1246 our first line has taken place owing to MR. COURTNEY WARNER: I beg the great interest which is taken in the leave to move the omission of clause 3, Militia corps, and the effort which has which provides as to the numbers authobeen made to bring it up to the pitch rised by the Army Act. I think it is perof efficiency which exists, for they are the admiration of all officers who see fectly unconstitutional that these extra them. I think we should hesitate before men should be drawn from the Reserve. adopting any system which will tend in There is no precedent for such a thing, any way to deteriorate the efficiency of and presently I shall be able to show our Militia battalions. Now, there are that there is no object in it, for it is one a certain number of men in the ranks of of the special privileges that this House each Militia regiment who are liable under certain circumstances to be called the standing Army year by year. Now, has always claimed that they shall vote to the Line, but I would venture to sug gest to the House that the Army should this clause is a means of enabling the be compelled to provide its own Reserve, Government to raise 5,000 men, if Her and that the Militia should be allowed Majesty's Government chooses to do so, to take its legitimate position in the without the consent of the House. This defences of the country as the second is perfectly unnecessary, because whenforce next to the front fighting line. There is nothing that takes the heart ever extra troops have been needed this out of a Militia battalion, and out of the House has always been ready to support Militia commanding officer, like the the proposal. Even in days gone by, knowledge of the fact that in the hour when recruiting was good, the Army has of danger their best men may be taken very seldom reached the number of men out of the battalion, thus reducing it to voted. Now these new battalions are a state of inefficiency; and the whole of starting, I think we should be perfectly their efforts, which have been directed safe in not putting in this clause, because for many years to bring those battalions to a state of efficiency which will be the number of men voted by this House useful to the country, are to be is sure to give certainly 5,000 men, tically nullified in order to patch up the which is the number which the Governfront line, which has been allowed to fall ment desire to be able to call out without into a state of inefficiency owing to the any difficulty or extreme feeling in this lack of proper administration. I venture House. to protest most earnestly against any Measure which is calculated to take away prac the Reserve men from the Militia bat talions, and I trust that the House will not pass any Measure of that kind. Gentleman will give way upon this point, I hope the right honourable and I am sure that if he will consult his tainly unnecessary, and that from colleagues, they will agree that it is cerParliamentary point of view it is most unconstitutional. MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I understand from the right honourable Gentle man the Under Secretary that the intention is not to single out individual Mem-position. bers, and I therefore beg leave to with draw my Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. CLAUSE 3. Amendment proposed MR. BRODRICK: This proposal rests entirely on a misapprehension of the Parliament having already voted the men and the money for them, the honourable Gentleman now proposes one of two contingencies-either that we should put them into the Estimates twice over, or that we should trust to luck. That is a contention which is almost, if I may be allowed to say so, grotesque, and the honourable Gentleman must for "Page 2, line 6, leave out clause 3."—(Mr. give me if I decline to treat this AmendWarner.) ment seriously. Question put "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill." The House divided:-Ayes 188; Noes 59. (Division List No. 132.) Allsopp, Hon. George Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch) Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cranborne, Viscount AYES. Flannery, Fortescue Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B. Haldane, Richard Burdon Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall) Milner, Sir Frederick George More, Robert Jasper Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Round, James Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.Y TELLERS FOR THE AYES- NOES. Hazell, Walter Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand MR. BRODRICK: I trust the House will now allow the Bill to be read a third time. Although this discussion has shown a difference of opinion with regard to some details, I venture to think that no exception has been taken to its general provisions. Motion made and question put"That the Bill be now read a third time." Agreed to. Bill read the third time and passed. LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL. DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.): May I ask the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, with regard to this very important Bill, whether he will arrange to put it down as the first order, so that there mav be ample opportunity for its discus sion? THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid that I cannot give a distinct pledge, but I hope the order for the second reading may be put down for an early day, probably Tuesday. Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) TELLERS FOR THE NOES- SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University): I thought it was to be put down for Monday? THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA SURY: It will be put down for Monday, but we propose to take the Budget Bill first, and I should not think it probable that this Bill will be reached. Of course, if from any accident the Budget Bill is not taken on Monday, this Bill will take its place. GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL. Order for adjourned Debate on Second Reading read. MR. E. MORTON (Devonport): I have already spoken for about ten minutes upon this Bill, but, unfortunately, I had not concluded my remarks when I was interrupted by the Twelve o'clock rule. I do not, however, propose to delay the House over the matter now. We shall have an opportunity of discussing it at greater length upon the Estimates, and I only wish to say in a single sentence what it is that we contend for, and what we shall contend for on the Estimates. The Greenwich Hospital was founded, and received many contributions from various sources, for the benefit of seamen and marines when they attained a certain age, or became disabled by sickness or accident. Since that was done the funds of the Hospital have been appropriated for various purposes, and in exchange for that, for every seaman who had served a certain time it was agreed that a sum of 5d. a day should be set apart, with the same arrangement for all marines as soon as they reached the age of 55, in addition to their pensions. In 1892 the sum so set apart was found to be insufficient, and some 50,000 seamen and marines who had attained that age, or were disabled, were not receiving their pensions. A Committee of this House was appointed to consider this matter, and in 1892 the Committee reported that it was advisable that as many as possible of those who were not receiving their pensions should receive them, and that a sum of £16,000 should be set apart from the Consolidated Fund. Since that time there has been such an increase in the Navy that that sum is found totally inadequate, and there are now about the same number not receiving their pensions as there were in 1892. I hope the Government will be induced to allow a further contribution to be made from the Consolidated Fund, or from some other source, to enable the remaining 3,000 seamen and marines to receive the pensions that they are entitled to. I would just mention, in passing, that it is only those who joined within a certain period that are entitled to this special grant, and that their number will diminish as time goes on. In the meantime, we contend that these 3,000 or so who are not receiving the grant ought to receive it. If the question is not immediately taken up these men will probably be without their pensions for the rest of their lives. That is the case that we shall present when the matter comes up on the Estimates. For the present I do not propose to continue the Debate, or to stand in the way of the Second Reading of the Bill. Bill read the second time. Mr. E. Morton. HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL. Order for Second Reading read. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Lancs., Blackpool): I hope the House will read this bill a second time. It is an honest attempt to deal with what is admittedly a great evil. Since I introduced it I think opinion has been in favour of an extension rather than any modification of the provisions of the Bill. I hope too many efforts will nət be made to extend the Bill in the direc tion of non-criminal drunkards, because I think we shall get into difficulties which will render it doubtful whether the Bill can be passed into law during the present Session. I may mention that I have been asked if I would be willing to extend the Bill to Ireland. All I can say is that if it be the general desire of Irish Members to extend the Bill to Ireland, I shall be prepared to put in the necessary provisions applying the Bill to Ireland. So far as I understand, the general consensus of opinion is that it would be desirable to give the authori ties in Ireland the same opportunity of effecting the reform of habitual inebriates that it is proposed to give. in England. I hope the House will agree to the second reading of the Bill, in which case I shall move to refer it to one of the Grand Committees. SIR W. FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston): I have great pleasure in congratulating the right honourable Gentleman upon the introduction of this Bill. The question that it deals with is one that ought to be taken up by Government, and I think the Bill deals with it in the right spirit-that is to say, in a reformatory spirit-and that this Bill is an honest endeavour to do something to reform those persons whose condition is not a credit to our civilisation, and who are a great nuisance to our law. Everyone who is in the habit of attending our law courts knows that there are a large number of persons charged with offences | our present laws is certainly not to our who ought to be dealt with in a different credit. spirit from that in which we deal with SIR C. CAMERON: As the Member of the really criminal classes, and who ought this House who had charge of the introto be dealt with in the Christian and duction of the Inebriates Act in 1879 and humane spirit which the provisions of 1880 I heartily congratulate the right this Bill enunciate. I look forward to honourable Gentleman on the tremendous this Bill doing a great deal, not in advance in public opinion which has the way of punishing these unfortunate enabled him to introduce this Bill, and persons, but in the way of giving them a which has prompted statesmen on both chance of becoming respectable members sides of the House to endeavour to deal of society. That system has been carried with this most important subject. The out with very remarkable results in other proposal to deal with habitual drunkards countries. I came across only the other was first brought forward by Dr. Dalday some figures showing the results of rymple, and on his death I was asked similar legislation in one of our great to take it up. The original Bill that Colonies-Canada. I found that I brought before the House proposed to 10,000 cases of criminal inebriates dealt divide into two classes the persons with with in Canada no less than 34 per cent. whom it was proposed to deal—namely, of those criminal inebriates had been those who were willing to come under reclaimed after a period of 10 years; restraint and those criminal inebriates that is to say, that 10 years after they for whom compulsory confinement of some had been under treatment they had not kind was necessary. It also proposed relapsed. If we oan obtain only half to deal with the police-court class of that amount of success in this country, drunkards, with whom the right honourany Measure like this will be more than able Gentleman now proposes to deal; amply justified. In other institutions in but in those days there was such an our Colonies similar results have been immense amount of opposition to any obtained where the period of testing had legislation which would throw the smallest not been so long. Of course, in all these charge on the ratepayers that the porcases where these criminal inebriates are tion of the Bill dealing with criminal committed for a period of detention the drunkards had to be thrown overboard tendency to relapse is the difficulty that altogether. Now, the right honourable one has to contend with. If it can be Gentleman proposes to enable the Treaovercome in anything like the same per-sury to subsidise certain retreats. Of centage of cases as has been found possible in the Colonies we shall have from this Bill very valuable and almost inestimable results. I hope the Bill will be found acceptable to the House, and I myself should be glad to see it extended in various directions. It is purely permissive in its character. I should have been glad to see it compulsory and extended also to non-criminal inebriates, but I quite recognise the difficulties the right honourable Gentleman has pointed out in the way of extending its provisions. I feel that the Bill is a humane attempt at the reformation of a large class of persons whose treatment under course, a great deal depends on the methods to be adopted. I do not expect that on the first start everything will go off successfully, but I am certain that when you have public money invested in these retreats, when you have central and local authorities interested in them, a tremendous impulse will be given to the development of their usefulness, and before many years have passed they will be a very great success. As to the class of non-criminal inebriates who refuse voluntarily to go into retreats, I should like to have seen the right honourable Gentleman deal with them, but I quite understand the difficulties in his way. I |