. The, only agitation came from people who motored for pleasure. The speed limit should, in his opinion, be the same all over the country, except that it might, perhaps, be relaxed on some of the great roads. There was an immense amount of difference between horse locomotion and motor locomotion. With motor driving there was only one brain to depend upon, but in horse driving there were two. In the case of two men who had dined not wisely but too well, the one who went home in a motor had to depend upon himself, and the course he took in the circumstances assumed might be of a very peculiar character; but the man who went home in a trap had not only his own brain but that of his horse to depend upon, and there were many steady old horses which could not be induced to run on the wrong side of the road, when a vehicle had to be passed, however hard the wrong rein was pulled. He looked upon the motor craze as a most dangerous form of amusement. He thought the President of the Local Government Board would only be doing his duty to the public if he took prompt steps to protect those who used the public roads, and for whom the roads were originally made.

desired to emphasise the necessity of registration. Of course it was a difficult matter, but there were one or two points which had not been brought forward which might have overcome any difficulty in the way of registration. The other day a man he knew very well was riding out on his horse when a motor-car passed and the horse shied. The rider was thrown on to the pavement. Two men from the car carried him into his house and then got into the car again and went on, refusing to give their names. The injured man was dead in less than an hour. Such a case showed that it was absolutely necessary that some legislation should be framed in regard to the registration of motor-cars. He would like to advocate that certificates should be issued to the drivers of motor-cars. There were only a few men in the country at the present time, expert cyclists, who could drive motors with safety at the rate of sixty miles an hour. He was not in favour of a time limit. He believed it was impossible satisfactorily to fix a time limit, and he believed it was impossible to fix a time limit which would be satisfactory to the people of the country. As one who had had some experience of living within thirty miles of London, he testified that the motor-car was at present a great nuisance to the vast majority of the people of this country. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bring in a measure to deal with the matter at an early date.

said he was in agreement with the hon. Member for Lincoln, and believed the time limit to be a mistake. A fixed speed was apt to be regarded as a minimum speed. He thought the best course would be to apply the same rules to motor-cars as to other vehicles with regard to furious driving and the rule of the road. He was at perfect liberty if he were riding a horse, and was the only person in the road, to gallop as hard as he liked, but if he were to drive through a market town at ten or even eight miles an hour he would be very soon hauled up. He quite agreed as to the intelligence of a horse. Whenever he went to social and political gatherings, which were very tiring, he always went on horseback, because when they were over he could always get on his horse and go comfortably to sleep and be taken safely home. He did not know whether it was because chauffeurs were often foreigners, but motor-cars seemed to be always on the wrong side of the road. He hoped to see all motor-cars numbered in very large and plain figures, and licences required for drivers. Fines were no deterrent to rich owners, and he hoped that the magistrates would impose not merely fines, but terms of imprisonment on those who infringed the law.

said it did not appear to him a very logical proceeding to move the reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary because he proposed to bring in a Bill to deal with this matter. What he had been struck by most was the fact that motor-car drivers apparently had the idea that they were a privileged body entitled to do what no other person was entitled to do. Other people recognised that they had to meet the elements up to the speed of a horse, but the occupants of motor-cars started out with goggles and mask, as a preparation for the high speed they proposed to travel, thus deliberately breaking the law. All vehicles should be made to comply with the same rule. It was necessary, too, that there should be some power of arresting offenders; it was no use summoning a man who had given a false name and address. He knew of a case where a constable had noticed a car travelling in the Regent's Park at a great pace, and in four minutes it came round again. He stopped the car and asked the occupant if he knew that he had travelled three miles in four minutes. "Yes," was the answer, "I was just trying to see what my motor could do." The constable took the name and address of the occupant of the motor-car and summoned him, and it was found that both name and address were false. What was the use of that? Unless some means were found of regulating motor-cars they would arouse general hate. We were told already that nails were put on the roads to puncture the tyres. The chauffeur did not care for the rule of the road; he sounded his horn and expected everyone to get out of the way. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take care that motor-cars were obliged to conform to the same rules as other vehicles which used the roads.

said motor-cars as at present driven were a danger to the public, particularly children and those who were crippled or deaf. Deaf people, in his opinion, had as much right to live as people who were not deaf. It was not a rich or a poor person's question. It was a question between those who for the time being had command of artificial power, and those who had animals or worked their own vehicles or who travelled on foot. Restrictions should affect motor bicycles as well. There was a temptation, no doubt, to go at a great speed because it was so easy to attain that speed by turning a handle. He was sorry to read that the President of the Local Government Board had said that there should be no limit to speed. He could not see any reason for such a remark. People in country districts needed protection as well as those in towns. There should be speed limit everywhere. Exceptions might be made in open roads where they could see a mile ahead, but in ordinary roads there was as much necessity for speed limit for motor-cars as there was for horses and vehicles. Motor-cars he believed had come to stay, and he admitted they had many advantages. They quickened transit, and they all hoped that in the future they would play a very great part in taking agricultural produce to market, but there was no necessity for enormous speed. In country lanes where there was no path to get out of the way a motor-car driving at great speed would be very dangerous to old men who were deaf. They ought not to place people in danger because they were deaf, or crippled, or old. He was not an enemy to motor-cars, but he believed that they were the truest friends of their use who desired to place restrictions upon their speed.

said he had been a motorist for some years, and he had never yet been fined. He was convinced that the future of the motor industry in England depended upon the nature of the restrictions placed on the use of the cars. The question of speed limit must be very carefully considered indeed. He was in favour of abolishing the speed limit altogether. It would be remembered that when bicycles first became popular there was a similar outcry as to their speed. He believed the Thames Conservancy had always declined to lay down a speed for launches. The responsibility as to what was safe was the business of the owner and engineer. If they put the same responsibility on the person driving a car as to what was safe in town or country then he believed that with heavy penalties for reckless driving they would have the true solution of this difficulty. In what had appeared in the Press lately on the question of speed, forty miles an hour had been referred to as quite an ordinary speed for motor cars to travel. He could assure the Committee that that was quite an exceptional speed for motors. An hon. Member had spoken of motors travelling at sixty miles an hour. He ventured to say that very few motorists ever dared to travel at a speed of that kind. He was in favour of cars being marked either behind or on the side for identification. He believed that motors were going to revolutionise the trade of the country. He believed their use would solve some of the difficulties in regard to housing, and the taking of farm produce, especially dairy produce, from farms into towns. A Departmental Committee on Highways of which he had the honour to be a member was now sitting considering, among other things, this very question. It was difficult to realise that there had been no great new highways made in England for a hundred years providing communication between one town and another. This question was being considered with the view of seeing whether any alterations and additions should be made in regard to highways, looking to the changes which had taken place in the methods of locomotion. He did not think the proper regulation of motor car traffic could be obtained by fixing a limit of speed. He firmly believed the solution of the difficulty was to be found in refusing to lay down a limit altogether.

said that in his opinion for the safety of the public twelve miles an hour was quite fast enough for a motor-car. When dealing with the question as to the difficulty children had in getting out of the way of motor-cars, an hon. Gentleman said that children had no prescriptive right to claim the road. Every child going along the road to school had as much right to the road as the rich man in his motor-car. There were many villages where the doors of cottages opened directly on to the road, and to travel past these doors at high speed was most dangerous. Because a few wealthy men liked to use the roads for sport the general public ought not to be endangered.

said it appeared to him that some of the hon. Members who had taken part in the debate had a fixed and rooted objection to the whole system of motor-cars generally. The attitude they took up did nothing to promote a solution of the questions which had been raised as to use of the cars. He earnestly joined in the appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to introduce useful legislation on this subject. An enormous industry was represented by motor-cars, and he believed there was a great future before it. Motor-cars had come to stay, and it must be borne in mind that they had not yet reached the highest point of utility in a commercial way. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be led astray by suggestions as to extreme speed limits; it would be far better to leave it to magistrates to say what was dangerous to the public.

said he was not at all sure that he was in favour of legislation to limit the rate of speed, for the reason that he did not see how they were going to carry it out. What he did think should be done if this motor-car industry was to progress in the country was to cultivate a better feeling among those who used motor-cars. He thought the Automobile Club could do a considerable amount in that way. Everyone must have had experience of what he must call the bad manners of those who drove in motor-cars. Only yesterday in Gloucester Road he saw an old gentleman with the greatest difficulty escape a motor-car. Instead of receiving any sympathy from the motor car driver he was abused. In his own case he had been driving a young horse when a motor-car came along, and when he nearly put the animal into a ditch the driver of the car only laughed. In another case a little girl was out leading a dog. A motor-car came along and killed the dog, and the driver went on paying no attention to what had happened. These instances showed how motor-car driving became unpopular. He thought motor-car drivers should be certificated. He understood that it was exceedingly difficult to drive straight at a high speed. There should be on all cars a ready means of identification.

expressed the hope that the President of the Local Government Board would deal with this matter at the earliest opportunity. He had received several letters from members of his constituency asking him to press the matter. Many people approached this subject with a deep-seated antipathy to motor-cars. But he did not associate himself with these. He believed that motors were an invention of great importance and had a great future before them for the public good. At the same time he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would frame laws which in the main they would be able to carry out and which the magistrates would be able to enforce. As the law stood with regard to limitation of speed, it was impossible to carry it out. There was no good in putting a limit of speed on motor-cars if they allowed them to run at all. As it was, unless they were personally acquainted with the driver or knew him by sight, it was impossible to identify him, or bring home to him any damage he might have done. Registration and numbering of motor-cars was the way of getting over these difficulties. He hoped therefore that this appeal from the Committee would strengthen the right hon. Gentleman's hand in bringing in a Bill which would have the effect of making the roads safe for all who might use them.

said that a time limit was absurd, because all that the motor-car driver had to do when he saw a policeman in the distance was just to touch a small switch, and the speed of the car was immediately eased, making it impossible for the policeman to tell really what the speed was. The man who drove recklessly to the common danger of the public was a man to be punished. That was the common sense of the whole thing, and to reach that desirable end care must be taken that it was easy to identify the car and the motorist. Cars should never turn corners at a high speed. But on a clear road a car could surely go more than twelve miles an hour without causing danger. With a time limit there was always conflicting evidence. A policeman had come into collision with his motor-car—(laughter)—he meant that a policeman declared that his car was travelling at a greater speed than twelve miles an hour, and had nearly knocked him down. The magistrate dismissed the case against him, especially when he told his honour what his name was, and that his address was "The House of Commons." The policeman imagined that he was wishing to conceal his address, but the magistrate said that a better address could not have been given. [Laughter] He could assure hon. Members who seemed to be amused, that he was not trying to hide himself behind his address in the House of Commons. He wished to call the attention of his right hon. friend to the great danger which arose from some car drivers using excessive lighting on the road. It was not necessary to have these tremendous lights; they were not useful to the driver if he went at a reasonable speed at night. They had heard of a horse being frightened by a car and hanging with its fore legs on one side of a hedge, and its hind legs on the other side; but such an event was an exception. Personally, he had had varied experience in driving his car in his own constituency. On one occasion he happened to pass a carriage containing a lady, and he at once stopped, as the horse appeared to be frightened. He got out of his car and led the horse safely past, and he had had the hearty support of the lady ever since. On another occasion he was nearly assaulted by a gentleman, who said that he was going at a highly dangerous speed. There was a good deal of misconception in regard to motor-cars, and he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman was going to introduce a Bill on the subject, because he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself had driven a motor-car at a higher speed than thirty miles an hour. It was an anomaly that the right hon. Gentleman should introduce a Bill, and that another Department would have the duty of enforcing it when passed into law. That drove him to the conclusion that there ought to be a revision of the work of all the Departments. The motor-car industry was one of the most important in the country. Millions had been spent abroad for cars which might have been spent here. Then there was the important question of car transport in the army. They were only at the commencement of a very big industry, but he did not think that the future of motor-cars meant that horses would be useless, or that the value of horses would go down in consequence. Farmers who found it impossible at present to convey their produce to market, owing to the excessive railway rates, ought to hail with pleasure the fact that cheap transport could be provided by means of motor-cars. If the industry was crippled by laws which were based on prejudice, it would have the effect of compelling people to obtain their cars from abroad, and would throw this country back many years. As it was, we were behind other nations in utilising motor-cars for many purposes. He was rather sceptical as to whether his right hon. friend would be able to introduce his Bill this Session; but when it was introduced, he hoped that it would not contain any limitation of speed, but embrace regulations as to lights, and penalties on those who had not the courage to stop when they had had an accident. A motor-car was by no means the dangerous thing sometimes imagined. A good deal had been said about cars running over dogs. He had been most unlucky in running over one or two dogs, but he had never killed one yet. If the law were sensibly amended he was certain that it would give a fillip to the motor-car industry, benefit the country, and bring us up to the same level as other nations.

said he should be very sorry if the horse-breeding industry in Ireland was injured by the extension of the use of motor-cars. He expected, however, a great deal of benefit from the introduction of motor-cars into Ireland for the purpose of carrying agricultural produce. In large towns and cities horses soon got accustomed to engines and motor-cars; but it should not be forgotten that undoubtedly great dangers were to be feared in country districts to horses and other animals who were not accustomed to the motor-cars. Motor-cars should be numbered, and the police should have the same power over them as they possessed over the ordinary Irish horse-car, which bore the name and address of the owner. An hon. Gentleman had said that the police would not be able to find out whether a car was going at an excessive speed; but he undertook to say that, now that the police were to be reduced in Ireland, if they brought over here Irish policemen, they would very soon find out whether the speed was excessive or not. He was certainly opposed to the driving of motor-cars at an excessive speed.

said that before approaching the absorbing topic which the Committee had now been discussing, he desired to say a word or two in regard to two subjects introduced in the early part of the afternoon. The hon. Member for Woolwich asked him whether he had announced his intention of abolishing Boards of Guardians, and to transfer their administration to other local bodies. He had never made any statement of the kind. He believed the misunderstanding was due to some general remarks on the subject of local government, in which he had indicated his opinion that the way to strengthen and economise local government was to reduce the number of local bodies; but he never suggested or contemplated the abolition of Boards of Guardians, which were a special and distinct branch of local administration. An hon. Gentleman had asked him about the administration of out-door relief, but that did not come within the purview of his administrative Department. He wished to say that he had made no attack on the Royal Commission on the Disposal of Sewage. He had suggested that they had been, perhaps, a little too long in making their Report; but he had also said that they had made a very valuable interim Report, and that had given him reason to believe that the members of the Commission were much interested in the great and serious problems connected with sewage, and that they were not to blame for any delay in the presentation of their final Report. He now came to the very important question which they had been discussing for the last three or four hours. The Motor-Car Question was important for more reasons than one. Last year there was a Debate upon it, and the right hon. Member for Sleaford suggested that there should be legislation, and he was supported by several Members. Before that Debate he believed that there was very considerable opposition in many quarters of the House to any Bill dealing with motor-cars in a comprehensive manner. He was surprised at the reception which that remark met with in the House. In his reply, after pointing out certain difficulties which surrounded the Question, he said—

"I am very glad indeed that the House of Commons appears to be unanimous in favour of an alteration of the law, which would compel motor-cars to carry some means of identification, and to enable them to go at any pace they like without danger to the public.

That remark met with no opposition in the House, and no criticism in the Press or amongst the public outside, and he had every reason to believe that on these lines legislation would be regarded as being non-controversial. But how completely feeling had changed since that time! That night they had had an interesting debate, and everyone who had listened to it must realise that the majority of those who had spoken had, without hesitation, strongly opposed any relaxation of the limits which were now imposed on the speed at which motor-cars might go. That objection was due entirely to the fact that the users of motor-cars had, during the last few months, or at least a certain number of them, been so reckless in regard to public safety and public comfort, that they had undoubtedly aroused in the public mind feelings which it was impossible for the House to ignore. A short time ago all that was required was that there should be reasonable means of identifying the user of a motor-car, and that he should have due regard to public safety, and that, subject to that, he should be allowed to use the car as he liked, but now a strong feeling of indignation had grown up at what people believed to be an abuse of those privileges. The views expressed in that House had only been a faint echo of the views lately expressed in the leading journals. Let them read the correspondence published in The Times and The Daily Telegraph and the Yorkshire Post in the last few weeks. Let them read the letters innumerable which had appeared in the London and provincial press, and they would be convinced that the public mind was deeply exercised on the question. If there had been disagreement as to the form which the reform should take, there had been absolute agreement in the House that night as to the necessity for legislation. A short time ago the difficulty that was anticipated as being the most serious was the opposition of the users of motor-cars to what some of them regarded, and he thought wrongly regarded, as the degrading obligation of carrying a distinguishing mark. He desired to say, however, that his hon. friend the Member for the New Forest, who was a pioneer in the motor movement, had rendered throughout the most loyal and useful assistance alike to the users of motors and the public in general, because not only had he invariably approached the question as a motorist with a strong regard for the public safety, but with a recognition of the difficulties of the case, which he was sorry to say had not been found in many other quarters, where it might be looked for. He desired, therefore, to thank the hon. Member for the assistance he had given him in dealing with that difficult question. He had been taken to task both inside and outside that House because of some remarks he had recently made on the subject in the country when he indicated that he believed now, as he did twelve months ago, that if they were going to deal satisfactorily with this unquestioned difficulty they could only do so by securing—as they had to meet every possible cause of danger to the public—that the offender should be easily identified, and by throwing upon the individual the full and undivided responsibility for the protection of the public safety. He thought that hon. Gentlemen who attached importance to the speed limit did not realise what the speed limit was. He had discussed the question with the chief constables who had had to carry out the law, some of them successfully, some without success. They one and all told him that the real danger to the public consisted, not in going twenty or thirty miles an hour along an open road, when the driver could see three or four miles in front of him, but in going probably even at less than twelve miles an hour when approaching dangerous corners. A policeman who saw a motorist approaching a dangerous corner at a speed of twelve miles an hour had no power to stop or interfere with him, for by statute they had told the man he could go at that pace. But twelve miles an hour would be more dangerous in some parts of a road than thirty in another. The evidence he had been able to collect pointed to the fact that, in the first place, they must make it quite easy to identify the offender. It was said—"What is the use of a distinguishing mark? Some of these drivers, who have been the cause of the present difficulty, who disregard all the laws of good taste and everything else, and drive as and where they like, will not hesitate to conceal their number, and the dust of the road will cover it up." It was possible that here and there there might be an escape from justice, either by fraudulent action on the part of the driver or by the accident of dust on the road; but in the great majority of cases it would be quite easy to find whether a man had his car marked or not. They had evidence to show that drivers, even when they had actually caused injury, had escaped, but he believed that in ninety-nine cases out of 100, if they made the numbers sufficiently conspicuous on the front and back or on the side of a car, they would find that the offender would be capable of identification. It had been said by some speakers that this was a demand by the owners of motor-cars who were rich to be allowed to drive as fast as they liked. He did not hesitate to say that in his judgment the roads of this country were not made for traffic of that kind, and were not suited for driving at a pace of twenty, thirty, or forty miles an hour. There were, however, roads, particularly the Lincoln and Bath road, and the road across Salisbury Plain, where they could see for miles in front of them, where there were no hedges and no ditches, and where motoring was as safe for the general public as it was for the person in the car. In such cases it was obvious that to impose a restriction on the speed limit would be to impose a restriction which would never be carried out, and the users of the motor cars would disregard them not only when it was safe to do so, but also when it was dangerous. Would it not be wiser to put a driver of a motor car in the same position as everybody else, and tell him, "We do not say that twelve miles an hour, or ten or twenty miles, is safe for you to go. We leave you to produce your machine, and drive it, but we impose on you the strictest limitations as to the regard you must have for the public safety?" They were bound to have regard to the fact that, if they drove a conveyance which was capable of being driven much faster than a horse-drawn vehicle, and of being brought to a high speed at a moment's notice, those who drove them must be responsible that they used their cars not only so as to avoid injury to life and limb, but with the least possible injury to the comfort and convenience of the public generally on the road, and beside the road. It was said that children ought not to play in the road. Undoubtedly, they ought not, but the fact remained that they did. He knew from his own experience that they were often very frightened by the motor-cars passing through the village. But the twelve-mile-an-hour limit did not make it any better for them; it was just as much a source of danger to the child in the street as a speed of fifteen or twenty miles. What they wanted was to secure identification, to secure the means by which the police could tell who a person breaking the law was. Subject to that he believed the wisest policy would be to treat motor drivers as other people, and take care that if they did injury or endangered the public safety, they should be responsible, and should be made amenable for their acts. There had been a very wide difference of opinion expressed as to possible legislation, and he had received a great many letters on the subject. He had been told that there would be strenuous opposition to taking off the speed limit; and that those who were opposed to such a course would stop at nothing in the opposition they would offer to legislation of that character. What was the prospect of legislation? The debate that night had shown that the chances of passing a Bill in the present session were extremely small. The divergencies of opinion regarding speed limit were very great, and discussion on the subject would be very acute. Besides, there was a great amount of legislation already on the Table of the House. There was, of course, absolute unanimity as to the necessity. The difficulty was: What form should it take? He was hopeful that the discussion they had had would be useful, and, without committing the Government to any particular course in regard to legislation, he recognised the demand for it, and that, unless such legislation were passed to check abuses in the use of this means of locomotion, a feeling of hostility to motor-cars would arise, which he would be sorry to see, for he quite believed they had come to stay, and were going to play an important and useful part in locomotion, especially in rural districts not well served by railways. If the use of them was abused, if no proper check were placed on them, the public would step in and interfere, and that he thought would be much to be deplored; that should, if possible, be avoided. He hoped the discussion would help to bring about a compromise that would settle the question, which he admitted called for urgent treatment.

regretted deeply that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way clear to introduce legislation this session. He could not understand why a Bill on the subject, so urgently needed, should be further postponed. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think there had been a remarkable change of opinion on the subject both in and out of the House of Commons, but he apparently over-rated that change or mis-stated its direction, because, so far as he had been able to gather, the debate had shown absolute unanimity as to the immediate need for change, in the interests of the safety of the public, in the present laws affecting these vehicles.

I recognised that; but I pointed out that there was great divergence of opinion as to the form legislation should take.

could not help regretting the doubting accents in which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed himself as to the possibility of introducing legislation this session. He himself was originally responsible for the introduction of the measure dealing with motor-cars. But since that time this form of locomotion had been absolutely revolutionised. At the time that law was passed fifteen-and-a-half miles an hour was the fastest any of these cars had travelled in a race or otherwise. Three years ago they went fifty-three-and-a-half miles an hour, and now he did not exaggerate when he said they went between sixty and seventy, and even eighty miles an hour. He had been in one that went seventy miles an hour, and he sincerely hoped he would never go in another. Personally, he thought it absolutely monstrous that on the Kings highway, where everyone had equal rights, cars should be able to travel at the excessive speeds it was known that many of them attained, regardless of the safety and comfort of the public. It was the recklessness with which some of these cars were driven by individuals, and their utter disregard of public opinion and public safety, that had caused their unpopularity in certain quarters. The question was what kind of law there should be on the subject. He ventured to suggest that all motors should be put under the law that applied to other vehicles and furiout driving, with this accompaniment, that there should be penalties added of sufficient severity to insure attention to the law. That was absolutely essential, and surely it was not beyond the powers of statesmanship to carry it out? He would like also to see a system introduced by which all those who drove such vehicles should be obliged to be licensed, and should be the holders of certificates showing them to be thoroughly efficient. As to the speed limit, that, of course, gave rise to a great deal of difference of opinion, and some Members seemed to think that no motor car should ever be allowed to be driven at more than twelve miles an hour. He was bound to say he regarded that as unreasonable. That speed on an open road might be admissible and not likely to do anyone any harm, but in a village it would be otherwise, and might be disastrous in a crowded town. He, therefore, would be entirely in favour of doing away with that speed limit, and for this reason, that experience had proved that the law as it stood was absolutely useless and totally ineffective for the public safety. Therefore, in the interests of the safety of the public, the time had come when there ought to be a change. There was, in his judgment, a real imperative necessity for a change. When they knew, as they did know, that most distinguished people, even Prime Ministers, were constantly being fined for breaking the law, surely the time had come when things should be put on a somewhat different footing. He entirely agreed with almost everything that fell from his right hon. friend as to what ought to be done at the present time. He sympathised with his right hon. friend's views; and he thought that if those views were put in the form of a Bill they would make the groundwork of a very good measure indeed. His right hon. friend said that there would be no chance of passing it during the present session; but he would suggest to his right hon. friend to introduce the Bill in another place. That would have one effect, at all events. It would enable his right hon. friend to ascertain what was the general feeling in the mind of the public in regard to this question; it would give him a good means of testing public opinion; and if it were not possible to pass the Bill this year, it would help him to pass it another year. With great regard for his right hon. friend, he thought there would be cause for great disappointment if there was to be no attempt on the part of the Government to deal with this question during the present session, the hope having been held out last year that it would be dealt with. A change was inevitably necessary; and why, under those circumstances, there could be any objection, at all events to introduce a Bill and pass it in another place, and if possible in this House also, he could not see. He hoped his right hon. friend would take courage, and before the end of the session make an effort to deal with the question.

said although he did not agree with all the views expressed by the President of the Board of Trade, he recognised the care and attention which the right hon. Gentleman was giving to this important matter; and, therefore, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

said the Committee had been discussing a question concerning the safety of the people. He now proposed to make a few observations affecting the health of the people. He was glad of the opportunity of bringing the question forward, because the President of the Board of Trade had taken a great interest in the administration of the Food Adulteration Acts. In 1899, the right hon. Gentleman introduced a Bill which was now an Act of Parliament. The working of that Act, in many ways, had been most beneficial. It strengthened the hands of the Local Government Board, and gave them power to compel the Local authority to perform their part in the administration of the Act. The figures in the Report of the Local Government Board unmistakably confirmed what they said when the Act was passed, namely, that the surest way to get an efficient administration of the Acts was to insist upon the local authorities taking a great number of samples. The figures in the Report of the Local Government Board showed unmistakably that where activity was exercised in taking a considerable number of samples, there the percentage of adulteration diminished. In London one sample was taken for every 291 persons, whereas in the country only one sample was taken for every 536 persons. Therefore, there was still room for considerable improvement in forcing on the attention of the local authorities the extreme necessity of making their officers active and diligent in taking samples. That was the only possible way of reducing adulteration. Twenty years ago the number of samples taken was relatively small, and the percentage of adulteration was 16·2 per cent. Now the percentage has fallen to 8·8 per cent. In a general way, the Act was working beneficially, but there was still plenty of room for improvement. What he desired to call attention to particularly was the adulteration of milk in London, and he would offer the Committee only information from official sources. He would call the attention of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman to the Annual Report of the Local Government Board. The Committee would remember that quite recently the Board of Agriculture set up a presumptive standard of purity for milk. Many thought that that standard was unduly low. It was not a high standard; and if the percentage of adulteration still remained high, it could not be alleged there was any difficulty in conforming to the standard. But in London, according to the Local Government Board Report, the adulteration of milk was simply rampant. The average percentage of adulteration in the twenty largest towns excluding London, was 8·3 per cent.; in the whole of the Metropolis it was 15·2. The adulteration consisted mainly in extracting the cream from the milk, in adding water, and, in many cases, preservatives. Everyone understood what an important article of food milk was, and how necessary it was in the interests of the consumer that the supply should be pure. How were the metropolitan boroughs administering the Act? In the City of London the percentage of adulteration found in the number of samples taken was 21 per cent.; in St. Pancras, 34 per cent.; in Shoreditch, 30 per cent.; and in Hackney about 36 per cent. He wished to show what could be done by the efficient administration of the Act. In Manchester, which was the second largest town in the Kingdom, the Act had been administered efficiently for several years. The Corporation of Manchester had been engaged for ten or twelve years in waging a campaign against the adulteration of milk, with the result that the percentage of adulteration was something about 3½ per cent., whereas in London, on the very threshold of the headquarters of the Local Government Board, it was over 15 per cent.

said that action should be taken by the Board of Agriculture and not by the Local Government Board.

said that surely the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that the Act gave joint power to the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture. If the right hon. Gentleman looked up the Act, he would find that his Department was conjointly responsible with the Board of Agriculture. The Board of Agriculture was introduced because some hon. Members had some doubts as to whether the Local Government Board alone would be the best body to enforce the Act. The present state of affairs in London should not be allowed to continue. The right hon. Gentleman had power to send his own inspectors around the Metropolitan area to see that the Act was properly carried out, and he ought to exercise that power. The right hon. Gentleman had stood before the House for many years as the friend of agriculture. He believed the right hon. Gentleman wished well to the agricultural industry; and he should take action in this matter. As the result of adulteration, the consumers of milk in London were paying £30,000 a year, in return for which they did not get milk but water. The right hon. Gentleman scarcely seemed to realise that he had those powers under the Act he himself passed. Inspectors should be specially appointed by the Local Government Board in order that the present serious adulteration of milk in London might be diminished. If the right hon. Gentleman followed the example of Manchester he would be doing a splendid work for London in eliminating, or at all events reducing, the existing adulteration. The offenders should be prosecuted, and, if necessary, imprisoned. It was a great scandal that in the Metropolis, under the very eyes of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, such an amount of adulteration should be allowed to exist without any steps being taken to stamp the evil out. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give him a satisfactory answer. He was, however, rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the fact that his Department, together with the Board of Agriculture, was responsible for administering the Act.

said that the question of the medical charges for vaccination was brought forward last year, when the right hon. Gentleman said that he was considering certain payments made in respect of vaccination. He should be glad to know if the right hon. Gentleman had done anything to reduce those enormous charges. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that since the Act of 1898 came into force, vaccination fees and expenses in England went up something like 300 per cent. He thought the question ought to be taken in hand by the right hon. Gentleman. Many hon. Members had received requests from the Board of Guardians to take the matter up. The Birkenhead Guardians paid £1,732 in vaccination fees, one doctor alone receiving £1,000. He did not know himself why private practitioners should not be allowed to vaccinate at the expense of the public as well as public vaccinators. He thought that would go a long way towards reducing expense. At present a public vaccinator never got less than 6s., whereas a private practitioner vaccinated his poorer patients very often for 2s. 6d. If the private practitioner were allowed to vaccinate as well as the public vaccinator it would save a vast amount of money. He also wished to know if it would be possible for the Local Government Board to supply all doctors with lymph. If there was to be vaccination, and if it was to be satisfactory, the very least the Local Government Board ought to do was to see that people were vaccinated with pure lymph. The right hon. Gentleman should see that Government lymph was supplied to anyone who required it. That would go a long way towards making vaccination more popular and safer. If the right hon. Gentleman would also agree to his suggestion that private practitioners should be allowed to vaccinate at the public expense, he would do away with a great part of the expense which had been incurred since the Act came into force.

said he should like to add a few words to what his hon. friend had just said with regard to the supply of lymph by the Local Government Board. The law provided that every person should be vaccinated, unless, of course, he made a conscientious objection for himself or his children. The success of the operation of vaccination depended on the quality of the lymph; and as the State insisted on the operation being performed, the State ought to do everything in its power to secure the success of the operation. What was the present position? If a man desired to be vaccinated, he had three options—he could go to the public vaccinator and be vaccinated at the public expense; he could go to the public vaccinator and pay for being vaccinated; or he could go to a private practitioner and pay him. But if he went to a private practitioner he had no means of being assured that he would be vaccinated with pure Government lymph. The same thing applied to public vaccinators, because when their supply of Government lymph ran out, they purchased a supply at the nearest possible place. He was speaking from personal experience on this question. When he was revaccinated last year he ascertained from his doctor that the lymph was obtained from France, with a guarantee from the vendors that it was a portion of other lymph which had been used successfully in vaccinating children in France. So that experiments had been made on poor children in France, in order that it might be successfully sold for vaccination in this country. If the vendors could be guilty of experiments of that kind their guarantee of the purity of the lymph was of little value. Yet this was the lymph used all over the West-end of London last year. He had no doubt that the majority of hon. Members had been revaccinated with that lymph. That was thoroughly unsatisfactory. All lymph should be supplied by a State Department in order to secure absolute purity. The lymph ought to be obtainable from the Government laboratories by every medical practitioner, and doctors should be under heavy penalties for vaccinating persons with any other than Government lymph. Another point was as to what became of the calves after being operated upon. Were they sold to the butcher, or to the farmer? He hoped to hear that they were destroyed. He also hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure the Committee that little if any suffering was inflicted on the calves by the process of obtaining the lymph.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he would consider the advisability of giving Boards of Guardians power to appoint vaccination stations for revaccination in case of a threatened epidemic of small-pox. He agreed that the expense of carrying out the new Vaccination Act was very much greater than was anticipated owing to the general impression that the lymph supplied by the Local Government Board was superior to that obtained by private practitioners. He therefore supported the appeal that all lymph should be certified by the Local Government Board. The administration of the Act had been much more successful than some anticipated at the time, but it had been proved in practice that the scale of fees was higher than was absolutely necessary. Many people who would have been vaccinated by their private practitioners preferred to go to the public vaccinators, because they believed the lymph was superior. In his constituency a case of small-pox occurred among the prisoners, and caused alarm to the inhabitants in the district, who went to the public vaccinator to be revaccinated, with the result that a great burden was placed on the rates. If the Boards of Guardians had power to appoint stations for revaccination it would save much unnecessary expense.

moved the reduction of the Vote by £100, in order that the attention of the Committee might be concentrated on the question of the adulteration of milk. According to the Report of the Local Government Board, such adulteration was more prevalent in London than in the provinces. When the recent Bill was passing through Committee it was supposed that the Board of Agriculture and the Local Government Board would exercise a kind of dual control, the one looking after the interests of the producer, and the other guarding the interests of the consumer; but, as a matter of fact, the Board of Agriculture seemed to have left the matter to the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board to the Board of Agriculture. It would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had taken advantage of the provision by which, if the local authority failed in its duty in this respect, the Local Government Board Inspectors were enabled to take samples of milk, and prosecute if necessary. It was very desirable that that should be done in London, as he had reason to believe there had been collusion in some cases between the Borough Council inspectors and the vendors. By steps being taken in this direction, adulteration had been practically stamped out in Manchester, and he believed that by the same power being exercised, a similar state of purity could be secured in London. In any case, it would be a great improvement if London were only brought up to the average of the rest of the country.

thought that, as it was necessary the people should be sure they were getting a proper supply of lymph, the Government ought to undertake to provide all that was required. As to the adulteration of milk, he hoped something would be done for the country as well as for London, so that the children might have a good supply of that natural food. He noticed a large item in the Vote for the "Engineering Department"; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain what that was for. He would also suggest that more typewriting should be introduced into the Department, so as to do away with a large amount of the £3,000 taken for "copying." With reference to the equalisation of rates, that was a large question which could not at present be taken up, but one which ought to be dealt with. In consequence of better means of locomotion, large bodies of the working-classes gathered in particular districts, and the poor-rates fell more heavily on those districts than on others, and it was very desirable that some method should, if possible, be devised by which the rates were so equalised that all should bear their fair share of the burden.

said the engineering inspectors conducted all the inquiries which had to be held in connection with sanitary works, drainage and sewage schemes, the erection of workhouses and so forth, and there was not one more engaged than was absolutely necessary. They were constantly employed, and the branch was as hardly worked as any in the public service. As to copying and typewriting, he could not explain the exact division of the work, as it was obviously impossible for the Parliamentary head of such a Department as the Local Government Board to decide how much should be done by copyists and how much by typists. During the past few years, however, there had been a large addition to the typewriting staff, and every year greater use was made of the typewriter and other mechanical devices by which labour was lessened and the work done more rapidly. With regard to vaccination, he had been at some pains to arrive at a satisfactory settlement as to the fees. He had been in communication with the medical men and the local authorities, but had not been able to arrive at a conclusion which would justify him in making an immediate alteration. He had thought it best to obtain a report from a small Departmental Committee, which he hoped would not be long over its work, and he would then decide definitely what should be the fees. As to the supply of lymph, that question had often been debated in the House. He could not hold out any hope of being able to supply lymph to private practitioners. It had to be remembered that public vaccinators obtained their lymph for primary vaccination free of charge, and during the recent epidemic of smallpox the Board were able to supply them not only with the lymph for primary vaccination, but also with a large proportion of that required for secondary vaccination. The demand that the lymph should be supplied also to the private practitioner was a very natural one, but he doubted whether it was really necessary. There was a Jenner Institute in London, which made arrangements for the supply of lymph quite as good in quality and character as that supplied by the Government. In addition to that, there were growing up over the country great laboratories in which all sorts of admirable scientific work was being carried on, and in which, among other things, they were producing lymph which probably would be as good as anything the Government produced. There was also the lymph produced by ordinary mercantile firms. During the recent epidemic he made every inquiry to see whether there was any justification for the idea that this ordinary mercantile lymph was not of a thoroughly satisfactory character, but he failed to find any evidence that the majority of it could not be relied upon as being thoroughly satisfactory in all respects. To undertake to supply all medical men with a supply of lymph at a certain price would mean an entire change in the Government lymph establishment, and the ruin of the commercial people who had entered upon its manufacture as a part of their business. Moreover, it was quite conceivable that at times of great pressure the Government Department would not be able to supply all the lymph required, and the result would be a breakdown. By a recent scientific discovery, which was not yet fully developed, it might be made possible to produce lymph which would not have to be destroyed if kept beyond a certain time, but at present the real difficulty with which they had to contend was the fact that lymph could not be produced during the slack time and put in reserve for use when the pressure came. Sterilised lymph could not be kept for more than a certain time, so that it was impossible to accumulate reserve for use in time of an epidemic, consequently it would be incurring a great risk to undertake to supply all private practitioners in the country. He quite realised the force of the demand, and he was not making this statement without having carefully considered and discussed the question, not only with his own medical advisers, but also with distinguished medical men outside the Department. Among those who were best qualified to judge, it was agreed that it was better to continue the present system than to put the whole supply of lymph into the hands of the Government. So far as he knew, the manufacture of lymph had been under the control and supervision of a medical man, and they ran no risk of any kind whatever. In regard to the calves, the medical man bought and disposed of them, and he did not know what became of them. He did not, however, think that the calves were any worse for the operation they had been under. With regard to the administration of the Adulteration Acts, nothing would be more prejudicial than to let the local authorities believe that the Local Government Board were willing to do their work for them and bear the expense. When the local authority did not do its work as well as it ought, the Department immediately pressed on them the importance of taking samples and vigorously applying the Act of 1899. That Act had not been long on the Statute-book, but it had already produced good results, and as far as he was responsible for the administration of the Local Government Board, he should be careful that the local authorities were constantly reminded of and kept up to their duties.

said he had specially alluded to the adulteration of milk in London, and yet the right hon. Gentleman had only given them a general assurance that he would remind the local authorities of their duty in this matter. That was hardly sufficient, and he wished to know if the President of the Local Government Board would undertake to see that the Adulteration Acts were enforced in London, especially in regard to the adulteration of milk.

said he had distinctly stated that to do the work of the London County Council or London Borough Councils by Government agency, at Government cost, would be the very worst thing in the interests of the Adulteration Acts. There had undoubtedly been a want of activity in London, and his business was to urge the municipal authorities in London to do their work properly and at their own cost. He should do in the future what he had done hitherto, that was to press upon the local authorities that it was their duty to carry out the law.

thought the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was not at all satisfactory, for he had simply promised that when the local authorities did not do their work properly in regard to the Adulteration Acts he would put a little pressure upon them. The hon. Member for Devonport had shown conclusively that the local authorities in London were not doing their duty. It was admitted that in Manchester the percentage of adulteration was only 3½ per cent., while in London it was 15 per cent., and in the City of London 21 per cent. He thought his hon. friend was entitled to ask what the Department had done in the case of the City of London. Then there was the case of Hackney where, out of 305 samples taken, 112 were found to be adulterated. Was that not sufficient to demand the interference of the Local Government Board? No less than 36 per cent of the samples of milk taken in Hackney were found to be adulterated. They had had a good deal of discussion about the physique of the people of this country deteriorating, and considering the number of children who had to drink milk, and the fact that in London no less than 15 per cent. of the samples taken had been found to be adulterated, he wished to know if anything could be more serious than that state of things in the Metropolis. This condition of things was not adequately met by saying that when there was a bad case they could rely upon the right hon. Gentleman doing something. Had the President of the Local Government Board done anything in this matter in the City of London or in the Borough of Hackney, and if not, why not? As the representative of an agricultural constituency this question of the adulteration of milk was of great importance to the people whom he represented. The selling of milk and water for milk was something from which the farmer and the people were entitled to be protected. He felt justified in speaking somewhat strongly on this question because he remembered the hon. Member for Devonport and the hon. Member for Somerset sat upon the Committee when the Adulteration Acts were passed, and they were very prominent in their endeavours to improve the Acts upon this point. Bearing that fact in mind he thought his hon. friends were entitled to press upon the Government that they should use every power they had to the utmost, when it was shown that the adulteration of milk in

said that the right hon. Gentleman's defence was very lame. It was clear that he did not realise the responsibility of his Department. If these Adulteration Acts were to be carried out effectively the local authorities must be compelled to work them; and that duty was thrown on the Local Government Board by the Act of 1899. The right hon. Gentleman had not done this, and he had simply stated that it would be better for him not to interfere with the work of the London County Council and the Borough Councils. He should continue to press this matter upon the attention of the Department. He had quoted the case of Manchester, where by a persistent campaign against milk adulteration they had reduced adulteration to 3½ per cent. If that was possible in Manchester surely it was possible in London. The adulteration of milk in Hackney amounted to 36 per cent., and in other London Boroughs to over 30 per cent., and the only satisfaction they got was a statement from the right hon. Gentleman that it was practically unreasonable for him to step in and do the work of the Borough Councils. He hoped that after what had been said in this debate the right hon. Gentleman would give some attention to this matter.