I beg to move to leave out this Clause and I do so in order that I may get some explanation of the necessity for this Bill. In this country the urban district is not as a rule a market town, but in Ireland as it is mainly an agricultural country the case may be different and this Clause may be necessary. I think, however, some explanation is desirable and therefore I make this proposal.

I beg to second the Motion to omit the Clause. I have no particular objection to this Bill, but I am not quite sure that I like the power of total prohibition of the sale of meat by an urban district council. I have not put an Amendment down because I believe my hon. Friends behind me are very anxious for this Bill and I presume that the methods which obtain in this country do not always obtain in Ireland. It does seem to me, however, that some such words as "unfit for human consumption" should be introduced so as to restrict the power of prohibition of sale to meat of that description. If hon. Members will look at the Bill, however, they will see that no such words are in the Clause, and it allows every urban district council in Ireland to prohibit the sale of meat for human consumption in their district. I am not quite sure whether that is right, and it appears to me that this Clause might add very much to the power of boycotting. My hon. Friend behind me laughs, but I will explain how this Bill might add considerably to the power of boycotting. There is. we will say, a certain urban district council in Ireland over which the hon. Member (Mr. Patrick O'Brien) is the presiding genius. I do not know whether he ever indulges in boycotting, and I do not want to make any accusation against him. I am only using his name as he happens to be in the House as an illustration of my argument. If he wanted to prevent some gentleman from eating meat he might say to the urban district council: "You must prohibit the consumption of meat." I presume if I lived in an urban district in Ireland I could have meat sent from London, but if I could not afford to have it sent from London and had to buy from the urban district council the hon. Member could prohibit the consumption of meat and I do not see how I could get it, so that this Clause might be used as a means of boycotting. I do not presume for a moment that this was intended. The names at the back of the Bill seem to be a mixture of both parties of Irish Members and I presume it has been agreed amongst them, but I should like to know why we have the great pleasure and honour of the Chief Secretary's presence in the House on a Friday morning?

I have come to hear you.

I always thought the right hon. Gentleman had a great knowledge of what was good. I hope to have the advantage of being instructed in certain methods with regard to the passing of Irish legislation. It might be rather difficult for him to administer Ireland in the strong manner in which he administers that country if there was a Clause of this sort in the Bill. Supposing he was to import troops into a particular district for the purpose of putting down a disturbance, and the urban district council was to prohibit the consumption of meat in that particular district, what would happen then? Perhaps the Attorney-General could give an explanation. If he was ordered to appear for the Crown to prevent the enforcement of this Clause, how would he present the case? I think I have shown some reason why we should have some explanation of what seems to be the rather peculiar drafting of the Clause.

The hon. Member (Mr. Booth) proposes to omit Clause 1. In that case there would be nothing left of the Bill. I do not think I ought to put that question. It is not a question really for Report stage. The objection taken, especially by the hon. Baronet, is to the whole Bill.

I do not object to Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. Perhaps my hon. Friend would withdraw so as to enable me to move to omit Sub-section (l) of Clause 1.

I do not think Sub-section (2) would stand alone. The provisions of section so and so relative to bylaws shall apply to every by-law made under this Act. There is no power to make by-laws.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to omit the words "and prohibiting the sale of meat within the urban district for human consumption except after inspection in accordance with the by-laws."

I hope the hon. Baronet will not persist in this Amendment. It would be a great pity on the face of it if the first part of this Clause was allowed to stand without the latter part because if the urban district council are permitted the powers which are given to them in the first part of Sub-section (1) of providing for the inspection of all meat intended to be sold within the urban district for human consumption and then are prevented from prohibiting the sale of meat within the district for human consumption without any inspection whatever, of course the Bill would be quite useless, and, indeed, would strike at the root of the whole matter. The hon. Member (Mr. Booth) asked the meaning of the Clause and why it is necessary to give urban districts in Ireland additional powers in this respect. The urban district councils in Ireland are the sanitary authorities. Various Public Health Acts passed between 1878 and 1907 give the urban districts in Ireland very wide powers and this Bill is only amplifying those powers and allowing the urban districts to control the smaller class of slaughterhouses. Even in England and Scotland a great many of the slaughter-houses are not conducted as they should be. For a number of years past there has been a great and energetic movement on foot for the prevention of tuberculosis in Ireland, and since I have come to this House there have been a great many efforts made, both by Acts of Parliament and by ordinary departmental machinery, to do what we can to prevent the growth of this dread i disease. This Bill will materially assist; those who have that great object at heart because by taking the utmost possible precautions, first of all in connection with the meat which is to be sold in the district, if killed within the district, you strike at the poorer and more insanitary slaughter-houses, and thus it will prevent meat being brought in which is unfit for human consumption, perhaps cheaper meat, which is not subject to inspection. That would be really a great danger, because you cannot get competition of that sort under healthy conditions; and the very object of the Bill would be defeated if the Amendment were carried.

My hon. Friend suggests that we should put in the words "if unfit for human consumption," but I think that matter might be left to the sound common-sense of the particular urban council. The sanitary authority under the Bill has to lay down its own rules, and I do not suppose any district council in Ireland would be desirous of putting forward rules in connection with the slaughter of meat which would interfere with an important trade within the urban district. Surely those who are elected to the councils and who are in touch with the people would take care that there was nothing partial in the rules laid down in the bylaws which they would make. I have studied this matter, and I have always hoped that something would be done. I think my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain O'Neill) is to be heartily congratulated in having steered the Bill to its present stage, with the assent of hon. Members below the Gangway, who are equally interested in this important matter, and I believe with the assistance of the Government. We are now, I hope, on the eve of making more stringent regulations, which are very much required in certain parts of Ireland. Where slaughter-houses are satisfactory, of course the by-laws would not affect them, but if they are in an insanitary condition or causing unnecessary offence in other ways, it would be obligatory on the authorities to take steps to stop the offence. All these matters would be dealt with by the by-laws. I do not anticipate that they would be used as the hon. Baronet has suggested that they might be used—as a means of boycotting. I am sorry that he should be so ingenious as to suggest a new method of that cruel practice in Ireland.

I did not wish to suggest it, I wished to safeguard my hon. and gallant Friend and his Friends, and also my Friends, from the risk which I am afraid they will run through their desire on this particular occasion to act with hon. Members below the Gangway.

I wish the hon. Baronet had not put the idea into anybody's head, for some people are quick to pick up such an idea. I do not think there is any real opposition to the Bill. All sides of the House are agreed that it is a good and necessary measure and one which will confer great benefit on the people of Ireland who are interested in the matter. The various Acts which are at present in force in regard to this subject differ in some respects from those in operation in England and Scotland. This Bill is brought forward in no party spirit. It is entirely for the purpose of getting inspection of meat which is necessary in the interest of public health, and I hope it will be passed into law.

There is one matter to which I wish to call attention, and I hope it will have the effect of allaying any apprehensions entertained by the hon. Baronet and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract. It will be observed that the operation of the Bill will be by by-laws. Under Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 the by-laws must be submitted for confirmation to the Local Government Board in Ireland. An urban district council must publish in the newspapers an advertisement intimating their intention to make an application for by-laws so that there will be full opportunity for inquiry and discussion. I suggest that in any circumstances that should meet the objection of the hon. Baronet.

Supposing a by-law is made and is objected to as I suggested, would it be in the power of the Local Government Board for Ireland to rescind or repeal the by-law?

If the objection is raised after it has been submitted and confirmed, I should think not. The cost of the application is serious, and objections should be raised before the bylaws are confirmed. There is to be an advertisement of the application in the newspapers, and the proposed by-laws are to be examined into carefully by the Local Government Board. It would be impossible to imagine that the Local Government Board would ever give its sanction to a by-law which was capable of oppressive or illegal use.

Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mean to say that if a mistake was made in a bylaw of that kind it could not be rectified afterwards.

If there was an obvious mistake made it would be possible for the Local Government Board to amend the by-law. I thought the hon. Baronet's question had reference to another matter altogether.

I understand now that a by-law might be altered with the. consent of the urban district council. But my question was: Supposing the urban district council did not consent to the alteration, could the Local Government Board make it?

The matter must lie with the urban district council. It has to put the proposed by-laws in black and white, and advertise that application is to be made for them. The by-laws will be closely investigated by the Local Government Board, and they will hear all the objections that can be made from any quarter. It is inconceivable that there is any danger of a by-law being passed which would affect anyone injuriously. The hon. Baronet has suggested that there might be improper use of a by-law for boycotting purposes. No such by-law would be allowed to come into existence. The omission of the words proposed to be left out would leave nothing of substance in the Clause because it would be useless to inspect and, if necessary, to condemn meat unless you can prohibit its sale for human consumption. I think the hon. Baronet may be satisfied that there is no real danger involved in the proposal.

The urban district councils have full powers at present as regards slaughter-houses, but unfortunately the councils do not appoint the proper persons to carry out the inspection. The inspectors have not a bit of independence about them. They do not perform their duties impartially and condemn meat when necessary. I have witnessed a case myself where three inspectors who were sent to inspect carcases in a public slaughter-house allowed them to be taken away for consumption by the people in the locality, although they were tuberculous. If this Bill passes there should be inserted in it a Clause requiring that the inspection of the meat should be made by an independent person, such as a veterinary surgeon. A man is appointed by a market committee to inspect dead pigs coming into a market place, and perhaps he knows nothing whatever about it, and where tuberculosis existed would not know its appearance. Therefore I think that with the powers which they at present possess the urban district councils possess ample jurisdiction over all slaughterhouses in Ireland if they wish to put them in force and appoint men who will act independently and see that their duties are carried out properly. I will oppose this Bill as it is now.

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

There is a very great demand for this Bill, and I thank the hon. Member opposite and the hon. Member below the Gangway for withdrawing their technical objections on the Report stage. I thank all sections of the House for allowing the Bill to get a second reading unopposed, and I thank all sections of representatives from Ireland for their support of this Bill, and especially those who have kindly allowed their names to appear on the Bill. I have got representatives of our own Unionist party and of the Nationalist party and the O'Brienite party, and I think that this unusual fact should commend the Bill to the House. I thank very cordially the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General for Ireland for the support which they have given to this Bill. I had some difficulty at first in persuading them that the Bill was really necessary, and that it would do no harm and would do a great deal of good, but in the end I was successful in winning them over to support the Bill. I thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite for rising on the Report stage and putting the discussion right. The sense of the Bill as the House will understand was quite unaltered by the Committee stage. All the amendments adopted were proposed by the Attorney-General and I think were drafted by the Government draftsman. I think the Committee were satisfied that the new words expressed better than the original words the meaning of the Bill, but the sense of the Bill remains exactly as it was. The necessity for this Bill arose because many urban district councils in Ireland had erected, very much to their credit, public slaughter-houses at the expense of the ratepayers. But they had no power to enforce the use of these public slaughter-houses by the butchers. So serious was the situation that some of the urban district councils have been actually discussing the advisability of giving up the public slaughter houses altogether as they were simply a source of expense to the rate- payers. In this Bill they will have powers to force meat inspection, and I think that the inevitable result will be that those butchers who now refuse to use public slaughter-houses will avail themselves of the advantage which they get from more sanitary methods and the killing of their meat properly. Only those butchers who are afraid of meat inspection and from whom it may therefore be assumed that the public is receiving meat not fit for human consumption refuse to make use of these slaughter-houses. The Bill was circulated to every single urban district council in Ireland, to the total number of sixty-two, and I think that the Chief Secretary and the local Members of Parliament were sent the resolutions adopted by these various councils.

Did you get replies from the sixty-two?

No. I am coming to that. The result was to my mind most satisfactory. It was circulated by the Newry Urban District Council. I received myself eighteen resolutions tendering very warm thanks for it. A more important fact is that not a single urban district council in Ireland sent me or anybody else a single resolution adverse to it. The reason why more than eighteen did not send resolutions to me is that every urban district council in Ireland has not got a public slaughter-house. Some time ago I asked the question how many there were in Ireland and the Chief Secretary was unable to give me the information. I feel sure that the effect of this Bill will be to encourage those urban district councils which have not yet erected public slaughter-houses to do so. Great help was received from the Ballymena Urban District Council. It was at their suggestion I introduced this Bill, and they have done their utmost all through to help it forward. They have already adopted the Tuberculous Prevention (Ireland) Act. I think the way they have endeavoured to benefit the public health deserves our gratitude. I will read a resolution which was sent to me, signed by twenty-one district councils. The resolution is as follows:—

"That this council strongly approves of the Bill introduced into Parliament by Captain Arthur O'Neill, M.P., which deals with the control of public slaughterhouses and the proper inspection of near believing as we do that an urgent necessity exists or such powers as this Bill would confer on urban district councils, and we respectfully urge upon Mr. Birrell, Chief Secretary for Ireland, to support the measure and to arrange facilities for its passing into law at the earliest possible date."

In view of the credit which is due to those district councils, I think I ought to read their names to the House:—

Ballymena, Newry, Bray, Lurgan, Athlone, Carlow, Blackrock, Bangor, Dungarvan, Navan, Clonakilty, Portadown, Coleraine, Lisburn. Kinsale, Newtownards, Tandragee, and Larne.

I also heard of three others from Newry —Killiney, Ballybrack, and Galway.

The hon. Member has not given the names of district councils in the south and west of Ireland.

I am afraid the hon. Member opposite is not familiar with the geography of Ireland. I can assure him that the list which I have read is most representative. It comes from constituencies representative of all sections of the Irish party. I think hon. Members from Scotland, amongst others, ought to give their cordial support to this Bill. My hon. Friend who spoke just now apparently implied that Scotland was rather behind in the erection of slaughter-houses. That is not so at all. I think I am right in saying that Scotland is far ahead of any other portion of the United Kingdom in this matter, having powers under the Borough Police (Scotland) Act of 1892. Professor Dittmar, in his report on the working of the slaughterhouses in Scotland points out that all warm-blooded animals are subject to disease which is communicable to human beings, and enforces the necessity of examination before slaughter, and of examination of the carcase and internal organs before the meat is offered for human food.

Will the hon. Member explain whether, under the powers of this Bill to provide public slaughter-houses there will be compensation to the owners of private slaughter-houses?

It is not proposed to abolish all private slaughter-houses, but the Bill gives—as I think is made clear by its Clauses—power to the urban district sanitary authorities in Ireland to insist on proper meat inspection. Those authorities who have erected public slaughter-houses in all probability will arrange for the inspection of meat.

Supposing the private slaughter-houses are in an insanitary state, does the Bill propose to close them?

I think undoubtedly it will in many cases have that effect. As I was pointing out, the urban district councils will insist on meat being inspected at public slaughter-houses by their qualified meat inspectors. The result will inevitably be that the butcher, who has been killing animals in some insanitary slaughter-houses, will be compelled to give it up. I do not think I have gone unduly into these matters, and I thank hon. Members for the support they have given the Bill.

There is one point as to which I am not quite sure that the hon. Member gives an effective answer. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) was somewhat uneasy as to the possible misuse by an urban district council of the powers given under this Bill; but surely the officials of the Government Department have the power to simply wipe out such an urban district authority.

It comes rather as a surprise to me that the effect of this Bill is to make butchers use public slaughterhouses. I was very pleased not to object to the Second Beading of this measure, but as the House knows I have always objected to the Second Reading of a Bill being passed after eleven o'clock, when there is no opportunity for its being adequately explained, and for the House obtaining a proper understanding of its object. I am not at all sure that I would have assented to the Second Reading if I had known that this Bill would compel butchers to use the public slaughterhouses erected by the local authorities. It seems to me rather a strong order that a local authority, finding that the slaughter-house it has erected is not being used, should, under the cloak that a measure was needed for the inspection of meat, bring in a Bill to compel the butcher to use a slaughter-house he does not want to use. If this had been an English Bill, and if that had been the explanation of its provisions, I am not at all sure that I should not have deemed it my duty to divide the House against it. As this happens to be an Irish Bill, and there is a consensus of Irish opinion in favour of it, I do not think I shall trouble the House to go to a division. The Bill is ostensibly for the purpose of inspecting meat, but its real object is to compel butchers to use slaughter-houses provided by other people.

To compel them, I understand, to take the meat from their private slaughter-houses to the public slaughter-house for inspection.

I am glad of the support of the hon. Members, though I am very much surprised that the question should be asked from the benches opposite whether the Bill provides compensation for the destruction of private slaughter-houses. I did not think hon. Members opposite attached much importance to compensation. I am glad they are altering their opinion, and are coming to the view that whether in the case of a municipal authority or a Government that there should be compensation given. I am glad that the hon. Member has come to that view. He is the last man I would expect to have done so, but I presume he has been influenced by my arguments and the arguments of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). I think it is rather a tall order to have the proposals that are in this Bill, which is a most innocent looking Bill on the face of it. My hon. Friend read out the name of Ballymena Urban Council as being in favour of this Bill, and said that they had got a nurse—

They have a nurse under the Tuberculosis Act, but it has nothing to do with this Bill. I mentioned it in passing as showing that Ballymena, one of the urban councils which had taken such a prominent part in promoting this Hill, had done all they could in other respects towards the prevention of tuberculosis.

An hon. Member below the Gangway alluded to the fact that certain inspectors in Ireland did not do their duty, but I think he was under a wrong impression as to the effect of the Bill. I do not propose to trouble the House with a Division, but the Bill is rather a lesson to the hon. Member for Pontefract, who has, if he will allow me to say so, taken a very active part and a very intelligent part in the proceedings of this House, and I hope he will bear in mind that it is a very dangerous thing to let a Bill go through after eleven o'clock because you cannot tell what particular surprise the Bill will develop.

May I say one word as regards the position of the Government with regard to the interpretation put on the Bill by the hon. Gentleman? It is not possible to bring about such a result, namely, that the urban district council should prevent any private slaughter-houses being used. A general regulation or by-law to that effect would prima facie be rejected by the Local Government Board as utterly unreasonable, unless some public reason could be stated to justify it. It is a very grave matter to private slaughter-houses. That is not the object of the Bill, nor is it the effect of it in any reasonable construction of it. It might happen that there might be no sanitary slaughter-houses in the district. The object of the Bill is not to bring about such a result. It would be not only an unreasonable use of it but altogether outside of it.

I do not see the necessity for such a long explanation as that with which the last Bill was blessed, but at the same time I take the warning given by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) very much to heart, and I cannot let the Bill, which I believe to be a very good one, pass through without asking the promoter, in this case a very able promoter and one who is quite capable o£ giving a very good explanation, if he will take the trouble to give the House an explanation as to the Bill.

I know hon. Members want to save time, and I am doing my best to assist them.

There is no hurry.

Everybody has not the leisure of the hon. Baronet. The object of the Bill is this. The Merchant Shipping Acts of 1894 and 1906 read in combination have brought into existence a doubt as to how far it is possible for the shipowner and seaman to proceed by voluntary agreement in respect of seamen's allotment notes. When a seaman is away on a voyage he may contract with the shipowner to pay a certain proportion of his wages at fixed intervals to his wife or other relative living at home. Under the compulsory part of the Merchant Ship- ping Act he is entitled to demand that one-half of his wages shall be paid monthly to the relative in question. That is quite right and proper, but it is uncertain whether the ship-owner may voluntarily pay the money at intervals more frequent than one month, or whether he may voluntarily pay more than one-half. I think everyone will agree that it is very much to the advantage of the seaman's family that the money should be paid at more frequent intervals in order to keep the wife and family from falling into the hands of money-lenders. It is quite clear that people of the working classes cannot carry on if the wages are only paid monthly. Therefore it is desirable that payment should be made more frequently. I think it will also be admitted that a seaman should leave more than half his wages to his wife, because in addition to his nominal wages he is receiving board and lodging, so that half is not very adequate for the benefit of the family. A great many shipowners are quite willing and ready to meet the reasonable convenience of the seamen by making these frequent payments, but there is a doubt, and, unfortunately, the Board of Trade have admitted the existence of a doubt, as to whether this transaction is legal. The object of the Bill is to make quite clear that there is nothing illegal, and I believe this should appeal to the hon. Baronet, in any voluntary agreement made between the ship-owner and the seaman as regards the deduction from seamen's wages. It does not in any way affect compulsory power, and it does not alter, take from, or add to the rights of seamen in any way whatever. It simply makes it clear that there is nothing to prevent voluntary agreements going as far as people think right in the direction of benefiting the seaman in this matter. I hope, with this explanation, the House will now read the Bill the third time.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I do not agree with him when he says that everybody has not the same leisure as I have. I hope that hon. Members opposite do not consider it their duty to come here only when they have nothing else to do; but that was the meaning of the hon. Member's remark if it had any meaning at all. My conception of the duty of a Member of Parliament is that he should put his duty in the House before everything else, in order that the constituents who returned him may get value for having done so. There is no obligation on a man to become a Member of Parliament, but when he is a Member he ought to do his duty in Parliament. This Bill has the great advantage that it is purely permissive; there is no compulsion in it. It provides that if a seaman and an owner agree that certain payments shall be made under certain conditions, that agreement shall have legal force. That is a very good piece of legislation, and I do not understand why shipowners have not thought of it before.

The Act of 1906 brought about the doubt.

The more legislation there is the more necessary is it to bring in further legislation to correct the mistakes of the original legislation, which arise from Members not being in their places to investigate the legislation when it is being passed. That is a very good illustration of the point I was making a few minutes ago. This is an extremely good measure. The hon. Member was kind enough to consult me before the Second Reading. He gave me a very lucid explanation of the Bill; I think there is nothing else behind it, and I have great pleasure in giving it my support.

I should like to add my support to that of the hon. Baronet. I think the Bill has everything in its favour and nothing against it. Weekly payments are obviously far more advantageous than monthly payments to a sailor's relatives. I trust the Bill will go through without opposition.

I beg to move to omit Sub-section (2).

The Sub-section seems to me to be open to all kinds of objections. A man has to show "reasonable grounds." What would appear perfectly reasonable to one man would be unreasonable to another. Then as to believing a statement to be true, there are persons, especially at election times, whose credulity is marvellously developed, and they will believe all sorts of things, particularly those that are to the detriment of their friends and neighbours. I do not want to oppose the Bill; I merely wish to know how the promoters expect this Sub-section to work satisfactorily. In any case, the deletion of this Sub-section would not interfere with the working of the Bill.

I am not in any way against the Bill. On the contrary, on the whole it is a very good one, and it is only with a view to improving it that I rise to second this Amendment. This is a Bill that passed through the House without discussion on Second Heading and was referred to a Standing Committee. These Standing Committees are often very sparsely attended, and Bills, especially of this sort, are hurried through without duo consideration. This particular Sub-section, if allowed to remain, would be very detrimental to the Bill and to the object it a promoters have at heart. That object, I presume, is to prevent false statements being made about candidates at municipal elections, just as they are not forbidden by law at Parliamentary elections. With that object everybody will agree; but why does my hon. and gallant Friend the promoter of the Bill injure the prospect of attaining that object by inserting this Sub-section?

One knows perfectly well that at an election some one comes to you and says: "I believe your opponent is a curious sort of person. I understand that he did such and such things on such and such an occasion." Supposing I am standing for a municipal election, and a friend in whom I have every confidence, having known him for a considerable time, comes to me and says: "I believe your opponent did a dishonourable act by doing so and so some years ago." I ask for proof. My friend replies that he has not got proof handy, and cannot get it for the moment, but ho adds: "I believe I am perfectly correct in saying that the thing took place." I repeat that statement on the public platform, and it turns out that my informant is incorrect; that the statement refers to some other person and not my opponent. Everyone here knows that such mistakes do arise, not infrequently, accidentally, and without any vicious purpose or intention. But my opponent has been damaged by the statement made on the platform, and, possibly by it he may have lost a certain number of votes. It is not very consoling to him when he looks at this Act—if it becomes an Act—to find if he brings an action against me that I can get out of it on the plea that I had reasonable ground for the belief that I made the statement believing it to be true. In the first place, I do no know how anybody can prove in a court of law what a man did or did not believe. It is absolutely impossible. I say I believe the statement I have made because my informant was a responsible person who was not in the habit of making off hand statements without having investigated them.

Suppose that this sub-section is left out will the Bill, may I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, be injured? The Bill will be strengthened. If this sub-section is left out the Act will reach those rather hard cases where a Member without due care and investigation has made a statement concerning the honour or probity of his opponent. But that is exactly what the Bill is intended to do—to prevent all these statements made in the heat of an election without due care being taken. Everyone in this House has probably fought two or three elections. We know perfectly well that in the heat of an election—human nature being what it is—we are rather inclined to view with favour any statement brought before us that reflects upon our opponent. In ordinary times we should require very careful investigation before we accepted a statement as correct. At election times there is very little time to make inquiry—especially at municipal elections, which do not occupy so lengthened a period as Parliamentary elections. Without being particularly unscrupulous, a great number of people in the heat of an election will say concerning the statement of an occurrence: "I think that is very likely to have taken place, and I believe my information to be correct. I have very little time to verify it, and I shall not be injured by this Bill, because I can say that I had reasonable ground for believing what I repeated." Under these circumstances I really do hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will consent to the omission of this Sub-section, otherwise I think we shall have to divide the House upon it. It is really very important, for if the Sub-section is not left out it renders the Bill practically useless.

On behalf of the promoters of the Bill perhaps I may be allowed to explain that the action taken by my hon. and learned Friend behind me, and the hon. Baronet, is due to over kindness on our part, because the Bill as originally printed was simply legislation by reference. Our object was not to go into legal controversy about the merits of the original Act of Parliament that provides for such cases as these, but to adapt existing machinery to municipal elections. In 1895 Parliament passed an Act providing certain penalties for false statements of fact in regard to Parliamentary candidates. In the original Act that we put before the House we simply by one Clause made that 'Act applicable to municipal elections. When we came before the Standing Committee upstairs an hon. Member opposite moved an Amendment asking the promoters to set forth in detail the whole of the Act which we wanted to put into force. That was a perfectly reasonable proposition. The original Act is not a very long one, and, on the advice of the Attorney-General, who was present, I suppose, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, we acceded to that view, and the whole of the Act of 1895 was printed. That was the only Amendment passed in Committee upstairs. Owing to our kindness, we have given the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Baronet, who is quite unaware of the Clauses in the original Act—

Oh, oh!

I was not a member of the Committee, so I cannot say what took place there. If this Bill had not come down unaltered I should have read the whole of the 1884 Act.

At all events we made it easier for our opponents to criticise our measure. It is not for me to resent that in any way, for it is quite allowable, but I doubt very much whether so much attention would have been drawn to this particular Sub-section had it not been for the very reasonable attitude taken by us upstairs. For if there is anything more distressing than another it is for those unacquainted with legal subjects to have to wade through Acts of Parliament in legislation by reference. This Bill applies to those wishful for municipal honours— laymen for the most part, and who have not got money to pay vast fees to the legal profession—so that they may know exactly for what they are liable and what will happen to them. As regards the particular Sub-section to which objection has been taken, it seems to me that this Act, applying that applicable to candidates for Parliamentary honours to municipal candidates, conforms to the Act of 1884. If we leave out the Sub-section it will make the law too drastic; you condemn the man absolutely, and do not give him a fair trial at all. No doubt this matter was fully discussed in 1884. Personally I may have no objection to the omission of the Sub-section, but I think those responsible for the Bill and the legal advisers of the Government might justly be entitled to say, "We looked into this matter upstairs, and passed the Bill, and now the promoters are allowing this Sub-section to be omitted simply to get their Bill through." I do not think that would be playing the game in any way. If Sub-section (2), which the Amendment proposes should be omitted, were annulled, it would make the Bill too drastic. After all, what is good enough for candidates for Parliament ought to be good enough for candidates at municipal elections. It seems to me to be too big a matter to upset the general law in a small Bill of this kind. We are all agreed upon the necessity of this Bill, and I think it would not be at all proper on behalf of the promoters if I consented to the deletion of this Sub-section.

I strongly opposed this Bill when it came before the Standing Committee upstairs, at first on the ground that it was simply a Bill of legislation by reference, and on the ground that if it became an Act of Parliament a municipal candidate, to understand it would have to search through three Acts of Parliament, and it was upon my suggestion that the Sections of the 1895 Act were embodied in this Bill. It is in consequence of the fact that that Act is now embodied in this Bill that the hon. Baronet is able to call attention to this particular Clause. I appeal to the hon. Baronet not to press the matter to a Division for this reason. The Act of 1895 applies to candidates for Parliament.

The Act of 1884.

No, no. The Act of 1884 is simply referred to as reference; it is the Act of 1895 which is embodied in this Bill and that was passed by the Conservative Government sixteen years ago; it has applied to Parliamentary candidates ever since, and everybody knows it is an excellent protection to Parliamentary candidates. What is the intention of the promoters of this Bill? It is simply to embody the whole of the Sections of the Act of 1895 and apply them to municipal elections so that false statements cannot be circulated about a candidate without his having the right to take an action at law to vindicate himself. I think that is a very proper protection for municipal candidates. The Bill is now a perfectly understandable one. The hon. Baronet was a Member of the House when the Act of 1895 was passed. So was I. And that Act has worked fairly as between all candidates at Parliamentary elections ever since. The Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government and the promoters of the Bill, assented to the embodiment of these Sections in this Bill, after which it was passed with unanimous assent by the Committee.

I think there can be no doubt but that the omission of Sub-section (2) would have the effect of making this Bill a very much more drastic measure man at present. Members in all parts of the House will sympathise with the principle embodied in the Bill which is to make an illegal practice what undoubtedly is one of the most objectionable and offensive features of elections. We all know from experience how readily supporters of various candidates at elections allow themselves to indulge in personal attacks of all sorts and descriptions. I entirely agree with the principle here set forth, that this is just as offensive and objectionable, and should just as well become an illegal practice at municipal elections as in Parliamentary elections. It seems to me if we omit Sub-section (2) we shall be enacting a Bill which provides a more drastic remedy for this offence at municipal elections than exists at Parliamentary elections. It would be something achieved to make this defamation of character, even when it is done deliberately and with malice, an offence during a municipal election, but to go further, by the omission of this Clause, would, I think, be going too far. At the same time, I have this amount of sympathy with the Amendment, that I should not mind, personally, if the class of offence contemplated in Clause 2 should be made the subject of some special penalty. In view of the whole question, and in light of the views I have set forth, I think it is fair to come to the conclusion that it would be wiser to maintain this Clause than to delete it.

I have a very poor opinion of this Bill because the House will see it recognises the right of a candidate at municipal elections to make reference to the personal character and conduct of his opponent, and only proposes to declare it to be an illegal practice if the statement is proved to be false and if the person making it cannot show he had a reasonable ground for believing it and did believe it. If this Bill said it was an illegal practice for any candidate to make any reference, true or false, to the personal character or conduct of his opponent, I would give the Bill my most enthusiastic support. That is no new expression of opinion of mine. I have never in any election taken the smallest notice of my opponent; I have never made any reference even to his existence. The Bill is before us, and I understand that the House is inclined to pass it. I would, however, counsel the House if we are going to pass this measure to keep it exactly on the same lines as the Parliamentary Elections Bill. There will be no difficulty in establishing a defence under such a Section as this. Everything depends upon the strength of the "reasonable grounds" which the person brings forward for believing the statement made by him to be true. It is just possible that there may be reasonable grounds for believing a statement and yet it may be shown that the man did not believe it. It is important to keep in the words "and did believe," otherwise even though reasonable grounds were shown he would nevertheless be entitled to escape. Therefore I would strongly counsel the House if this Bill is going to be adopted to pass it exactly in the form we find it.

The course which has been suggested by the Lord Advocate takes a very long time, and very often months elapse before the case comes to the Court, and this causes great inconvenience to both sides. The alteration proposed makes it exactly on the lines of Parliamentary elections, and for cases of that sort it is a speedier remedy. I do not see that the Lord Advocate is quite right in suggesting that the promoters and supporters of this Bill are giving any official sanction to do a thing which they think wrong. All it does is to alter the law with regard to the penalties attached to those who do the wrong thing. I should not support the Bill if I thought I was in the slightest degree doing anything in the direction of giving official sanction to do a wrong thing. I appeal to my two hon. Friends not to press this Amendment, because I think the Bill would work extremely harshly if Sub-section (2) was not allowed to remain, in order to amplify Subsection (1). Some of the penalties under the Act of 1884 are extremely heavy, and if these penalties are to be exacted surely common sense would suggest to my two hon. Friends that if it can be proved that a man has made a statement conscientiously believing it to be true then he ought not to be deemed to be guilty of an illegal practice.

The cause for which one is fighting is all that is necessary, but at the same time it sometimes does arise that one candidate answers another. Something is said, and with all deference you may say your opponent has cast aspersions on one's honesty in favour of Tariff Reform or Free Trade, and then, perhaps, a cross-fire may ensue between the two parties which may lead to quotations from newspapers and pamphlets, which gets hotter until the words which may be complained of are uttered. On such occasions one has not got sufficient time or opportunity to verify all the statements made. It sometimes happens that a quotation from a speech made by a person in Scotland is copied into one of the London papers and re-copied into a paper in some other part of the country, and by this process of transferring and re-transferring the original words may appear quite differently to what the speaker originally said. In such circumstances a man might easily place a wrong interpretation on what was actually said, and it might be held to be an offence under this Bill. In that case one would hold that the man had reasonable grounds for believing the statement, and without Sub-section (2) there is no relief for the man, because he has committed the offence mentioned in Sub-section (1). I do not believe that there is any case on record of harshness having occurred in Parliamentary elections, and I do not see why my two hon. Friends anticipate that there will be any harshness with regard to municipal elections when the Bill becomes law.

I think the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London should be full of thankfulness to the promoters of this Bill for the action they took in setting this Subsection out in full. Had this Section been simply legislation by reference the hon. Baronet would have been the first person to complain, and he would probably have said that in cases of this sort in order to simplify legislation it would have been quite easy to have copied the two Subsections which appear in the Act of 1895. I have turned the latter Act up, and I find that it is word for word the same as this proposal in the Municipal Elections Act. I think, under the circumstances, the hon. Baronet ought to conspire with his hon. Friend to withdraw their opposition to this Sub-section.

I will not follow the Lord Advocate in that portion of his speech which would have been in better order on the Third Reading. I will wait until the proper opportunity comes to deal with it. I was very keenly interested in his suggestion that because something was in. a previous Act of Parliament we should repeat the same here. That is one of those high and dry Tory arguments which occasionally escape from the mouths of the occupants of the Front Bench. It does not seem to me to be in the slightest degree in its favour. It is most difficult to obtain a quorum in a Standing Committee, and they scamp through their work. Then, as the hon. Baronet said, the Bill comes here on a Friday afternoon, and no one pays any particular attention to it, and it creeps through. The Lord Advocate quotes a Bill which passes in that way as a precedent, but it is an appeal which will not find mush response in me. I have no confidence in the way the Grand Committee considered this Bill. I think it would have been much better if the Bill had been debated on the floor of this House. The Lord Advocate seems to think this particular Sub-section, to some extent, weakens the first Clause, and I gather the same view is held by hon. Members opposite. If he considers the Bill a bad Bill, I suppose he wants this Subsection to remain because it weakens it. I oppose it because it contains a phrase, "deemed to be guilty," which I will never pass without protest. We all know in that dreadful Copyright Bill, which is pursuing a second existence somewhere else, that phrase occurred. People are either proved guilty or they should be let off. We keep getting this phrase in Acts of Parliament about people being deemed to be guilty unless they do something or other, and because of that phrase alone I shall vote against the Sub-section, as I shall vote against any clause containing it.

The speech of the Lord Advocate came very much as a surprise. First of all, he spoke in the strongest terms of reprobation of any one who would commit the action referred to in the Bill, and then he proposed the reinsertion of the Sub-section which I moved to delete. That seems to me a very curious and inconsistent attitude for the right hon. Gentleman to take up. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Jessel) has made out a very good case for this Sub-section, and I feel grateful to him for the various explanations that have been made. I must say the speech of the Lord Advocate would very much make one disposed to persist in the Motion now before the House, but I think some ground has been made out for the retention of the Sub-section, and, under these circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move to omit Sub-section(4).

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jonathan Samuel) and to my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Jessel) for having taken the excellent course of putting the whole of the 1895 Act into the Bill, and avoiding legislation by reference. I think it is an extremely good practice and I hope this will be a precedent and that in future, other hon. Members who have Bills will follow the same course. I always look up the old Acts, so that it does not make any difference to me, but other hon. Members do not take the trouble, and it makes the Bill very much clearer to the outside public and to people who are desirous of taking an Act of Parliament and finding out what it really does do, Sub-section (4) says:—

"(4) A candidate shall not be liable nor shall be subject to any incapacity, nor shall his election be avoided, for any illegal practice under this Act committed by his agent, unless it can be shown that the candidate has authorised or consented to the committing of such illegal practice, or has paid for the circulation of the false statement constituting the illegal practice, or unless upon the hearing of an election petition the election court shall find and report that the election of such candidate was procured or materially assisted in consequence of the making or publishing of such false statements."

It is perfectly true Sub-section (4) appears in the Act of 1895. The hon. Gentleman opposite said that Act was passed in 1895 by a Conservative Government. It was passed on 6th July by a Radical Government. There was an election in July, 1895, and this Act was passed two or three days before the Dissolution, and when the Government, presided over by Lord Rosebery, was still in power. The hon. Member was, therefore, mistaken when he said it was an Act of Parliament passed by a Conservative Government. It was passed in a hurry at a moment when a Dissolution was about to take place, and consequently it is quite possible it may require amendment. It is not really a proper line to take up to say that this Bill is founded upon an Act of Parliament passed sixteen years ago, and it is impossible to amend it. In all probability, now the Act of 1895 is in working order certain Amendments ought to be made to make it compatible with the feeling of the times and to secure the easy working of the Act. My hon. and gallant Friend apparently advances it as one of the reasons for not consenting to the former Amendment that the Bill had been considered in a Standing Committee, and it would be a slight on that Committee if he accepted any Amendment. I hope he is not going to advance that as an argument against this Amendment. He has misconceived the purpose of a Standing Committee. A Standing Committee is not like a Private Bill Committee, to which the House has delegated its functions and which hears evidence. A Standing Committee is merely a Committee of this House sitting upstairs for the purpose of expediting business, and it has never been held that this House may not, with perfect propriety, make Amendments in a Bill which has come down to it from a Standing Committee. It is no slight to a Standing Committee to make an Amendment to a Bill in the House. In fact, so many Standing Committees were appointed by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman that he actually gave power to a Member to speak as many times as he liked on the Report stage if he proposed an Amendment, because, he said, there were certain reasons for supposing that otherwise the Standing Committees would take power away from the House of Commons, and he did not wish to do that. Therefore he altered the old custom which used to prevail on the Report stage by allowing Members who proposed Amendments to make as many speeches as they liked on that stage. It seems to me that this is a very bad Clause, because there can be nothing easier for a man to circulate statements about an opponent which he knew to be false. He might determine to circulate the statements, but would say to himself: "I have looked at the Municipal Elections Act, and I find that I shall have to show under Sub-section (2) that I have reasonable ground for supposing and believing the statements to be correct. I am quite certain no lawyer would be able to convince an ordinary jury that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements were true. What am I to do? I will go to my agent and say to him: 'I have been told that certain rumours about my opponent have been circulated. Do not you circulate them. 'The agent would reply: 'Very well.' Then I would say: 'Now be very careful that you do not. I shall be very annoyed if you do.' Then I might wink, and if the agent were a sharp man he would say to himself: 'That is the way the wind blows,' and he would promptly cause the rumours to be circulated. When they had been circulated and my opponent had lost his election he would bring a charge against me and my agent, and my prompt reply would be: 'I actually told my agent he was not to circulate these things.'" I say it is evident that this Clause is absolutely useless, and instead of assisting in the prevention of the circulation of false statements at municipal elections the result of it will be that it will aid an unscrupulous candidate, if he has an unscrupulous agent, to circulate false statements about his opponent.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think the hon. Baronet is under a misapprehension as to what I said when I defended the retention of Sub-section (2). I am not quite so ignorant of Parliamentary methods, nor have I been such a slight time a Member of the House of Commons as not to know that it is possible for the House itself to revise the proceedings of Standing Committees upstairs. We had on the Committee dealing with this Bill the help of the Attorney-General. I am sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not here to-day. Still I am glad to see the Lord Advocate in his place. I say it would be better to leave the original Bill as it stands than to amend it in any shape or form, and I have, in support of that, an even greater authority in the legal hierarchy than the Attorney-General.

2.0 P.M.

This Bill came before the House of Lords for the Second Reading on 16th September, 1909, and this is how the present Lord Chancellor spoke about it. He said:—

"My Lords I think this Bill is a most excellent proposal. The Corrupt Practices Act is confined to Parliamentary elections, and the purpose of it is to prevent cowardly and mean statements about the personal character of, or personally about, the candidate at any time during an election. Conduct of that kind is not common, I am glad to pay, in this country; but cases not infrequently occurred, and the worst of it was that these lies were circulated just before the poll and when there was no opportunity for contradiction. The Act was passed when I was a Member of the House of Commons, and there was a general feeling that mean conduct of that kind ought to be promptly stopped, and the Act was passed for that purpose, its effect has been admirable in connection with Parliamentary elections, and there seems no reason why it should not be extended to municipal elections."

I submit, with all due deference to the legal knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London this opinion of the present Lord Chancellor, who, I believe, was Solicitor-General in 1895, and who twelve years afterwards, when the question comes forward in the House of Lords, supports the Bill. I think we shall be acting under very good advice when we leave well alone and adapt the phraseology of this Bill relating to Parliamentary elections to municipal elections. The present Lord Chancellor (Lord Lore-burn) stated that the Corrupt Practices Act of 1895 worked well as regards this particular question, and, I take it, with regard to the Sub-section to which my hon. Friend has referred, that the reasons for its insertion were the same as those for the insertion of the other Sub-section. It was not desired to make the Bill too drastic. I should like to point out that the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act which was passed in 1895 was brought in to amend the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act of 1883. It was not, therefore, an original Act: it was an amending Act. This Sub-section of which complaint is made is to be found in extenso in the Act of 1895. I submit that there must have been some good reason in 1895 for inserting that Sub-section after twelve years' experience of its working in the Act of 1883. Under these circumstances, with the blessing of so distinguished a legal authority as the present Lord Chancellor, and also in view of the fact that this Sub-section was only added after twelve years' experience of its working. I submit that the House will be serving? no useful purpose in now striking it out. I therefore hope the hon. Baronet will think fit under the circumstances, to withdraw his opposition to it.

I beg to ask the House to retain Sub-section (4) on the same ground that I asked it to retain Sub-section (2) and that is that it is essential to the justice of this Bill. The House will observe that this is a purely personal matter. It is a personal charge made by a man who may not know that it is untrue or who may believe it to be true against another man in regard to personal character and conduct. The better the House realises that surely it must be. more plain that a man ought not to be held liable for a statement of that kind made by anybody except himself unless it can be shown that he authorised it to be made by someone else. It seems to me that the cases dealt with by this Clause are fit subjects for an action for slander, and a man ought not to be liable for the act of anybody else in that regard, because it is purely a personal offence that he is charged with. Also I would observe that in the concluding part of the Sub-section, if the result of the election is affected, the provision is carefully safeguarded, and if it can be shown that this personal statement, although the candidate is not connected with it, did affect the election, then it is to be declared an illegal practice. That surely protects the rights of the electors, and is all we can do to prevent false statements influencing an election. I ask the House therefore to pass the Bill with this Sub-section.

My hon. Friend who spoke a short while ago said that the present Lord Chancellor approves of this Bill, but I do not think that the mere approval of the Lord Chancellor prevents us from forming or expressing an opinion which may not coincide with that of the Noble and learned Lord. The Lord Chancellor may have expressed approval of this Bill because, as he says, it extends to municipal elections the same legislation which was in 1895 extended to Parliamentary elections. I think we are all agreed upon that; but the question is whether when we are discussing that question we may not be able to improve upon the Act of 1895, and my own opinion is that by the deletion of this Clause we shall be improving upon that Act. The Lord Advocate says it would be rather hard to make a candidate responsible for the act of some other person. But may I point out to the Lord Advocate that I presume under the Act of 1884 the candidate is liable for the act of his agent. Only a few days ago a gentleman was unseated at North West Ham solely on the ground that he was liable for the act of his agent, and the judges I think actually said that it was clear that he knew nothing about the act of the agent, and had not authorised it. He was unseated all the same, and I do not see, therefore, why it should be said that a man is not to be responsible for the act of his agent. It seems to me that the proper course for us to have taken would have been to have omitted this particular Subsection, and also the other Sub-section, and then to have brought in a short amending Bill amending the Act of 1895, so as to apply it to municipal elections. However, that was not done, and as there are not many hon. Members in the House, and the House does not seem to take much interest in the question, I do not think I will go to a Division. I think, however, that the Bill requires amendment if it is to be really a satisfactory one. Of course, municipal elections are not so important as Parliamentary elections, and possibly there may not be so many facilities and the desire to circulate false statements may not be so great at municipal as at Parliamentary elections. I am told that the candidates do not have agents, and that may make a difference. [Mr. BOOTH: "They do have agents."] I should have thought an agent was necessary, but however that may be, I think it would be wise to amend this Bill. I would like to ask the Lord Advocate whether there have been many cases under the 1895 Act in Scotland, because I believe that there have of late years been in this country several cases about slanderous statements being made. As far as I recollect I do not remember many actions taken under the 1895 Act in Scotland.

Not in Scotland. We do not defame in Scotland.

I am not sure that I know much about Scotland, but the very best thing in this country is not to say anything against your opponent. But be that as it may, it does not seem to me that the Act of 1895 was of very much use. I am, however, in favour of the Act as it is, though I should have liked to have made this Bill a better one; but, under the circumstances, I shall not put the House to the trouble of a Division. Therefore I will withdraw the Amendment.

I wish, on the Third Reading of the Bill, to refer to the fact that it makes no clear distinction between attacks of a personal character and those of a political character. I should not care how severe the penalties were when a man was traducing private character, because that not merely has the effect that it may do harm in itself, but it brings pain and suffering into a man's home, and if he is of a sensitive nature he is debarred from giving an answer to it. In political matters, however, it is different, and, in fact, I think, provided it is done at the beginning of an election, any political slander or misrepresentation influences votes in favour of the victim. Therefore he does not need the aid of the law to protect him. I know some Members of this House who are old campaigners, and none of us would complain of any attack which was made if we had ample notice of it, and if we had several days before the polling in which to answer it. I should only be too thankful myself if attacks upon me were confined to political attacks or even political misrepresentations. That is the fault I find with the Bill. It rather mixes up the two things and it treats a political slander very much as if it were a personal slander, and there is all the difference in the world between the two. I have a very strong objection to Bills being moved on a Friday by hon. Gentlemen who immediately run away to some close confine of this House, and I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Jessel) return to his place.

I hope the hon. Member will not be offensive. I meant no disrespect to him.

I am only saying that frequently an hon. Member has moved a Bill on a Friday and immediately vanished. I am complimenting the hon. and gallant Gentleman on having come back. I am expressing my appreciation of his kindness. This is not a Bill which is very kind, it is a Bill to deal with severe things; there is nothing mealymouthed about the Bill, and it is not to deal with mealy-mouthed people. There never was a more disgraceful municipal election in the country than that in which our walls were disfigured by placards about wastrels. I have no doubt that by now the Moderate Party are ashamed of their name, and call themselves Municipal Reformers, and are also ashamed of that episode in their career. If there was a justification wanted for this Bill, it was furnished by their conduct on this occasion. I was a passive spectator but I was disgusted to see these Tammany methods introduced into this country and I am delighted beyond measure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman stands here in the white sheet of repentance and makes such conduct impossible for the future. Therefore on that account I rejoice to see him in his place. Why was it that the word "wastrel" became so prominent, because it has not hitherto been used in a political sense? It was because it had a tinge of a personal attack and because many people in the back streets of this country interpreted the word to mean that some Progressive leaders were lining their pockets. I do not think that was the intention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but he knows very well that that was the effect of his placards. This was a slang word, they seized it from the filth of the gutter, they gave it prominence in the great London Press, and upon all the walls; and I am not at all surprised that now, after they have had two Sessions of power—one of real power and one of temporary accidental power—they want to rehabilitate themselves before the House and the country. I welcome their endeavour to whitewash their career, but I hope it will be a warning to all politicians in any contested election to keep to the regular phrases of our good old English language. I consider that the introduction of words which have an. offensive personal meaning, as well as a possible political application, are to be deprecated. I take this as a public sign, and I am glad to see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees with me, and is now making public his intention that such a proceeding will be impossible on behalf of his own party in any future election in London. Solely from that standpoint, because the Moderates of London at that election brought disgrace upon the Metropolis and made a Bill like this absolutely indispensable, I will vote for the Bill.

I do not think I have a reputation for running away either in this House or anywhere else, but the hon. Gentleman may acquit me of any discourtesy towards him when I tell him I went out for a moment to consult with one of the promoters of the Bill who sits on his side of the House, and is a colleague of my own (Mr. Dickinson), who is perhaps just as prominent in London municipal politics as some of those whom the hon. Member denounces on the Municipal Reform side.

I accept that unreservedly.

That is the reason I went for a moment, not to spare myself hearing the hon. Member's remarks, but for the purpose of consultation. The hon. Member says I have brought in this Bill because I had some cause for repentance for our attitude in two municipal elections. I suppose it is a good thing that different motives move different persons. I had not the slightest intention of standing in the white sheet of penitence when I took charge of the Bill. I am not at all repentant for what has happened in the last six years in London. I rejoice at the result.

The increase of rates?

They would have been a great deal more if the hon. Member's party had been in power. I do not wish to indulge the House in a question of municipal politics in London because this applies to the whole country, but the reason why my friends on this side of the House were asked to take an interest in the matter was because we had frequent appeals from candidates who wanted to stand for municipal elections, and who were deterred from standing because they feared attacks, which they could not easily repel, upon their personal character. Grocers came forward and said they were accused, and it did them harm, of sanding sugar and putting dust into tea. A milkman said on various occasions he was accused of making his milk a little blue, and a butcher who might be standing said reports might be put about that meat labelled "best English beef" really came from abroad. It was to meet cases of this kind that we brought forward this Bill, so as to enable the best possible candidates to stand on either side without being openly charged in this way. As regards the interpretation which my hon. Friend put upon the word "wastrel," it is absolutely new to me. It only shows how different things seem different to other friends of mine. This Bill is supported by the hon. Member (Mr. Dickinson) and by another prominent Member of the House and of the London County Council (Mr. Arthur Allen), the hon. Member (Mr. Harris), and, last but not least, the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Henderson). When so many different shades of opinion are represented on the back of the Bill, people who are well acquainted with municipal politics, I think there must be some justification for it. In 1907 this Bill was introduced by Mr. Cleland, who is no longer a Member of the House, and again in 1908, and it passed the House of Lords on several occasions. It would be ill-advised on our part to attempt to alter the existing Parliamentary law, though that might be improved upon, while we wish to get that same protection in municipal matters. For these reasons I hope the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the word "so" ["any animal so as to cause''], and to insert instead thereof the words "in such manner or position." This Bill is really almost entirely a consolidating Bill, and these words bring back the Clause to almost the same language as is employed in Section 12 of the Act of 1849. It was pointed out that the Clause as it stands, without this Amendment, might be construed so as to prevent the removal of an animal if the removal would cause pain, even in a case where the removal might be reasonable, as in a case where an animal is removed to a veterinary establishment.

I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to insert after the word "cruelty" ["deemed to have permitted cruelty"] the words "within the meaning of this Act."

I wish to draw attention to a hateful phrase which to my great consternation comes up again and again. I mean the words, "deemed to have permitted a cruelty."

I do not see what that has to do with the Amendment. The Amendment is merely to add after the word "cruelty" the words "within the meaning of this Act."

I will move another Amendment in a moment.

I wish to move to leave out the Clause.

The hon. Member cannot do that now. It must be done at the beginning. He cannot move to omit any words we have already in the Clause.

I beg to move in Sub-section (2), after the word "cruelty" ["convicted of permitting cruelty by reason only"], to insert the words "within the meaning of this Act."

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

When the Clause was before the Committee I drafted an Amendment which I thought the promoters of the Bill might have accepted. It was with the view of exempting the case of a dog harnessed to a toy cart in a procession or in a fete of some kind. It is a common thing for children to go out with a dog harnessed to a toy cart, and I think some words might have been put in to provide that where a dog is dressed up to represent a horse the case should be exempt from the operation of the Clause. I have often seen dogs used in that way when there was a collection being made for a hospital fund or a private nursing home. I would have accepted any words which the promoters of the Bill would have been willing to put in to safeguard people in these circumstances. But as I read this Clause, if there is a procession in connection with a village fete and some children take out a big dog in a toy cart in order that coppers may be collected or thrown into the cart for some charitable purpose, those in charge of the dog would be liable to conviction. I think we should have Bills very carefully drawn. It is a matter of great surprise to me that the promoters of the Bill should have opposed my Amendment. They made no effort at all to meet this point.

I beg to second the proposal to omit Clause 7 from the Bill. The proposal contained in this Clause to render it illegal to harness any dog to any sort of cart, carriage or truck in this country is a very drastic one. There can be no objection to harnessing a dog to a toy cart for the amusement of a lot of children, and for the amusement, I am sure, of the dog as well as of the children. There are many instances in which dogs are used perfectly legitimately for draught purposes. In the whole of the flat countries, in the Netherlands and elsewhere, dogs are so used, and they certainly appear to enjoy it as much as horses do. I may remind the hon. Baronet that various heroic explorers setting out from this country are hoping to reach the South Pole or the North Pole, or it may be both, with the assistance of dogs.

May I point out to my hon. Friend that this Bill does not apply to the North Pole.

I am merely giving instances in which dogs are legitimately, and, I hope, kindly used in this particular way, and to make an offence punishable by law, as this Bill does, the harnessing of dogs by children to a toy cart is certainly objectionable. There are certainly in this country a certain number of kindly people, though I venture to think some of them occasionally mistaken, who would prosecute a man for almost anything, not necessarily cruelty, but even such an act as the harnessing of a dog to a toy cart. If you place in their hands such a weapon as this they are just the class of people who will resort to its use. On the whole, I think that the Bill would be equally valuable if the Clause were omitted, and I therefore support the proposal of the hon. Member for Pontefract.

I hope that the House will not consent to take this Clause out. I have no personal recollection of any agreement made that an Amendment would be accepted. The hon. Member who has just sat down has spoken as if this was some new proposal for an enactment which might lead to the prosecution of innocent people who harness a dog to a toy cart. But this is a consolidating Bill. We did not like to introduce into it any amendment which was not necessary. This provision has been the law of the land since 1854, and I have heard no complaint of injustice being done under it. I think if a little dog is harnessed to a toy cart it is a case of de minimis non curat lex. In this consolidating Bill we have simply followed the words which are found in 17 and 18 Victoria, Chap. 6, Section 2, and if this Clause were to be left out people could use dogs for the purposes of drawing vehicles on the public highways in this country, and I do not think that public opinion would like to see that.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to think that because a certain offence exists under the present law, therefore it is necessary to continue to maintain it as an offence. That does not follow at all. The fact that it is an existing offence does not prevent the House from discussing it. Personally I have a perfectly open mind on the subject. Last year I paid two or three visits to Belgium, where dogs are absolutely used as beasts of draught. As far as I could observe, the animals did not seem to be in any way oppressed or distressed, but as a fact, they seemed to be extremely well cared for, and their owners seemed to be very fond of them. What I would like to hear are arguments to prove that harnessing dogs to simple loads does destroy their health, and would be injurious to them. No such arguments have been put forward. Therefore I shall be obliged to support the hon. Member for Pontefract, who moved this Amendment, because unless some reason is given why dogs should not be harnessed in this way and used over public roads I cannot see why we should maintain the existing law.

I wish briefly to support the Amendment. With regard to dogs in other countries I may say that in that part of Canada from which I come they use dogs all the time, for the simple reason that no other animal can travel in the snow. Horses cannot be used, and so they use dogs, who are brought up for this very purpose. They are very fine animals. They are apparently happy and contented, well fed and well looked after. It has become very common in London and other parts of the United Kingdom to have exhibitions of the customs of various parts of the Empire and foreign countries. Suppose a number of these husky dogs, as they are called, are brought over here, as I believe they have been, to be shown in exhibitions here, according to this section they cannot be used.

The hon. Member has not read the Bill. It says a public highway. An exhibition is not a public highway.

Why should not it be a public highway? You could not have a proper exhibition of their ability unless it was a public highway. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should say I have not read the Bill. How does he know I have not read it? I may not have understood it so well as he, but that does not entitle him to say I have not read it. Kind-hearted people who look after animals, when they get a law in their favour, are often most despotic and narrow-minded in the way they enforce it. That is most unfortunate; still I do not think we ought to leave it to them to make the law absolute in this manner. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) said he put forward an Amendment in Committee, and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Greenwood) states that he has no recollection of it. Between the two, I think we had better accept the positive rather than the negative statement, and I should be very pleased indeed to vote in favour of leaving out the Clause.

When abroad I have often seen dogs harnessed to small carts, and frequently they do no work at all beyond guarding the owner's possessions. Supposing a dog were harnessed to a trap, it need not necessarily do any of the pulling; but what would be the position of the owner who fastened his dog to his conveyance in this way? Occasionally a dog might pull, but on the other hand, it might merely serve the useful purpose of guarding property.

Though I have not done much in the way of continental travel, I have often seen dogs harnessed to carts. I do not think there is any reason whatever for altering the law and making it worse than it is at the present time in regard to draught animals. I suggest that the House should support the Clause as it stands.

The small Amendment which I proposed in Committee was of a, very simple nature, but if I have to choose between my Amendment and taking the Clause out, giving protection against the use of dogs, that is a step I do not feel at liberty to take. On the Continent I have seen dogs harnessed to carts, and I have stood for some time watching the miserable animals. Just outside the Cathedral in Antwerp I saw one or two dogs attached to carts, but when I came to look at other carts I found dogs underneath them, lying in the dirt of the road and the oil from the wheels. I pitied the poor brutes, and I would not like to see anything of that kind in this country. My action in the Committee was rather in favour of dogs than against them. Having made that clear, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "in a street or public place" ["slaughter takes place in a street or public place"] and to insert instead thereof the words "on any public highway." By leaving out the words "in a street or public place," and merely inserting in their place "any public highway," it will then not be necessary to include in the definition Clause any definition of a street.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["guilty of an offence under this Act"] to insert the words "which is punishable by imprisonment without the option of a fine." This is under the old Clause, and we thought it was wrong to give power to a constable to apprehend prisoners, except in cases where the offence is punishable by imprisonment without the option of a fine, so that he cannot arrest on smaller offences.

I welcome this Amendment which I tried to impress upon the Committee in respect to this Clause. It seemed to me a very desirable step, and this is rather a concession of the point of view which I urged upon the Committee, and I am glad at this late hour that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has seen his way to conform to my wishes.

I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "a licensed" ["against a licensed driver or conductor"] and to insert instead thereof the word "the." The words "where proceedings are instituted against the licensed driver or conductor of any vehicle" came from the old Act; but there is no licence for a driver or conductor under this Bill, and therefore the words proposed to be left out are not required.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "appeal" ["where there is an appeal"] to insert the words, "by the owner of an animal."

I beg to second the Amendment.

Am I to understand that the driver is to have no appeal?

The driver is to have an appeal.

Then why is he not put in?

:The Sub-section deals only with recognisances, and gives the court power to direct that the animal be produced at the hearing, which is very important in many cases. We could not ask that the driver should be compelled to produce the animal, and we insert owner.

I quite sympathise with the question of the hon. Member. It is rather badly drawn. I do not think that the Bill will accomplish all that the promoters have in view, and I told them so.

I beg to move to leave out paragraph (d).

I drew attention to the extraordinary definitions which occur, and which I think require some explanation from the promoters of the Bill. The phrasing is in some cases distinctly unfortunate, and it might be abused by some of the faddists to whom I have already referred. It is placing a somewhat dangerous weapon in their hands. When we come to the definitions in this paragraph I must cry halt and invite some explanation. The paragraph reads as follows:—

"the expression 'horse' includes any mare, gelding, pony, foal, colt, filly, or stallion; and the expression 'bull' includes any cow, bullock, heifer, calf, steer, or ox…."

I will not quarrel with the further definition of sheep, but I really must ask the promoters, the kind-hearted promoters, how they can maintain that the expression "bull" includes a "cow" and a "heifer." That rather startles my powers of comprehension. I, therefore, beg to suggest that this Clause should be at least, if not omitted, amended. I do not want to delay the progress of a Bill which, on the whole, I venture to describe as a good Bill, but I think it is unfortunate in some of its expressions.

The promoters of this Bill are assumed to be very thoughtful people, but apparently they are not able to gather what the objection or inquiry is. I do think the House is entitled to some intimation that this has been done by legal men. Whenever I see anything super-ridiculous I conclude it is put in by a lawyer.

I do not think it is very difficult to give an explanation. This is only a compendious way of avoiding the repetition of many names. In the definition of "domestic animals," if we are not allowed to define the word "horse" as we have defined it here, we should have to say "the expression 'domestic animals' means any horse, mare, gelding, pony, foal, colt, filly, or stallion." This method of definition is commonly adopted in Acts of Parliament.

Does the hon. Member suggest that it is usual in an Act of Parliament to state that a bull includes any cow?

A similar method is often adopted in definitions, as for instance in the Diseases of Animals Act, where it is stated that a horse includes a mule or ass. If we are not allowed to define the word in the way adopted in Sub-section (d) we should have to say "the expression domestic animals includes any horse, etc. … bull, cow, heifer, calf, steer, or ox," and so on through the whole definition. The hon. Member has not pointed out any particular harm that can arise from its being done in this way, therefore I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

I move to omit Clause 15.

I think hon. Members are entitled to some explanation of this point. In the Standing Committee on several occasions when I proposed most reasonable Amendments, and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Greenwood) was inclined to adopt them, the Solicitor-General for Scotland intervened and repeatedly helped him to defeat me. I allowed this Bill to go through on Second Reading in the dark after eleven o'clock on the distinct understanding that it was not to go beyond the existing law unless the latter was properly discussed in this House. But in Committee, whenever I raised the objection that the Bill was going beyond the existing law, the Solicitor-General invariably backed up the promoters of this Bill in opposition to me. I could not understand it. But the explanation came later on. The very man who had been egging on the promoters to strengthen different Clauses put down an Amendment that the Bill should not apply to his own country. He did not care in the least how it applied to the English population, because he was intending to insert a Clause exempting Scotland.

Who did this?

I have already said that it was the Solicitor-General for Scotland. He is one of the most delightful personages among the Members of this House, but he is not here now. When I told him that I should raise this point on the floor of the House, he assured me that I should not enjoy his presence on the occasion, but that I might rely upon it that his superior' officer, who is rather more combative and pugnacious, would be here to deal with the matter. I am sure we welcome the presence of the Lord Advocate as deputy for his inferior officer. One of the Clauses which I called in question in Committee relates to the transit of fowls, and I pointed out how difficult it would be to-have different laws relating to England and Scotland on the point. If live fowls are put on a train and the train crosses the Border at express speed, how are people-to treat the fowls in one way on one side of the Border and in another way on the other? The hon. Baronet opposite seems to be a fellow-conspirator on this point.

I shall vote for the omission of this Clause.

I am glad to hear it. The Solicitor-General for Scotland, backed up by some of the Scottish Members, invariably voted for making this measure more restrictive and oppressive on the people of England. One or two sections are distinctly oppressive. Scottish Members invariably voted for higher fines, more power for the police, and so on. Now they say that the Bill should not apply to Scotland. After giving us the benefit of their counsel in making the Bill as perfect as possible, is it consistent that they should now run away and not let their own country have the advantage of their own scheme?

I submit I am perfectly justified in appealing to this House not to sanction this Clause. Either the Bill is a good or a bad one. I have given way on minor points, because I am ever ready to yield to the persuasive influence of my hon. Friend. I have given way so that we might have this Bill passed. I consider I Have made a little bit of a sacrifice, and I do appeal to this House generally to recognise that either this is a good Bill or a bad Bill. If it be a good Bill, let it apply to Scotland. What have they done in Scotland that we should not dispense our kindness to them? I make the appeal on behalf of hon. Members from Scotland who complain that we do not give them sufficient time to dilate upon their grievances; that we only give them one day when we ought to give them two. They consider that they are at a discount in this House. Of course, they forget that the Prime Minister represents a Scottish constituency; and that the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the Leader of the Labour party, are Scotsmen. They think they are outsiders, whereas I think they are really very much to the front. I could only wish that the Radicalism of England was as good as the Radicalism of Scotland. If this be the good Bill that the hon. Member for Peterborough and the Junior Law Officer for Scotland think it, that is a reason for passing my Amendment, so that the Bill shall apply throughout Great Britain. I beg to move.

I would like, in reply to the arguments advanced by the Mover of this Amendment, to say that I entirely endorse the more serious part of them. I cannot possibly lend myself to support all the various arguments which he has put forward, because I think this Motion is deserving of support from a more serious standpoint. We have in Clause 1 of this Bill provided that if any person shall permit any animal to be so used as to cause unnecessary suffering he shall be subjected to certain penalties. If we go into Clause 8 we find that the Board of Agriculture officially—and after all this is the authority which deals with these matters both in England and Scotland—shall be empowered to make orders for a proper supply to animals, in course of transit, of food, water, and ventilation; and that that provision is to extend to fowls. I am one of the many English breeders of fowls who is in the habit of sending them very long distances from the south and west of England into Scotland, and I cannot quite see what argument can be adduced in favour of considering the requirements of these unfortunate birds until they reach the border, while after they pass the border they are to be deprived of the benefit which this Act would otherwise give them. I myself brought this matter forward when the Bill was being considered in Committee. The representative of the Board of Agriculture and the representative of Scotland both of them utterly failed to adduce any sufficient reason for not including Scotland within the ambit of this Bill. I entirely support the removal of this unnecessary Clause from the Bill in the interests of humane treatment of the lower creation.

It is not often Scotsmen are found refusing favours from whatever quarter they come, but it is necessary that I should give some explanation to the House as to the reason why we reject this Amendment. We have, and always have had, an entirely separate code of procedure in regard to the things with which this Bill deals. Our code—we may be wrong—we think is a better code than the English code. We cherish that view, but we are open to conviction. We carefully considered this Bill to see if it could not really be applied to our Scottish folk. We found the difficulties were insurmountable, because, as the House will observe, this is not a new Bill, but a Consolidation Bill. The object of it is to consolidate English Statutes. There is the case of the unfortunate fowl that is in transit across the border whose interests must be attended to and will be attended to, but by a separate Bill, because I quite see the point. But we found it quite impossible to apply this Bill to the Scottish code. When we require consolidation, which, I daresay, we may, we shall have a separate Consolidation Bill for our own Statutes. The House may take it that our code of procedure is entirely different from the code of procedure in England, and it is quite impracticable to make this Bill applicable to Scotland. I repeat before I sit down that poultry will be attended to by a separate measure.

I am very glad to have-received that assurance from the Lord Advocate. It has been given before, but I shall be perfectly satisfied to accept the words of the Lord Advocate, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert instead thereof

I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).

I do so for the purpose of ascertaining from the promoters of this Bill why Ireland should be treated differently to England with reference to the putting down of poisoned grain, etc. Sub-section (2) says:—

"Nothing in Section 6 which relates to poisoned grain and flesh, etc., of this Act shall prevent owners or occupiers of land in Ireland from laying or causing to be laid any poisoned matter as therein described."

If you refer back to Section 6 we find if any person

(a) Shall sell, or offer, or expose for sale, any grain or seed which has been rendered poisonous except for boná fide use in agriculture; or

(b) shall knowingly put or place, or cause or procure any person to put or place, or knowingly be a party to the putting or placing, in or upon any land or building any poison or any fluid or edible matter (not being sown seed or grain) which has been rendered poisonous, except for the purpose of destroying certain animals, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

In this case the answer cannot be that there is a separate law for Ireland, and therefore that it is covered, because it is expressly stated in this Sub-section (2) that nothing in Section 6 which prevents this poisonous stuff being put down shall prevent owners or occupiers of land in Ireland from laying down this stuff. We have decided in this Bill that it is an illegal Act to do this thing in England, and I should be very much obliged if the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would inform the House why it should not be illegal to do the same thing in Ireland.

I beg to second the Amendment. One is quite at a loss to know on what ground different treatment should be given to Ireland in this matter. One knows that in one respect Ireland differs from England and Scotland by the fact that there are no snakes there. Whether poisoned grain and flesh has rid Ireland of snakes or not I do not know, but clearly the promoters of the Bill contemplate that Ireland is more given to vermin than other countries. I think we ought to have a statement from the promoters of the Bill as to the ground on which they propose to give this preferential treatment to Ireland. Ireland has had a great deal of preferential treatment outside this Bill, and I think it is quite time we should look into this matter rather closely.

I may say at once that my sympathies are altogether with the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. I should like the same treatment to be extended to Ireland as to England in this particular matter as far as I am concerned, but I have been given to understand by those who speak for Ireland that this is an old law, and dates back many years, and I am told that the reason for it is that in certain parts of Ireland there are a great many wild dogs which worry sheep, and that the occupiers claim the right to put down poison to kill them. I regret this special provi- sion immensely, and if those who speak for Ireland could see their way to dispense with it nobody will rejoice more than I do, but I do not want to imperil the passing of the Bill by exciting the opposition of those who speak for Ireland.

I desire to support the Amendment for the omission of this Sub-section. It is a bit amusing to hear a strong Radical putting forward as the reason for the retention of this Sub-section the extreme antiquity of the provision. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why should it be necessary to enforce these rigorous provisions with regard to poisoned corn in England while not enforcing them in Ireland? In the future a certain thing will be an offence in England which will not be an offence in Ireland; it seems rather to suggest that in Ireland the owners and occupiers of land are more honest than in England. I say the same provision ought to apply to both countries. I shall listen with some interest to what the Attorney-General for Ireland will have to say in defence of this different treatment for Ireland. I regret very much it has been found necessary to differentiate between these two parts of the United Kingdom. If we intend in this Bill to lay down a code of humanity as regards dumb animals surely we should enforce it in every part of the United Kingdom.

After the expression of opinion from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill I shall certainly go to a Division. I happen to know Ireland pretty well, and from my knowledge of that country I see no reason why this exemption should be made. There has not been a shred of argument advanced to show why what is unlawful in England should be lawful in Ireland. What happens is, that in Ireland occupiers keep two or three dogs. The way to limit that is by compelling the owners in Ireland to take out licences for their dogs and increasing the cost of the licences, which amount to only 2s. 6d. per annum. That is but a small sum to pay, but it would have the effect of checking the number of dogs in Ireland, which are much more numerous than can possibly be wanted. No one wants to do any injustice to Ireland, and no argument whatever has been advanced as to why Ireland should have different treatment in this matter. We only ask for Ireland the same restrictions as are unanimously agreed to for England. There has been no argument that Ireland has a separate code of laws in this matter, as was advanced by the Lord Advocate on the previous Amendment. Ireland has exactly the same law as England, yet it is said that Ireland should be excluded because she has more dogs out of control than England. My answer is, "Get them under control by increasing the dog licence and by enabling the constabulary to enforce payment of the licence."

I understand the real object of this Bill was not to alter the law, as it exists in Ireland or England, but to consolidate it and to elucidate it. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken would change the law; if the hon. Gentleman will turn to Chapter 115 of the Act of 1864, dealing with the prohibition of placing poisonous matters in plantations and fields [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up, we cannot hear a word"] and open places he will find that under Section 2 an absolute prohibition of placing any of these matters in such places, both in England and in Ireland, with this proviso:—

"Provided always that nothing herein contained shall prevent owners or occupiers of land in Ireland from laying or causing to be laid any poisonous matter as hereinbefore described, after a notice has been posted in a. conspicuous place and notice in writing has been given to the nearest constabulary station."

If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were adopted that provision would be omitted.

From what Act is the right hon. Gentleman quoting?

27th and 28th Victoria, Chapter 115.

In the Schedule to this Bill the whole of that Act is repealed.

As I understand it, all the Irish representatives desired was that the exception as far as Ireland was concerned should be preserved, and I am under the impression that all the representatives of Ireland were agreed that she should be exempted. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment intends to substantially alter the law as regards Ireland in a Bill which is intended, not to be an amending Bill, but a Consolidation Bill. That exception was made in Ireland under the Act of 1864, and the law has so existed ever since. To adopt the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be to withdraw from Ireland a condition of law which has existed ever since 1864.

Is there any reason -why on its merits this exception should be made?

The Act which the Attorney-General for Ireland has referred to was passed nearly fifty years ago, and it is no argument to say that because it was passed so many years ago it should not be altered now. Everybody in the House will agree that the habit of placing poisoned flesh about the land in this way is a very dangerous practice which leads to all sorts of evils. You cannot tell what animals may be contaminated, and how far the contamination may spread. It seems to me that this is a most excellent Amendment, and I do not believe it would injure anyone in Ireland. On these grounds I think the House might accept the deletion of this Clause, which I am sure will not do any harm to Ireland, but on the contrary will do good to a large number of people, not only in Ireland, but also in other parts of the country. If there are too many dogs in Ireland it is perfectly easy to shoot them or catch them in a proper way, but to lay poisoned corn and flesh about, which any other animal might pick up, in order to get rid of these dogs seems to me a very objectionable practice.

The speech of the Attorney-General for Ireland has still further strengthened me in my decision to go to a Division. The argument he has used is the fine old Tory argument that this has always been the practice and always must be. It is the old argument that Ireland having always been exempted it must always be right and must remain. I think that is an argument which will not hold water. If the hon. and learned Gentleman could have given any reason for exempting Ireland I should have been willing to accept his answer, just as we accepted the explanation of the Lord Advocate, but as he simply says Ireland was exempted in 1864 and therefore it must be exempted in 1911, I must press my Amendment to a Division.

I beg to move in paragraph 2 to leave out the words "cattle within the meaning of paragraph (e) of Section 14 of this Act" and to insert instead thereof the words "horse, ass, or mule" The reason for this Amendment is that within the meaning of the Act the word "cattle" includes "sheep" amongst other animals.

I want clearly to understand what we are doing by this Amendment. By other Amendments we have been taking out phrases of this kind. It has struck me that all these animals might be cited in the Act in one place and then it-might be referred to afterwards as the previous catalogue.

I beg to move, after the word "the" ["the values of the heritable"] to insert the word "net."

Will the Lord Advocate give us some explanation of this Amendment?

The object of this Bill is to secure for widows in Scotland the same rights as were secured to widows in England by the Intestates' Estates Act, 1890, upon which it has been modelled. In Scotland, under the present law, the widow of an intestate without issue gets one-half of the moveable estate and one-third of the heritable, the residue going to brothers or sisters or more distant relatives of the deceased. The Bill proposes to follow the English Act and give her the whole estate if it is under £500, and if over £500 a first charge to that amount. The English Act has been in force for over twenty years, and it has given the greatest satisfaction. No Amendment has ever been proposed, and this Bill is fashioned exactly upon the terms of the English Act. There are a number of cases where a man dies having saved, say, £50, £60, or £100. He dies intestate without any issue, and then the brothers and sisters claim a share. This Bill gives the whole estate up to £500 to the widow as a first charge. Therefore I recommend this Bill to the House. It is a measure which has passed the Second Reading several times. This, at all events, is one of those cases in which Scotland can very well follow what has been the law in England for many years.

I would remind the House that the question before it is that the word "net" be inserted before the word "value."

Perhaps I may be able to satisfy the hon. Baronet. The £500 is to come out of the real and personal estate, but, as the Bill at present stands, it does not explicitly say it is to come out of the net value after the deduction of debts on the estate. This Amendment makes it quite clear that you deduct those debts, and then, if the net amount does not exceed £500, it belongs to the widow absolutely and exclusively, and, if it does exceed £500, the widow is to be a creditor upon the whole of the estate for that amount. I think the hon. Baronet will see that is quite fair and reasonable.

I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I supposed it was something of that sort, but without any explanation I could not tell whether it had that effect. It is evident you could not take £500 until you had defrayed all the expenses out of the estate. It would have been injurious to the creditors to have done so.

I accept the Amendment.

I beg to move to leave out the words "and in the case of an estate for a life or lives according to the said tables and rules."

I will tell the House frankly why I proposed to strike out these words. It is because I cannot understand them. If the husband has a life interest, it expires with him and goes to somebody else. I cannot see how the widow can have a personal interest in the life estate of her husband after he is dead.

These words occur in the English Act and, so far as England is concerned, there is not the slightest difficulty in understanding them. The deceased may have some annuity payable during the life of another man. That is an estate on another life. What is to hinder the deceased having bought from a man who survives him a right to receive the rent of a house during that man's life? This Clause deals with heritable estates, and it says, first of all, as to fee simple, that it is to be valued at so many years' purchase and any charges thereon deducted. Then it deals with the case of an estate for a life or lives. That means an estate for the life or lives of somebody else. I cannot understand why a Scotchman should not buy an annuity payable from some property during the life of somebody else. That would form part of his estate, and, according to the wording of the Act, it is to be valued according to the Act of 1853. That Act sets out a table by which you value the interest the deceased's estate has in the life of the other man who has sold the interest. It is quite a common thing in England. I cannot say whether it is a common thing in Scotland. Supposing a man has sold his right to receive a ground rent or feu duties payably during his life. That is a heritable estate, and, when the man who has bought it dies, his widow is entitled to say: "I claim to value that." The Act of 1853 sets out the tables and rules for valuation. I cannot really understand that there is any difficulty about it. I cannot see why a Scotchman should not have an interest in the life of another man, the other man surviving him.

I have listened to the Lord Advocate, and I am very much obliged to him for moving to strike out words he cannot understand. That is in the interest of laymen, because it is to prevent litigation, but, after listening to the speech of the hon. Member behind him, it seems to me the words are fairly simple, providing the hon. Member is correct in his interpretation. As I understand the hon. Member, what he says is this: I buy a certain annual payment to be made to me and my heirs during the life of my hon. Friend beside me. I die, and my executors find that after paying all my debts there is only a balance of £400, unless the annuity payable by my hon. Friend is included. That annuity would make the amount up to £500. Under the Bill, that £500 will go to my wife, but, if this Amendment is accepted, only £400 will go to her, and £100 will go to my other heirs. I do not know whether I have understood the matter clearly, but I think that is what it means, and, if by any extraordinary chance I should be the means of enlightening such a very able and learned Gentlemen as the Lord Advocate upon a point of law I should indeed be proud.

I think the hon. Baronet is perfectly right except for one trifling misconception. I think the confusion has arisen from the number of words that are inserted in the Clause. The Clause provides for the valuation in the case of a fee simple, and in the case of an estate for a life or lives, and the reference to annuities coming in between is a little confusing to a man applying his mind to the second part of the Clause. There is only one point where the hon. Baronet is a little bit mistaken. This Clause only relates to the mode in which the estate is to be valued. It may, as the hon. Baronet pointed out, be of great importance to the widow to have this valuation made in a proper manner. People often take over a life interest in an insurance. I hope, therefore, the Lord Advocate will accept the words as they stand. There will not be the slightest difficulty in understanding them when the real facts are known.

I am quite satisfied with the explanation of my hon. Friend, and will therefore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I should like a little enlightenment on the fifth Clause dealing with heritable estates. Since 1853 many changes have taken place in the position, title, and other conditions relating to these estates, but apparently the method of valuation maintained in this Clause harks back to the Succession Duty Act of 1853. I should like to ask whether the valuation will be the same practically as obtains at the present time in this country under more enlightened conditions dealing with similar estates.

It will be according to the actuarial tables set out in the Act of 1853.

Which are in operation at the present time?

Yes.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words "Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897," to insert the words "except under the provisions of Section 109 of that Act."

This first Sub-section of Clause 1 confers on any body of trustees or commissioners authorised to supply water by a local Act the same powers as are conferred on a local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act (1897). I have looked up that Act, and I find that a clause in it gives power of entry in case it should become necessary to examine or lay open pipes, watercourses, and drains, and should the owner or occupier refuse or withhold access to the land for such purpose, the local authority may, after due notice, apply to the sheriff, who, if no sufficient cause is shown to the contrary, shall grant a warrant to the local authority or its officers to enter on the land. It may be a very reasonable thing to have inserted in the Bill a provision giving a local authority, dealing with such questions as sewers, this power; but if you are going to give power to any body of trustees or commissioners to do these things it ought not to be granted as against the wish of the private individual. It is very evident that some such power as this is necessary in regard to sewers, but it may not be absolutely necessary to carry a water main over the land of a private individual, and it might cause a considerable amount of inconvenience to such an individual if this Clause were retained in the Bill. I think it is rather too drastic a proposal, which certainly ought not to be embodied in a general Act of this sort, and I therefore beg to move the insertion of these words.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I really cannot consent to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. The House will see that the object of this Bill is to give statutory commissioners power within their own district to lay and carry water pipes in exactly the same way as a local authority has power within its district, under the Public Health Act to lay and carry sewers. What the hon. Baronet says is this: if in the course of laying their pipes the water commissioners require to go through private property, and to lay pipes therein, they should be stopped until they receive the consent of the private owner; that is to say, the private owner will be able to put his foot down and stop the work for some reason of his own, or indeed for no reason at all. I understand the hon. Baronet to say that if this provision is struck out of the Bill he has no objection whatever to the water commissioners having the same power as local authorities have in regard to sewers. But this is the crux of the whole Bill, and it is just because water commissioners find it difficult to prosecute their undertakings in the ordinary way, that this Bill was brought in in order to give them exactly the same powers as the local authorities have, and the hon. Baronet will find further that local authorities have the same powers with regard to water pipes as they had with regard to sewer pipes in districts outside burghs. Under the Statute of 1897 he will find further that by Clause 103 we have provided that a local authority may positively go on any lands whatsoever to lay their pipes. They may go upon any lands on which they please to lay their pipes if they have a report and a survey showing that it is necessary. I think the phrase in the Act is "any lands whatsoever," and they may go on the report of an engineer that it is necessary to do so in order to lay their sewers. By another statute they are allowed to do the very same thing in districts outside boroughs with regard to their water pipes. As I understand the hon. Baronet's contention, what he objects to is the exception which is introduced in this Bill of Clause 29 of the Waterworks Clauses Act of 1847. He says he wants Clause 29 of the Waterworks Clauses Act of 1847 introduced. That is a Clause which says you shall not go upon private property without the leave of the proprietor, and if you do an action arises and it gives the private proprietor the right to stop public works unless you get his leave to construct them. The reason why we except Clause 29 is that there should be no dispute or difficulty raised between the local authority and the proprietor. I did not think it was necessary to include Clause 29 because, as I pointed out, Clause 103 of the Act of 1897 gives the power, and the hon. Baronet will find that the Act, under Clause 32, incorporates the Waterworks Clauses Act, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the Statute of 1897. Clause 29 is inconsistent with the Statute of 1897, which gives an absolute right without asking leave from the proprietor to go upon land. Therefore I can assure the hon. Baronet that his Amendment will not be effective, and it is only to prevent litigation and prevent any question being raised that we have provided for the exception of Clause 29.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has correctly gauged the object I had in view. I had intended to move that Clause 29 of the Act of 1847 should be maintained, but I thought that if I entered upon that without moving this provision in the earlier part of the Bill the Lord Advocate might have said that I ought to have moved earlier in the Bill because of the provision of the Act of 1897 which had already been incorporated. It is for that reason that I moved to insert this particular Amendment at this particular stage. I have looked at the Clause the Lord Advocate referred me to and I find it is as folows:—

"The following Acts and parts of Acts so far as the same respectively are applicable to the purpose and are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby incorporated in this Act."

Section 29 of the Act of 1847 is not repealed, and it seems to me to be a good Section, especially as this particular Bill does not relate to municipalities, but to trustees or commissioners who may be authorised to supply water under any local Act, and it seems to me that if you are going to give special powers under special circumstances to these trustees or commissioners to enter upon the land of private people we should consider the matter and give those special powers in a special Act and not pass a general Act. People do not act as a rule in a dog-in-the-manger way unless there is some reason for it, and they would probably not object without some good reason. Then, if they found there was someone who was objecting in a selfish kind of manner, and not for a sufficiently good reason, they could always obtain an Act of Parliament. It may be argued that that would cost money. After all, the rights of private property should be placed above questions of cost in my opinion, and I am glad to say that earlier in the day we had a somewhat identical expression of opinion from an hon. Gentleman opposite. I object very much to giving all these different authorities—I do not much like it in the case of municipal authorities, but these are not municipal authorities—power to enter on anyone's property to do what may seem good in their eyes. The right hon. Gentleman has rather omitted to recognise the fact that this Bill does not confer power - upon local authorities. Unless I am very much mistaken all these private local Acts in Scotland are carried out by a special Committee of this House, and, therefore, the expense is very much minimised. If the trustees or commissioners desired to do something of this sort and were prevented it would be very much better if they had an Act of Parliament enabling them to do so when all the circumstances of the case might be considered. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to these words being inserted.

I moved in Committee the particular Amendment which the hon. Baronet now takes exception to.

We learn a little as we go on. I understand this particular part was not in the Bill as originally introduced, but was put in in Committee. That is a very excellent reason why this House should reverse the decision of the Grand Committee and that the Bill should revert to its original form.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "excepting the provisions of Section twenty-nine of that Act."

As I have been so considerate of the right hon. Gentleman's feelings, I hope he will meet me now. I have already given a reason why I desire to leave these words out, but I will mention one or two more which I believe will convince the House that it is necessary to leave these provisions in. The right hon. Gentleman admits that under the Act of 1897 these particular provisions were not repealed. If it was not considered necessary to repeal them then, why should we repeal them now? If we incorporate the Act of 1897 and do not make any alteration, which I have agreed not to do, why should we not incorporate the Act as it was passed? If we strike out these words we shall not be incorporating the Act in its original form, and therefore I hope for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has stated, that he wishes to have the Act of 1897 incorporated in the Bill, he will incorporate it in the manner in which it was passed.

I cannot consent to this Amendment for the reason I gave on the hon. Baronet's former Amendment. I do not think that anyone on this side of the House could entertain the view that any proprietor should be in the position of denying to a public authority the right to make surveys in the way proposed. I can assure the House that the interests of proprietors ace most carefully safeguarded.

I think Section 109 of the Act of 1897 does, to a certain extent, safeguard the interests of the private individual, because under that Clause it will be necessary for the Commissioners or trustees to obtain a warrant from the sheriff before they can do certain acts, but I would point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Section 103 enables the local authority, after reasonable notice in writing, to obtain surveys which may be necessary. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but what is the use of Section 103? Sections 103 and 109 seem to contradict each other. May I ask the Lord Advocate to say whether I am correct?

I have explained to the House that Section 109 applies to purposes ancillary to the main purposes of the Act—that is to say, if the local authority require to enter a man's property for the purpose of making surveys, they must go to the sheriff for a warrant if the proprietor objects.

May I point out to the hon. Baronet that Sections 105 and 106 also provide for the safeguarding of the interests of proprietors.

I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I think that this does make a material alteration in the matter. I am sorry that Section 29 had to go out, as I think it would have been better, but, still, I admit that the Clause which has just been referred to has some preservative effect, and therefore I will not press my Amendment.