To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inspections of registered places have been made during the year 1902 by the inspectors appointed under the Act 39 and 40 Vic, c. 77 (The Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876), in England and Scotland and in Ireland. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The number of inspections of registered places in England and Scotland made in 1902 is 118. As to Ireland, where the administration of the Act does not lie with me, I have made inquiries and am informed that no exact record has been kept of the number of inspections made.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the duties of Suffragan Bishops, His Majesty's Government will advise that in any future appointment of a clergyman to a Suffragan Bishopric it shall be made a condition that such clergyman shall not, during his tenure of the bishopric, simultaneously hold important parochial preferment. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The hon. Member is perhaps not aware that Bishops Suffragan are nominated by the Bishop of the Diocese, and that the function of the Crown is merely to approve or disapprove the choice of the Bishop. As no emolument attaches to the office of Bishop Suffragan, as such, it no doubt does happen on occasions that the bishop is selected from the ranks of beneficed clergymen; but care is taken that in such case the needs of the parish are duly provided for when an incumbent is selected for appointment.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Commissioners of Irish Lights have given any explanation why in the four years 1898 to 1901 inclusive they forwarded no reports of inspections of local seamarks in Ireland, corresponding to those of the Trinity House and the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses; what is the number of Irish seamarks; the number inspected and reported on to the Board of Trade in the year 1902; and is the Board entitled by statute to insist on regular and systematic inspections by, and reports from, the Commissioners of Irish Lights. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Commissioners of Irish Lights urge that the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, does not render it incumbent upon them to make local inspections within any specified periods, but merely as they think fit. The number of Irish seamarks under local jurisdiction is roughly estimated at 350, including lighthouses, buoys, and beacons. Fourteen reports were received from the Commissioners in 1902, but the Board are unable to specify the number of seamarks covered by those reports. The Board of Trade are not empowered by statute to insist on regular and systematic inspections, but, as stated in my reply on Wednesday † to the hon. Member for South Dublin, I am in hopes that the representation which has been addressed to the Commissioners will receive their attention.

†See page 1181.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the differential duties levied by the United States, Portugal, and other countries on certain classes of their imports from the United Kingdom, what were the values of those imports in each case for the five years preceding and the five years succeeding the imposition of such duties. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for the South Molton Division on the 15th instant,† the differentiation against certain British products by the United States and Portugal does not take the form of imposing increased duties, but of withholding from such products the special concessions granted to certain other countries by reciprocal agreements and treaties of different dates. If the hon. Member will specify the years for which he desires to have statistics of any particular article, I will see what can be given.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what proportion of the imports into the United Kingdom consists of goods which arrive ready for use by the consumer and have not to pass through any process of manufacture in this country, and the value of such goods, together with the corresponding figures ten years ago and twenty years ago. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I regret that it is not possible to give the information asked for.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will refuse to sanction any proposal of the managers of the Hanwell Poor Law Schools to increase the certificate of that school by 387 beds by certifying the old ophthalmic block for the reception of normal children.

† See page 948.

(Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have not received an application from the managers for an increase of the certified accommodation at these schools, but I was recently informed by them of a proposal to utilise some of the iron buildings until lately occupied by ophthalmic children. Before expressing an opinion on this proposal I asked for further particulars, and at the same time I pointed out to the managers that I should not be prepared to sanction an increase of the maximum number of children maintained at the schools.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Secretary of the Local Government Board, in April, 1902, intimated to Dr. Barrett, recently Medical Officer of the Macroom Workhouse, against whom no charge of neglect of duty has been made during his service, that if he did not resign within a week he would be dismissed without further notice and without pension; and, if so, will he state whether this action was taken with his sanction; and whether the Local Government Board would furnish Dr. Barrett with copies of its order and correspondence in relation thereto. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) For a number of years there had been constant friction between the officers of this workhouse, a condition of things for which Dr. Barrett was held to be mainly responsible. In 1899 the guardians suspended him from the performance of his duties, and the Local Government Board thereupon directed a sworn inquiry to be held into the matter, as a result of which the Board came to the conclusion that the step taken by the guardians was justified. Dr. Barrett was made aware of the charges preferred against him in the ordinary way. Subsequently to this inquiry he gave an undertaking to work harmoniously with the other officers of the union, and in view of this undertaking the Local Government Board did not at the time press for his resignation. He continued, however, to be a source of constant trouble to the guardians, and the Board accordingly formed the opinion that in the interests of good government of the workhouse he should be called upon to retire from the position of medical officer, failing which the extreme step of dismissal would be resorted to. An intimation to this effect was duly conveyed to him in April, 1902. He resigned, and was granted a retiring pension. It is not proposed to furnish him with a copy of the correspondence that has passed in the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 20,000 blankets from South Africa have been recently discovered in store at Woolwich Dockyard; and will he state whether these blankets were used for service in the field, the date on which they were shipped from South Africa, and the circumstances under which they were dispatched to this country without being first disinfected. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) There are at Woolwich 20,000 blankets which have been handed over from transports coming home. These were washed before being handed over by the Admiralty, but as an additional precaution they are being disinfected. It is not known whether any of these blankets were used in the field, nor can any date of despatch from South Africa be specified, as they were only taken over by the War Department in bulk.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the interruptions which have taken place in through telegraphic communication, via Canada, between the United Kingdom and Australia have been confined to that section of the line located in the island of Vancouver; and whether this section of the line was specially laid for the purposes of the Pacific cable. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The interruptions which have taken place in through telegraphic communication, via Canada, between the United Kingdom and Australia have been confined to the Vancouver Island land lines, the western section of which was specially laid by the Canadian Pacific Railway for the purposes of the Pacific Cable.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether the sea route of the Pacific Cable was that recommended by Lord Selborne's Committee, and if not, to what extent and why was it varied; and whether there is any proposal under consideration for linking the cable with the American cables at Honolulu. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The sea route of the Pacific Cable is that recommended by Lord Selborne's Committee. That Committee left open the choice between Panning and Palmyra Islands for the mid-Pacific landing place, but Fanning Island was found on further investigation to be the preferable station. The question of a connection with the United States Cable at Hono lulu has been raised, but no action has yet been taken in that direction.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state if the capital outlay in connection with the Pacific Cable includes the cost of special surveys made by the Royal Navy. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The cost of special surveys is not included. The soundings made by the surveying ships of the Royal Navy on the route of the Pacific Cable, though of great value, were incidental to and made in the course of their ordinary operations. The special detailed survey required for the determination of the exact route to be followed by the cable was carried out, not by the Royal Navy but by the contractors for the construction and laying of the cable.

said that before he referred to the merits of the Bill he thought he ought to say a few words as to the method by which this measure had arrived at its present stage without one single word being addressed to the House by its promoters in defence of the Bill. This was a Bill to repeal the provisions of an Act passed in 1899, under which the Board of Education had acted ever since. Such a Bill should have been brought in and promoted on the responsibility of the Board of Education itself, and he congratulated the Secretary to the Board of Education upon having discovered a new method of passing through this House Departmental Bills.

called attention to the fact that there were not forty Members present.

Less than forty Members being present the proceedings will be suspended until a quorum is formed.

, resuming his speech at five minutes past one, said that when he was interrupted by the Motion to count the House he was endeavouring to show that the Bill under consideration was intended to deal with a provision of an Act of Parliament under which the Board of Education had acted for some years. In his opinion, a proposal to repeal such a provision ought to be made on the responsibility of the Board of Education, and not of a private Member. He might call this "surreptitious legislation," because the Board of Education, instead of bringing in the Bill itself, had had it brought in by a private Member, although, no doubt, it was concocted and prepared at the Education Office.

May I say I never heard anything of the Bill until it was introduced.

I said the Bill was prepared by the Board of Education, and I will undertake to prove it.

May I at once correct the right hon. Gentleman. I drafted the Bill myself without any previous communication with the Board of Education.

said he had never heard of a Bill intended to deal with the policy of the Board of Education, and to repeal an Act of Parliament, being brought in under such circumstances, and he still felt that it had been done with the approval and sanction of the Board of Education. The Bill had been run through its various stages without a single word being said upon it, and although the hon. Member for Horsham knew it was to be opposed on the Motion for the Third Reading, he did not get up in his place and say anything in support of it. It was only by the purest accident that he himself happened to be present when the Bill was about to be read a third time, and was enabled thus to secure, at least, that some discussion of it should take place before it was finally passed. He was afraid that the arguments he was about to address to the House would not reach the ears of those who would presently vote upon the measure, and he could only say that he deeply lamented that that should be so. Now he came to the merits of the Bill. The object of the Bill was to repeal a clause in an Act, passed in 1899, to protect unhappy, defective, and epileptic children. It was intended to protect them from being herded together in large institutions. There were two methods of dealing with children who were under public management, and the better way, in his opinion, was to make a kind of home for them—a small home where a child could have individual attention, and where there was someone whom it could look up to and love, and also where it could mix with a few companions of its own age. That was the natural and best way in which a child should be brought up. When deprived of a natural home, the best thing that could be done for it, in the interests of the child itself, was to provide it with an artificial home. This method of providing small homes had been adopted in various cases, with the greatest advantage and success. The other method of bringing up children was the more popular one of herding them together in grand institutions and fine buildings, with large staffs and all the modern appliances. There they were brought up by a sort of machinery, they could not have individual attention, nor was there any particular person to whom they could look up and love, and they, therefore, lost the greater part of the advantages in the moral education of a child not attached to the atmosphere of home life. These institutions always had been and always would be extremely popular. There was, of course, the patronage of appointing the secretary, the superintendent, and the matron, there was the delight of building, and of having plans prepared and altering them from time to time. Then there was the ceremony of laying the foundation stone, which was attended by the principal persons in the county, sometimes even by a Member of Parliament, or a Member of the Government, and in some cases actually by Royalty itself, and, finally, there was the institution itself, a magnificent building which constituted a record of the charity and public spirit of the promoters. But, after all, these institutions were not favourable to the children put into them. On this point there was a Committee appointed in 1893 or 1894 by the Government of the day, and the chairman of the committee was the late Mr. Mundella, than whom nobody took a greater interest in the welfare of children. A large number of persons of different political complexion and ideas in regard to children gave evidence before that Committee, which, although it was appointed to inquire into the treatment of children in workhouse schools, eventually came to deal with the care of children generally, and reported unanimously against the practice of herding them together in these institutions, and in favour of their separation in small families and small establishments such as he had described. If he wanted to occupy the time of the House he could quote many passages from the Report of the Committee, and from the evidence given before it, which would very strongly support the case he was endeavouring to lay before the House, but he would content himself with saying that both the evidence and the Report conclusively established two things. The first, that these great congregations of children were very dangerous to their physical health. Ophthalmia, ringworm, and other diseases became very rife among the children, and could not be easily controlled. Although the children were kept extremely clean, were under medical supervision, and were excellently well fed, there being nothing wanting in regard to their care, disease dogged these great institutions. Secondly, the great majority of opinion was that the aggregation of children in those large institutions was extremely detrimental to their moral character and to all those qualities which were produced by love, affection, friendship, and human, treatment and care. If this method of aggregation was deleterious to healthy children it was still more dangerous to children, suffering from any kind of weakness or affliction. In this connection he would like to quote the Report issued in 1901 by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, which body had charge of all the defective children in the Metropolis. This was what that Report said—

"The original policy settled by the Board on the recommendation of the Special Committee re children, and approved by the Local Government Board, was to provide for defective children by 'small houses on the vicinity of the special schools of the School Board for London where groups of children, say eight in each, could be properly attended and eared for by foster mothers.' … the word small coupled with the emphatic mention of individual care stands out on every page of the evidence given before the Poor Law Schools Committee of 1894–6 as the characteristic sought and advocated by witnesses of experience, and the Committee themselves adopted this view. Speaking of homes for normal children (the ease for the borderland children is naturally much stronger) the Committee say that it is of the first importance to keep the homes small."

He would also read a letter he had received that morning from Mr. James Brown, an energetic member of the Metropolitan Asylums Board—

"Feeble-minded children attend a Board school close by, and only in classes of small numbers. To house them in large buildings or to put a number of houses close together would ruin the scheme, the essence of which is that they should mix with strong-minded children and have bright surroundings. We tried to get self-contained houses for eight each, but finding this difficult we took several larger—one up to twenty. We all lament this now, and from experience shall not, repeat it. In another case we took three small houses and joined them together, but the matron or mother strongly recommends us in any future case to take houses not accommodating more than eight children, and to make them self-contained and a house mother to each. These children require constant and individual care, and we have many cases of great improvement resulting from this course. The whole scheme would fail if the numbers of those thrown together were large—they would imitate each other and so deteriorate. We have also taken away from Darenth Asylum 150 children of the educable type, and put them into a large home at Ealing. The removal from a large asylum into a comparatively small home with garden and playgrounds has had a marvellous effect even on those children who were imbeciles, In the smaller homes the medical care is much more personal and effective, and this is very important—also the feeding. The effect of the smaller homes is that the mother is able to detect and know intimately the mental and physical condition of each child, which would be impossible in the larger numbers. We have now obtained sanction to keep children up to twenty or twenty-one years of age, and shall have them taught, as far as possible, simple trades. This again makes it imperative to keep the number small so as to insure careful personal attention."

That was the testimony of a gentleman who had given a considerable portion of his time to the care of these unhappy children. The colonist system, whilst it had not all, had a great many of the defects of the great institution system, and one of its greatest was that it was enormously costly. It had been very much taken up by Boards of Guardians for the children of paupers, and he would like to give an instance of the cost of carrying it out. The Board of Guardians of Greenwich had adopted it, and they had to spend £178,000 to house 600 children, or £290 for very child housed. St. Olaves spent £148,000 for 600 children, or £246 for every child. He now came to the genesis of the Bill. It referred to the defective as well as the epileptic, and all the opposition came from some persons who had established a great epileptic institution, and who desired to have the children sent there at the cost of the ratepayers of the various districts sending them. That institution was not established for children, and at the present moment there were only two boys in it under the age of sixteen, and no girls, whilst there were 130 grownup people. What was proposed by the manager of this school was to put among these grown up men and women a number of children, who would be sent into the institution and paid for by the various School Boards and other educational authorities. This system of mixing children with adults was extremely objectionable, and ought not to be adopted except after very careful inquiry. A good deal had been said at times in that House about children in workhouses, and about the evils which attached to keeping them there, especially in cases where they were mixed up with older people. In his opinion, if they were going to have institutions for children, those institutions should be retained exclusively for children, and the Board of Education ought not to allow the children to be mixed up with adult people. Now the Chalfont Colony was a most excellent institution, and he had no desire to say a single word against it. The objection which he was putting before the House in regard to the treatment of children in the institution did not apply to the treatment of adult people. The authorities of that institution after it was opened lost no time in applying to the Board of Education for a certificate which would enable the educational authorities to pay the cost of maintaining defective and epileptic children in their institution. They applied to the Board of Education to certify it, and to exempt it from the operation of the Act on the ground that the colony existed before the Act was passed.

Where is this institution?

In Buckinghamshire. The authorities of it applied first to be exempted from the Act on the ground that they were in existence before the Act was passed. They then applied to be allowed to have twenty-four instead of fifteen children in each home. Their only reason for that application was that the cost of maintaining a home for only fifteen would be disproportionately large. They alleged in their memorial that it would increase the cost of maintaining the children by £4 a child a year, or, roughly speaking, 1s. 6d. per week, so that the Board of Education was invited to act contrary to an Act of Parliament for the sake of saving 1s. 6d. per week in the maintenance of these children. In the memorial which the managers of the institution addressed to the Board of Education, they said—

"It must be admitted that there would be advantages in very small homes for, say, six or eight children each, but in the case of epileptics this would obviously be impracticable on account of the excessive cost of supervision."

The managers were, in fact, really convicted out of their own mouths, for, while recognising that it would be very much better to have the children in small homes, they wanted to place them in larger numbers for the sake of saving 1s. 6d. per week in the cost of their maintenance. He was surprised that the Board of Education should suggest giving up the interest and welfare of the children on such grounds.

I think the right hon. Gentleman should read the whole of the paragraph.

The hon. Member will have an opportunity afterwards of replying to me, and he can do so.

Evidently the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to place the whole paragraph before the House.

If the hon. Member talks in that way I certainly will read the whole paragraph.

It is on page 50.

continuing—

"It must be admitted that there would be advantages in very small homes for, say, six or eight children each, but in the case of epileptics this would obviously be impracticable on account of the excessive cost of supervision. If this number be exceeded, it is believed that all the essential points of the home system that are capable of being retained with fifteen children can equally well be retained with twenty-four, while the latter number has also some actual advantages. If there are as many as fifteen children in a home, it will certainly happen that they will not all be quite congenial to one another, and in the smaller home the children are thrown more together than in the somewhat larger one for, say, twenty-four, in which also more opportunity is given to the inmates to form pleasant companionships. In short, in the somewhat larger home there is a possibility of a modified classification within the home itself, as distinguished from the stricter classification as between one home and another."

It came to this, that 1s. 6d. a week was the measure of the difficulty which they detailed in their memorial. They went on to say that epileptics, more than ordinary children, needed to be kept bright and happy. That was what he himself had contended. It was necessary in the case of ordinary children, and it became still more necessary in the case of these unfortunate epileptic children. This institution wished to be allowed to have free growth. It evidently contemplated a very great increase of its establishment and a very great extension of the present buildings. Well, he had no objection to its free growth and development so long as it was not carried on at the expense of these unhappy children. In regard to small homes he would like to quote a few words from another Report. It was a passage from a letter sent by the Society to the Local Government Board on the 20th March, 1900, and was in the following words—

"A large proportion of the cases received at the Chalfont Colony are paupers, and my Committee have thus had opportunities of observing the effects upon epileptics of workhouse life. The pauper cases received at the colony may be divided broadly into two classes—those on the one hand whose previous residence at the workhouse has been of short duration, and those on the other hand who have been subjected during more lengthy periods to the depressing influences of those institutions. Among the former class have been many of the best and most hopeful cases received at the colony; the latter class, almost without exception, have been found to have already sunk to such a hopeless degree of mental and moral deterioration as to have lost, not only the capacity, but even the desire, for any improvement of their condition."

These were the people among whom it was desired to place the epileptic children, greatly, as he ventured to say, to their deterioration and disadvantage. However much it might tend to economy and saving, he did not think that such a practice should be permitted. The motives which he had mentioned in the earlier part of his speech for the creation of these institutions for the congregation of children were very powerful with some people, and certainly would tend to encourage them to go in for establishing more of such institutions. It had been said that the colony system was an excellent one because it brought epileptic children into out door life. No doubt living in the open air was one of the best things that could be arranged for these children, but the colony system was not necessary to enable them to lead such a life. They could lead it under much more favourable conditions if they were placed in small homes. Before he sat down he wanted to say a word or two about the proposals of the Bill. It would probably be said by the Secretary to the Board of Education that the Bill did not interfere with the carrying out of the views to which he had given expression, because the Board of Education would have power to make rules and regulations. He, however, had had longer experience of the Board of Education than his hon. friend. He should not in the least doubt his perfect sincerity and genuineness in making use of that argument, but he would like to tell him, and he would like to tell the House, that these public Departments were like wax in the hands of influential people who pressed for these licences to enable them to evade the letter of the law. These institutions possessed enormous influence; he defied the Board of Education to stand against the pressure that would be brought to bear upon it unless it had the protection of an Act of Parliament. If a case had been made out for an alteration of the law the change ought to be in the direction of making the limits more elastic by increasing the number in each house or institution, and not in the direction of abolishing the limits altogether and substituting the feeble resistance of the Board of Education to the strong pressure, social, political, and Parliamentary, which would be brought to bear upon them by these institutions. Then there was the ridiculous farce of laying upon the Table of the House for a certain period the rules made by the Board of Education. Everybody who had much Parliamentary experience knew how perfectly futile and ridiculous was such a safeguard. It was really not worth the paper upon which it was printed. It made no difference whatever to the action of the Board, and it in no way protected the Board from the pressure to which it would be subjected. He had detained the House at considerable length, but it was because he felt very strongly on the matter. He was indignant that these poor children should be deprived of the safeguards and the protection provided by the enactment it was now sought to repeal. All he asked for was an inquiry, and he thought he had made out a case. At an earlier stage he had suggested to the promoters that a Select Committee should hear what there was to be said on the two sides, undertaking, that if the Committee reported in favour of the further progress of the Bill, to withdraw his opposition. His overtures were rejected, but he thought he had shown that the law ought not to be altered without the matter being discussed and inquired into. He therefore moved that the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee.

, in seconding the Motion, said he had been interested in the Bills of 1893 and 1899, which were really sister measures and required to be taken together. It was impossible to enter into the investigation of this subject without feeling the great danger involved in the multiplication of overgrown institutions. When the measure of 1899 was under discussion in another place, the then President of the Council declared that the Council would not look with favour on very large institutions, but would strictly limit their numbers. There was a similar condemnation of overgrown institutions in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Defective and Epileptic Children, upon which the Bill of 1899 was founded. Under that measure security was taken that the houses should not be larger than a certain size, or more than four in number, in other words, each colony was not to exceed sixty. That was a sufficiently large number, and to go beyond it would be mischievous to the cause which all had at heart. If larger numbers were permitted, the institutional spirit was apt to arise, making mechanical the arrangements which ought to be free, and destroying the elasticity and adaptability to constantly varying circumstances, which were absolutely necessary in dealing with young people of the class under discussion. The Government reports on education last year, while speaking of a considerable increase in the provision for the blind and dead, stated that except in day schools no provision whatever had been made for defective children. Before they conferred larger powers, Members were entitled to demand that the powers already existing should be fully exercised. According to the Report of last year, no provision at all had been made for epileptics under the Act. That showed that the existing powers were not fully exercised, and it was the duty of those interested in this subject to see that the children received the full benefit of the legislation already passed before larger powers were sought. Reference was made in the Memorandum on the print of the Bill to the colony system. It appeared that in Germany there were now thirty of these homes, and fifty more would probably be added in the course of a short time. In Norway there was one large institution with 180 pupils. That was a sufficient warning as to the very great danger of proceeding in the manner proposed with the risk of establishing overgrown institutions. In the Copenhagen Institution there were three departments. The first department was preparatory for testing whether the child was suitable for the training; the second department was for manual training; and the third was of an elementary character. In one of these institutions they had eleven different kinds of looms and other machinery, a condition which, in his opinion, was more calculated to cause insanity among these afflicted children than to cure it. From the remarks he had made he thought he had shown that there were grounds for an inquiry. Having before them the warning of the promoters of the Bill elsewhere in 1889, the warning of the Commissioners themselves whose Reports he had read, and the warning given by the constitution of these overgrown, and, therefore, undesirable institutions abroad, they should walk warily and cautiously, and not sanction this legislation until after the most careful inquiry and the most careful consideration of all the facts which such an inquiry would lay before the country. He begged to second the Amendment.

said the speech they had heard this afternoon from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, a former Vice-President of the Board of Education, was one which deserved attention, for, of course, in a matter of this sort his opinion must carry very great weight with the House. He hoped, however, that he might be able to convince the House, or such portion of it as he might reach, that it was unnecessary to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. It was greatly to be regretted that the question would be decided by the votes of those who had not had an opportunity of listening to the arguments used on either side. He could assure his right hon. friend that his misgivings in regard to this system of aggregation were, at all events, misplaced on the present occasion. His right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University and the hon. Member for Wigan had directed their speeches not to the rejection of this measure, but only to its suspension until it had been considered by a Committee. They asked what they are pleased to term an inquiry. Of course that was a familiar form of procedure in this House, and hon. Members were very well aware that if they wanted to see the end of a Bill at this time of the session, one of the best ways was to try to get it referred to a Select Committee for inquiry, because they might be reasonably certain that after that inquiry there would be no time for it to get through the House, He wished to point out that inquiry might be twofold. There might be inquiry into the subject at large, or into the working of the Act which this Bill sought to amend. With regard to inquiry into the subject at large he was not sure that either of his hon. friends had made it clear to the House that there had been close inquiry into the subject already. There was an inquiry undertaken by a Departmental Committee in 1896. On that Committee there were various eminent persons whose names he need not read to the House. In due time that Committee reported, and its Report covered thirty-eight pages of large print, followed by minutes of the evidence amounting to 283. A very large number of witnesses of all descriptions were examined on that occasion. In the face of that Report he did not think that any human being could hope successfully to contend that the subject had not been sufficiently inquired into. In the Report there was no suggestion of any such limitations as was established by the Act of 1899 which it was sought by this Bill to amend. There was no need for a Committee to inquire into the working of the Act of 1899, because that Act had never worked at all. That was the real answer, and that was in one sense the foundation of his case. The Act of 1899 contained an unfortunate clause by which the Board of Education were precluded from certifying any establishment for boarding and lodging defective or epileptic children if more than fifteen children were boarded and lodged in any one building, or if the establishment comprised more than four such buildings. He submitted to the House, with entire confidence, that owing to the introduction of that limit the Act had been made absolutely unworkable. There never had been a Report presented in regard to the working of the Act, because nothing had ever been done, and so far as this part of his argument was concerned, he might leave it with the statement, which he did not believe could be contradicted, that there was no need for an inquiry into the working of the Act of 1899 because it had never worked at all.

said that the Metropolitan Asylums Board had a great number of defective children under their charge.

accepted the statement of his right hon. friend, but the Act required that a Report should be laid before both Houses of Parliament annually, and he had been unable to find that such a Report was ever laid before Parliament.

said the hon. Member would find mention of this subject in the Report of the Board of Education.

said his case was that no application had been made for certificates, and that none had been granted. He would, with the permission of the House, state the provisions of the Act itself. The first section provided that the school authority might make arrangements for determining what children in their district were defective or epileptic. By Section 2 they were empowered to make provision—for these child ten—(1) by special classes, (2) by boarding out near thereto, (3) by establishing schools—certified by the Department. They had also power to contribute towards the maintenance of certified schools. But that section also imposed the limitation of fifteen which he had already described. Therefore it was particularly desirable that there should be home life at the disposal of these children. The local authority had power to provide for home life by arranging for boarding out. The present Bill proposed to amend Sub section (6) of Clause 2. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had made some allusion this afternoon to what he was pleased to term the method by which this Bill had been dealt with up to the present stage. They all understood that discussion was not very easy or likely to be attained after half-past five on a Friday, or after midnight on other days. No one had had an opportunity of explaining this Bill as he himself would have liked to do, and it was by the goodwill and good feeling of the House that it had been allowed to pass the earlier stages. It was not on account of any inherent wickedness on his part that he had not addressed the House on the subject. But when his right hon. friend alluded to the method by which the Bill had got to the present stage, he wished that he had also alluded to the method by which the clause it was proposed to amend found its way into the original Bill. He had referred to Hansard for the purpose of informing himself on that subject. The Bill in 1899 came down to them from the other House. It came to them without this clause in it, and he could not find anything in Hansard to show how it was put in the Bill in this House. The record of their proceedings simply stated that certain Amendments were made and the Bill read a third time. He could only believe that the clause was put in somehow or other without proper consideration by the House as to what the effect of it would be. His right hon. friend would correct him if he was wrong, but so far as he could see there was no discussion or opportunity given for discussion by the House when the Bill of 1899 was before them.

The Bill was passed in the regular course. The Amendment was proposed and accepted, and there was every opportunity for discussion.

said he was much obliged to his right hon. friend. What he suggested was that this Amendment was never on the Paper.

It was certainly on the Paper. So far as my recollection goes, it was on the Paper for a considerable time, because it was certainly considered by my noble friend the President of the Board of Education and myself before the Bill came on.

said he could not say more than that he had carefully searched the pages of Hansard, and that he could not find the slightest trace of this Amendment there. He accepted the statement, however, of his right hon. friend that it was on the Paper, and that it was considered by himself and the President of the Board of Education. Whatever might be the history of its incubation, when it was brought forward it had a favourable reception from the Board of Education. His right hon. friend had represented that this Bill was an example of the modern fashion for aggregation. He wished to point out to the House that that did not follow. Under this Bill the power of control would still remain with Parliament. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman could not get away from the fact that the Board of Education would take care that the rules made under the Bill were such as would reasonably ensure that nothing would be done which might promote the herding together of children in large establishments, or promote those consequent evils which they very well knew followed from that—evils which were so graphically described in the Report of Mr. Mundella's Committee already alluded to by his right hon. friend. He wished to point out what the actual defects of the clause had been hitherto, and for that purpose he would draw the attention of the House very briefly to certain letters he had received on the subject, and also to the opinion expressed by the National Society for Employment of Epileptics. He had received a letter dated March 9th, 1903, from Miss Townsend, a lady connected with the National Association for Promoting the Welfare of the Feeble-Minded, who was a member of the Departmental Committee to which he had already referred. She said—

"The 'fifteen' clause has been a stumbling block all along in the way of the establishment of Homes, more especially for epileptics, and it was certainly never contemplated by the Departmental Committee, who confined themselves to deprecating the founding of large institutions. Now that it becomes increasingly evident that institution life must be the lot of the majority of these children all through their lives, there is the less reason for maintaining the clause—always provided that they receive the individual care and training which is essential."

In another letter, dated March 18th, Miss Townsend said—

"Although personally I prefer small Homes to large ones, yet we all found the limitation to fifteen a vexatious one and shall be glad to have it removed. My cottage home for eight children works admirably, but if that number is exceeded one may as well have thirty as fifteen, and the greater number is an economy."

A correspondent informed him that a Catholic body in the East End of London had provided the first epileptic school under the Act of 1899, and they were all anxious that the numbers should not be limited to sixty. The Report for 1901 of the hon. Medical Staff of the National Society for Employment of Epileptics contained the following:—

"It is very unfortunate that the Board of Education have not seen their way to repeal or amend Section 2, Sub-section 6, of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899, which prevents any establishment being certified under the Act if more than fifteen children are boarded and lodged in any one building, or if the institution contains more than four such buildings. … It is grievous to think that all Act which was intended to benefit these children should have so contrary an effect."

In a Memorial, dated March 6th, 1900, to the Board of Education, that Society pointed out their objections to the conditions imposed by Section 2, Sub-section 6, and asked the Board to recommend Parliament to amend the Act. And then the Memorial went on to say—

"It is a most important feature of the colony or family system that boys and girls should be received in the same establishment, though in different Homes, and this would limit the number of Homes for each sex to two, which is quite insufficient for purposes of classification. In classifying the inmates of such an establishment, it would be necessary to have regard to the mental condition and the severity of the epilepsy, and also to character and previous bringing up. If this latter point were disregarded, serious danger would be incurred. It is obvious, therefore, that two Homes would not give scope for such classification as is necessary, even if no provision were made for those most necessitous of all cases—the epileptic children who are also blind, or deaf and dumb, or otherwise afflicted."

And then the Memorial went on to speak of the difficulty of arranging the children in different classes—

"In an establishment limited to sixty epileptic children, of all ages and of varying degrees of physical and mental capacity, it would be impossible without an unreasonably large teaching stall' to arrange for the proper division of the children into clashes. The same objection would apply still more strongly to the necessary industrial training. For the proper industrial training of the children, according to their respective inclinations and capacity, and with a view to their becoming wholly or partially self -supporting, it is essential that a considerable variety of occupations should be taught, and, consequently, that there should be a variety of capable instructors, which would, economically speaking, be impracticable in an establishment limited to about thirty children of each sex, of whom, at any time, only the minority would be of such, an age as to be receiving regular industrial training. This difficulty could not properly be avoided by having separate establishments for these elder children, because it is an essential feature of the family system upon which such establishments should be based that children of various ages should be brought together."

And then they refer again to the colony system as it is worked abroad. Of Bielefeld they said—

"It is undoubtedly the one which is least institutional—the one which gives the fullest scope to individual character and development. It is at the same time the largest, having a population of over 1,500 epileptics of all ages, children and adults."

And then they go on to say—

"Even if there were à priori grounds for believing the limitations of Section 2, Subsection 6, to be wise, it would, nevertheless, appear to be extremely undesirable to stamp in advance a uniform pattern upon all epileptic establishments in this country, and to prevent their free growth and development upon such lines as time and trial may show to be best. Such restriction as is justifiable under any circumstances would appear to be so only when formulated as the result of experience, not when imposed in anticipation of it."

The Board of Education stated in reply that the subject had been recently brought before them in connection with similar memorials from the London and other School Boards—

"The Board are, however, unable to hold that a sufficient case has been made out for the repeal or amendment of the clause in question in an Act which has not as yet had a practical trial."

He quite admitted that that was a very good answer at the time, viz., in June 1900; but the Act had now been in existence for four years, and it was quite impossible for the Board of Education to give the same answer to a similar memorial addressed to them at the present time. It was easy enough to speak lightly or deprecatingly of the work done by this great society; but he and his friends wished by means of the Bill under discussion to enlarge their sphere of usefulness, and to relax the conditions under which they were fettered and bound by the Board of Education.

said that after the exceedingly powerful speech of the right hon Member for Cambridge University, it would be well to have some further public inquiry before they committed themselves to the passing of this amending Bill. The hon. Member said that the Act of 1899 had not worked well, but if he would refer to the Report of the Education Department he would find a couple of pages devoted to the subject in which it was stated that the Act had been adopted, and satisfactory arrangements had been made in no fewer than 109 day schools and classes.

said that that referred to schools and not to institutions.

said that the Report went on to say that there was a tendency to board out children and make arrangements in regard to institutions. He thought, therefore, that the Act had not been the dead letter described by the hon. Gentleman. One of the recommendations of the Select Committee was that the school authorities should have power to send their children to these institutions the numbers in which did not exceed twenty; and apparently the Bill under discussion did, to a considerable extent, run counter to the recommendations of the Committee. The object of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University was not to reject the Bill, but that it should be sent to a Select Committee for inquiry.

said that the Act of 1899 had not worked, inasmuch as it was unworkable. He supported the Bill, the object of which was to extend the usefulness of the existing machinery. It was a great relief to his mind when he heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University say that he had not visited any of these institutions. He was perfectly certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had visited Rickmanshurst he would never have confused the issue by mixing it up in his description of establishments in which large numbers of epileptics and weak-minded persons were aggregated. He knew that institution by personal inspection. It occupied a ridge of high-lying land with pretty surroundings, and was composed of various houses scattered over the area, in which were distributed some 150 or 160 epileptics. He could assure hon. Members that he had never seen a similar institution for epileptics in such admirable condition He had made careful inquiry and could speak very highly of the work done by this organisation. It had failed in a certain number of cases, but in the vast majority of cases it had prevented the degradation to which epileptics were so liable. To compare their condition with that of the ordinary occupants of alunatic asylum was ridiculous. His argument was that if so much good had been done by such institutions to adult epileptics, how much more would they benefit young epileptics whose disease was not confirmed.

said he wished to say that this was a private Member's Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had stated that the Bill had emanated from the Board of Education, and that he was even prepared to prove it. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he knew nothing of the Bill until he saw it in print. The hon. Member for Horsham, who stated that he had drafted the Bill himself, was good enough to send him a copy of it, asking him to express his opinion about it. He thought it was a measure which would turn the Act of 1899, which, so far as epileptic children were concerned, was a dead letter, into a useful and valuable Act. He had had representations of a very forcible character from the London School Board, and also from the National Society for Epileptics, as to the impossibility of working the Act under present conditions. He had taken export opinion, and was advised that this Bill would serve a useful purpose, and that epileptic children would benefit if the Bill were passed. He wished to correct a misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member for Cleveland who talked about the difference of opinion as to the operation of the Act He thought if the hon. Member looked over the Act he would see that there were a good many provisions which did not affect epileptic children at all, but which related entirely to defective children. The portion of the Act which provided for schools and classes for defective children had come into operation, but it had been found impossible under the Act to provide homes and colonies for epileptic children who could not go to school without risk of injury to themselves or to others, or of disturbance of the work of the school. A Return showed that in the case of defective children four small boarding-houses had been established, accommodating thirty, twenty, fifteen, and six children in separate homes, and these children were taught in schools in the immediate neighbourhood, and separate schools for such children had been started in many places. But the Bill of his hon. friend was intended to lead to the possibility of boarding out and teaching epileptic children who

said that the Act of 1889 had been a dead letter so far as epileptic children were concerned, and he supported the Bill because it would make provision for the education and training of such children.

said that this was a Bill to enable boards of guardians not to take into consideration, in connection with an application for outdoor relief, the amount of a pension given to a pensioner from the Army or the Navy where the amount was under 5s. a week. It was the result of the Friendly Societies Bill which the House had previously passed. That Bill provided that boards of guardians, in granting outdoor relief to members of friendly societies, should not take into consideration any sum received from such societies as sick-pay except where it exceeded 5s. a week. To his mind that was an invidious measure. It dealt entirely with one class of the community; but it had the support of the Government, and when it went through the House no hon. Member appeared inclined to embark on a discussion on it. If the House empowered boards of guardians not to take into consideration sick pay received from friendly societies where it did not exceed 5s. a week, how could it refuse to grant a similar exemption in the case of pensioners where, although the pension was not due to thrift, it was, at any rate, due to a better cause—namely, service to the country. He himself did not see why thrift which had taken the form of purchasing an annuity or income from investments should not be taken into consideration by boards of guardians also. He thought it was a great mistake on the part of the Government not to have dealt with the subject as a whole, in order to provide that thrift, no matter in what form it might develop itself, should be entitled to recognition. The Government having assented to the Friendly Societies Bill, it seemed to him reasonable and proper that this Bill should have been brought in. He did not object to it; on the contrary, he was friendly to its being passed through the House. But the Friendly Societies Bill having been thrown out in another place altered the position of matters a great deal. That put this Bill in a rather peculiar position. He had received a statement from which it appeared that the position of Army pensioners had been so improved under the present Secretary of State for War and some of his predecessors, that it would be only in very rare instances that the Bill would apply to Army pensioners. He wished to point out that the House was now dealing with this matter on its own merits and without precedent. There were three objections to the measure. The effect of the Bill would be to almost invite a pensioner with a pension of 5s. a week to claim relief from a board of guardians. Again, in the case of the Friendly Societies Bill there was this difference. The amount that was not to be taken into consideration was sick-pay; but in the present Bill there was no reference to sick-pay, and the pensioner might be an able-bodied man. That was a very material difference. He quite agreed that every man who had served in the Army or the Navy, and who had received a pension, however small, which showed that he had given service to his country, ought not to be put in the invidious position of being offered the workhouse. If there were any legislation whereby the offer of the workhouse should not be given in such cases, he would personally support it. But there ought to be other provision by the State for such pensioners as might have been disabled either by wounds or ill health. There ought to be a fund, whether under the management of the Government or not, to provide minimum pensions for keeping pensioners out of the workhouse or from the necessity of applying to boards of guardians for relief. He would not move the rejection of the Bill. He would, however, suggest that it should not be passed this session, but should await the fate of the other Bill. He thought that some measures might be taken whereby pensioners with small pensions might be dealt with in such a way as would obviate the necessity of their applying to boards of guardians at all. He was entirely sympathetic with the case of pensioners, and he did not want to see them applying for relief or for admission to a workhouse. They had given their best service to the country as a whole, and no particular locality should be I asked to provide for them. It was a matter which should be provided out of Imperial funds. While not expressing any opposition to the object in view, he thought that there would be no harm in delaying the Bill in order to see what would be the fate of the other measure. If the other measure were eventually passed, he would be quite prepared to support the present Bill. He thought he had suggested a way whereby pensioners with small pensions might not find it necessary to apply to boards of guardians at all; and he certainly would not have intervened on the present occasion had it not been that the Friendly Societies Bill had been rejected in another place.

said he was glad the hon. Gentleman had spoken with reference to insufficient pensions. Small pensions of from 6d. to 8d. a day could not, in his opinion, be dealt with in any other way than by such a measure, because when a man is discharged for "disability" arising from wounds or sickness and is partially able to earn his living, it is not fair to call upon the State to give him a full pension. The Bill was brought forward with the general intention that a pensioner should receive the benefit of the thrift which was exercised for him and at his expense by the State during his service. Therefore a pensioner was in precisely the same position as a member of a friendly society. He also wished to support the measure in the interests of the State. He felt certain it was a very serious thing indeed for the State to have pensioners in the workhouse of the country. One man there deterred ten men from entering the service. He had received a letter from a pensioner, who was now an inmate of St. George's Union in the Fulham Road. He wrote—

"I have only got 8d. per day for one year and six months; and not being able to do any work through having contracted disease in South Africa, and my pension being so small, I made application for admission to the above workhouse, and because I did not tell the relieving officer that I was in possession or receipt of 8d. per day I was charged at the Rochester Row Police Court and got fourteen days imprisonment. Not only that, but the guardians want me to forfeit all my pension for every day I am in the house; which means that, they will take all I have and leave me without the price of a smoke of tobacco. As I am not sixty years of age I have to put up with the same food as the younger men; one pint of gruel night and morning, dry bread, and four pounds of oakum to pick every day, and to pay 8d. a day to be allowed to do it."

That was a sort of thing which was very prejudical; and he certainly hoped that the House of Commons would take steps to prevent it as far as possible. He would urge hon. Members, whatever their views on thrift might be, that, it was desirable for the sake of the State that pensioners should be kept out of the workhouse.

said everyone sympathised with the object of the Bill, so far as it proposed to relieve the lot of those who were in distress after having served their country. Indeed, had it been relevant to the present issue he should have said with great emphasis that he thought the terms which the Government now gave to those who fought their battles abroad were unduly restricted. A man who was wounded in the service of his country ought to receive a pension sufficiently large to place him in the same position as he would have been had he not been wounded. Therefore, he was full of sympathy with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the purpose he had in view in introducing the Bill. It was largely on that score that he did not propose to oppose it. But he could not help calling attention to the very important principle which was embodied in the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman opposite said very truly, the main objection to the Bill was that it would throw on a locality the duty of supporting those pensioners. There was no doubt that those who had served in the Army and Navy had great claims on the Imperial Exchequer; but they had no special or peculiar claim on local rates. There was a very serious objection to increasing the burden on the rates as distinct from the Exchequer. One of the most notable features of the present system was that whereas they had the most elaborate apparatus for checking extravagance in connection with the Exchequer, there was practically no check whatever on the local bodies which spent the rates. Under this Bill expense would be thrown on the ratepayers, many of them persons of great poverty themselves, and struggling against difficulties. The equitable claim of his hon. and learned friend was not against the local authorities, but against the State. There was another graver objection to this Bill. It recognised, as did the other Outdoor Belief (Friendly Societies) Bill, that the people had a right to outdoor relief independently of their circumstances. The right the people now had to outdoor relief was their poverty and misery, but it was said in this case they were not in granting outdoor relief to have regard to the position of the pensioner at all, they were to look on the relief they gave not as relief given to save from acute distress, but relief to which in some degree the recipient had a right. Once that principle was admitted it would be a logical impossibility to deny that they ought to give the same right of relief to every person in a locality who had been thrifty, and who could establish the fact that it was not through his own fault that he was in distress. That was a principle with which he agreed. It was the principle of old-age pensions. It was a principle of the greatest possible importance, and was in exact opposition to the principle of the Poor Law of 1834, which was that everybody was to have a right to relief if they were in poverty and misery. He, however, thought it was an illogical and slipshod method of dealing with a great question that we should have a lot of little bills dealing with different classes of people and making exceptions of this kind. It would be a far more reasonable way of dealing with this great question if it were laid down once and for all that those who could show that it was not through want of character or thrift that they were in the position they were, had a right to claim relief from the people at large. If that were laid down as a definite proposition, and one which might be made to work, it would claim the support of the whole House. It was a matter for regret that they dealt with this great question of relief by piecemeal measures and upon particular grounds which excited their strong sympathy, but that did not alter the fact that the house in agreeing to this Bill was agreeing to a principle of far-reaching importance; a principle which ought to be extended to a very large class. Though the Bill might not be passed when sent to another place these debates were not without value, because they tended to make the House recognise the nature of the act they were undertaking. It was not desirable to make exceptions of this kind, and less desirable to do so without knowing what they were doing.

said the Amendment he proposed to move was to substitute £60 for £100 in Clause 3. The object of the Amendment was to insure that the reasons for which, the County Courts were established should prevail. It was thought desirable to give small suitors and people in poor circumstances a less expensive method of resorting to the process of the law, and therefore the County Courts were established with limited jurisdiction. He was afraid if the jurisdiction of those Courts was extended it might possibly deprive the people for whom they were established of the privileges which they now had. If the promoters of the Bill could show that the work the County Courts had to do was so small that the jurisdiction could be profitably extended, then he would be prepared not to press his Amendment to a division. He regretted very much that in the ordinary course invoking the assistance of the law should be so expensive, and he would be glad to hear from some of the Members, of what was called the senior branch of the profession, whom he saw present, whether a means of cheapening the cost of the law could not be invented. He had been told that the whole administration of the County Courts was bad; that the fees were higher in proportion than the fees in the other Courts of law, and that the proper course to pursue in a case of this sort would be to overhaul the administration of the County Courts. Whether that was so or not he did not know, but seeing so many eminent Members of the bar around him, he hoped they would be able to throw some light upon the question. With regard to the suggestion to increase the number of Judges at the County Courts, he did not think that was in the power of the promoters of the Bill. He begged to move.

opposed the Amendment. The hon. Member himself had expressed his desire for cheaper law and quicker administration, and anyone familiar with the block of business which had taken place at times in the Courts would see the great advantage of supplementing the higher Courts by increasing the jurisdiction of the County Courts. He pointed out that the clause had passed the House without a division, and with regard to the £100 all the discussion that had taken place upstairs was as to whether it should not be increased to £200. As the former registrar of a large Court he ventured to say, that while the Courts had fulfilled their original purpose they had also shown themselves capable of dealing with higher business with advantage, especially to the commercial community. In regard to the suggestion that more Judges would be required, he wished to point out that in many cases the present Judges, excellent as was the work which they did, had not their time fully occupied. As to fees, practice, and procedure, the Rules Committee of the Judges and the Lord Chancellor were able to deal with those matters. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

said he would have preferred to have seen the limit raised to £500. He had been pressed by the Chambers of Commerce to come here to-day and say that they would very much rather see this Bill passed, even with the limit of £100, than that it should be hung up for another session. He opposed the Amendment.

said in his constituency no confidence at all was felt in this Bill. He thought a good case had been made out for the Amendment, and he supported it. It raised the limit by £10, and he did not see that any case had been made out for extending it further.

said the district of the hon. Member was singular in the respect of having no confidence in this Bill. If everybody had been of that opinion they would not have had resolutions passed so unanimously year after year urging this reform on the Government as had been passed by the various Chambers of Commerce. That was a convincing proof of what the country felt upon this matter. The principle of the Bill had been accepted over and over again in this House. The workman's liability and other Acts which incorporated this principle had been referred to the County Courts for decision. And under the Bankruptcy Acts they had practically an unlimited jurisdiction. Under the circumstances he was surprised that so retrogressive a course should be suggested as was proposed by this Amendment. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment.

urged his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment which, if carried, would, he said, practically render the Bill useless. At the request of the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce he had ventured in Grand Committee to move an extension to £500. Our large centres of industry were demanding more economical and speedy methods of obtaining justice. The ability of our County Court Judges was great. They had to administer the same principles of law as in the High Court, and why should not the poor have the same advantages as the rich? Our County Courts had unlimited jurisdiction in bankruptcy, and in other special cases could go much beyond £50. Surely they ought to be considered competent to deal with a common law action of £100.

said all who had any knowledge of the Chambers of Commerce in our great towns were well aware of the strong public demand for some change to expedite the administration of justice, especially in commercial suits, and he regarded this Bill as more of a protest against the present system than as a practical means of remedying the existing evils. He could not help feeling at the same time that there was a desire for an extension of the jurisdiction of some of the County Court Judges in some towns where there were Chambers of Commerce. It would be idle, however, to disguise the fact that, there was a great deal of difference in the constitution of the County Court bench in various districts. At the present time any two suitors who really desired to settle a dispute could give the County Court Judge in any common law matter unlimited jurisdiction, but what was proposed in this Bill was that the plaintiff, at his own will, should be at liberty to bring an unwilling defendant into jurisdiction which was not the ordinary jurisdiction of the country. There was a strong local demand in some districts for this extension, but this Bill was so defective in failing to provide the necessary means for carrying out the scheme—for instance in not providing for the payment of salaries to County Court Judges corresponding to the very great extension of their duties. They were appointed Judges of small debt Courts forty or fifty years ago at precisely the present terms of remuneration. It might be desirable, if the change proposed by the Bill was to be made, to remodel the County Court system, and to appoint County Court Judges with a view to their discharging the duties which High Court Judges were now appointed to fulfil. It might also be necessary, seeing that the Bill would transfer a great volume of work from the High Court, to revise our present circuit system, which was the foundation of our administration of the common law. There was no doubt a strong feeling in this country in favour of some change in the administration of justice, but he was not satisfied that this Bill, if carried, would have those beneficial results which its promoters anticipated. He regarded the Bill with a good deal of apprehension, though he did not intend to vote for the Amendment.

said the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and the Liverpool Law Society had expressed opinions averse to the extension of the jurisdiction of County Courts. They said these Courts were originally organised for the collection of small debts, and as such were effective, but that their usefulness in this respect would be impaired by the introduction of High Court business which the Courts had not the machinery to deal with and which the Bill did not provide. If a complete change were made in the County Court system, and if it were affiliated to the High Courts, it might then be provided with an organisation fitted to deal with both classes of cases, but that was not provided in the Bill now before the House, and therefore if the matter were pressed to a division he should support the proposal to extend the jurisdiction by only £10 instead of £50.

said that so far as Liverpool was concerned that city already had a Vice Chancellor's Court as well as two County Courts; it was therefore well provided with machinery for dealing with all kinds of cases. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to proceed, and mentioned the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland as analogous, to show that such Courts were well qualified for the business. He saw no reason why the extra labour should not be put on the County Court Judges.

desired to make a few observations, that it might not be imagined that if the Bill went through it would be possible to carry it out in practice. He was not saying that our County Court system might not be enlarged, but he wished to point out that there was absolutely no machinery in the Bill which would make it operative. With an extension of the jurisdiction, it became absolutely necessary to survey the whole system of County Courts, which were originally established as a poor man's Court for the collection of small debts in a rapid way, and the enlargement of the jurisdiction would not be equally satisfactory in all parts of the country, for the work would be clogged by the Court having to deal with larger cases. A serious question arose whether there should be no appeal from the decisions of the Court except on points of law. In its present shape, so far as he could see, the Bill would not be a workable measure. There was no provision for machinery or for the appointment of the necessary officers, and he did not think it right to let the Amendment pass with the idea on the part of the House that the Government thought there was the least possibility of the Bill working in a satisfactory way.

said those Members who had interested themselves in the subject were familiar with these arguments, which were those used when the extension of the Courts to the present limit was made in 1888.

You set up your officers then?

No, it was a great measure of consolidation. These very same objections were raised, and the answer was that experience in the working of the Act would show what additional machinery was required. But he had not since heard of any public inconvenience having arisen, and in reply to the present objections, therefore, he might again say that experience would show what additional machinery would be required. He quite agreed with the Solicitor-General it was necessary to overhaul the whole County Court system,

moved an Amendment to Clause 3, providing that in actions brought within the limits of the jurisdiction of a County Court by the provisions of the Act, and in which proper steps had been taken by either party to require a jury to be summoned, Section 102 of the County Courts Act, 1888, should be read as if the word "twelve" were substituted for "five." He freely admitted that the County Courts possessed, and deservedly so, a large amount of public confidence, but still there was one element in their administration which was not fully approved by the public. At the present time, if a case had to be tried by a jury, only five jurymen were empanelled, and if the jurisdiction of the Courts were to be extended as proposed by the Bill the result would be to bring in a class of case which now was tried by an ordinary jury. He did not think that suitors should be deprived of their constitutional right and privilege to have a jury of twelve, and his object was to give the parties this right. It was impossible for five men to thresh out the questions brought before them in the same manner as twelve.

recognised the spirit in which the Amendment had been moved, and freely admitted that there was no magic in the mere number five; but there were very strong practical objections to increasing the number to twelve. It would impose great additional burdens upon persons residing in our different country districts and large towns. He had never in his own experience heard of a case in which the mere fact of the jury being composed of five had in the least degree diminished the weight of the verdict of the jury. Cases under the Employers' Liability Act, for instance, involving very large sums were decided by juries of five, and he failed to see that the hon. Baronet had made out any case for increasing the number to twelve.

agreed that there would be considerable inconvenience in increasing the number of jurors to twelve, and pointed out that very few, if any, County Courts had accommodation for so large a jury. It would be out of order to discuss the question of whether actions involving large sums should be tried in the High Court or in the County Court, but if they were to be tried in the County Court it would impose a heavy obligation on persons liable to serve on juries if the number of jurors were raised to twelve. It would be a different matter if some number between five and twelve were suggested, but he did not think the suggested number would be practicable.

recognised the practical difficulties which had been referred to, but thought there was a great deal in the contention that as the limit of the actions was being raised from £50 to £100 the number of jurors should be correspondingly increased. He suggested, as a compromise, that eight should be substituted for twelve.

said that if the proposal was to be taken as evidence of a desire to meet the feeling of the House, he would not object to the clause being amended, but he thought the number should be an odd number.

moved the substitution of "nine" for "twelve." Most people were accustomed to think of a jury of twelve as one of the institutions of the country which was never departed from, but they had learnt this afternoon that that was not the case. It was one of the advantages of such debates that Members were instructed in these matters. But if actions involving sums of £100 were to be decided by juries of either five or nine, he really could not see why there should be a jury of twelve in any civil action whatever.

said he would accept the Amendment.

moved to omit Clause 4, which, he said, had been added by the Standing Committee. The Bill was described as one extending the jurisdiction of County Courts. Clause 4 had nothing whatever to do with extending the jurisdiction of County Courts, but had a great deal to do with the rights of suitors within those Courts. The clause raised the limit in the cases which might be heard by the registrar from £2 to £5, a provision which he thought would be liable to work prejudicially to the poorer suitors, who were entitled to have their cases tried by a Judge. There was no appeal from the decision of the registrar, consequently it was very necessary that the interests of the poorer suitors should be carefully watched.

said the essence of compromise was give and take. The supporters of the Bill had yielded on the last Amendment, and he hoped the hon. Baronet in return would not press the Amendment he had now moved. The clause was fully discussed in the Grand Committee, and its form as it stood in the Bill was the result of a compromise. The exigencies of time might compel him to accept the Amendment, but he would appeal to the hon. Baronet to concede the point.

pointed out that the Amendment just accepted dealt with an entirely different subject from that now under discussion. If the extension proposed in this clause was agreed to there was no reason why at some future time the limit in the cases which might be tried before the registrar should not be further extended to £20, £50, or even £100, and just as the County Court Judge was now taking the place of the regular tribunal, so in a short time the County Court Judge might be superseded by the registrar.

I will accept the Amendment.

moved that the Bill be read a third time, and appealed to the Solicitor-General to offer no opposition to the Motion, having regard to the numbers in the last division.

said it would be impossible at that stage, in a comparatively empty House, so to argue the matter so as to bring home to hon. Members the reasons why the Government thought the Bill unworkable. However, having made the protest that the Government considered the Bill unworkable, and that it would not be a useful addition to the Statute-book, he would not offer further obstacles.

expressed the belief that there would be much difficulty in the working of the Bill, and the hope that the measure would be carefully considered in its future stages.

thought it was very unreasonable to press for the Third Reading of a Bill at the conclusion of a stage in which it had been substantially amended. The difficulty was not made at all less by the attitude of the Solicitor-General who had declared the Bill to be unworkable.

moved that the question be now put.

said that under some circumstances he might have assented to the Motion, but it was hardly worth while to put the House to the trouble of two divisions when the Bill could be put down as the first order on Friday next, and a decision certainly obtained.

said he would not press the Motion.

said his object was simply to protest against reading the Bill a third time at the end of a sitting in which it had been substantially amended, against the protests of people who were entitled to be heard in the matter, and without a proper opportunity for discussion.