HC Deb 07 May 1885 vol 297 cc1946-61
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

, in moving an Amendment, in page 13, line 15, after"1,"to insert"33,"said, that it was simply an addition which was necessary to carry out the object which the clause had in view.

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved an Amendment, in page 13, line 18, at end, insert as a fresh paragraph — In the year 1885 the clerk of the peace will omit so much of the precept as relates to the old lodgers list and the forms relating to that list.

Amendment agreed to; paragraph inserted accordingly.

Mode of making out Lists'.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was in receipt of a large number of resolutions from election agents and others in regard to this Schedule, as it appeared that the compilation of the lists of voters in alphabetical order gave rise to great difficulties. The overseers were compelled to pick out all the A's and B's from the street list, in the first instance, and put them in ordinary alphabetical order; and when a General Election came, the election agents were obliged to go through the lists again, and turn them back again into street order. The overseers' grievance, therefore, was that they were put to a great deal of unne- cessary trouble. It appeared to him that the arrangement at present involved double trouble. He was quite aware that Clerks of the Peace were in favour of the Bill as it stood; but he thought the Committee had also to consider the convenience of candidates and of their election agents in matters of this sort. The present system involved both expense and trouble; and he thought it would be well if they gave the Local Authorities power to dispense with the alphabetical list altogether, if they thought the existing street list would meet all the requirements. It was desirable they should have a decision on the question as to whether the list should be made out, as was proposed in this part of the Second Schedule, in undoubtedly alphabetical order, or whether, as would be more convenient in many districts, it should be made out in the order, numerical or otherwise, of the streets. His proposal, however, was to get rid of the hard-and-fast line in the Schedule, and leave it to the Local Authorities of the districts to adopt the most convenient course with regard to the list; and the Amendment he was about to move would raise the question whether there might not be districts in which it would be necessary to keep to the street order, and not break up the present arrangements by having the list of voters put alphabetically.

Amendment proposed, In page 18, line 18, before the word "each," insert the words "unless the local authorities otherwise determine."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) had touched upon a question, the determination of which was a matter of some difficulty, and upon both sides of which there was a good deal to be said. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Select Committee which considered the Bill had had before them all the evidence they could get on this subject, including that of Clerks of the Peace, and upon that evidence they had arrived at the conclusion that the lists of voters should be made out in alphabetical order. It was felt that there were insuperable difficulties in the way of using street lists. The Committee were told that the overseers had been accustomed to the alphabetical method, and that if they were to be required to change their system and make out street lists, it would add very considerably to the onerous duties which they had to perform. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the representations made to him on this subject had not come from overseers. It was an election agent's question. The overseers had to do that which other people had to do— they had to do their duty, and part of that duty consisted in making out their own lists, which they had always done in alphabetical order; and, as he had said, after careful consideration, the Committee were satisfied that it would be better to have the alphabetical list. Then the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make the rule elastic—that was to say, to apply it to some districts and not to others, as the Local Authorities should decide. But they were met by this difficulty—that it would be impracticable to have two different systems working at once which would be necessary in the case of a district in which there were, say, 1,500 voters subject to the Local Authority and 500 county voters who were not. Therefore, he said it would be impossible to use different lists for different parts of the same districts which included both urban and rural voters. The question was how far the duties of the overseers could be fulfilled; and upon the evidence of those persons of practical experience who came before them, the Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that the balance of convenience was in favour of not disturbing the existing practice of having an alphabetical list.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the only fault he had to find with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) was that it did not go far enough. He could not agree with the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General that it would be impossible to adopt anything but the alphabetical system in counties. As a matter of fact, in Ireland they had printed lists of electors that were in alphabetical order for every polling district in the counties. Those lists related to a great many different townlands, and the names of the voters were given in consecutive order as in the streets of towns. He might remind the Committee that the term parish represented in England an area similar in character to that of a town-land in Ireland. What occurred in Ireland was this — the rate collector or overseer in the rural districts had the names in consecutive order; but he had to go through the labour of putting them in alphabetical order, although it was much more convenient that they should be kept in the order in which they appeared in his book. It had been pointed out that it would be for the convenience of candidates if the overseers had a second list of names in the parishes, in rural districts, and in streets of towns and villages. But that was a plea which they could not admit at all; because, in their opinion, it would be much more convenient for the overseers, and also much more convenient for the candidates, to have the list made out at first in the order proposed. The argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General that the names should be copied out from the rate book in consecutive order appeared to him to be erroneous. If the Government wished to facilitate the work of the overseers and the candidates, they would do as the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman proposed—namely, make it a rule that the lists should be according to streets in rural districts, parishes, and townlands.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he regretted his inability to follow the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) with regard to the practice in Ireland, although he could speak as to what occurred in England in connection with the lists of voters. For his own part, he thought the Committee would do well to follow the decision of the Select Committee, who, as they all knew, had considered this point very carefully. He had been much struck with the evidence given by one witness before the Committee; he was a gentleman able to speak on the matter; he had for many years acted as registration agent, and knew thoroughly well the practice in respect of overseers and Clerks of the Peace. In answer to a question put to him as to the best way of having the lists of voters made out by the overseers, he said, in effect, that if he spoke from the point of view of his own conveni- ence he should say—"Give me the street list;" but that having regard to the convenience of overseers and Returning Officers he should say—"Take the names in alphabetical order." He (Mr. Stanhope) held that the Committee ought to consult the convenience of the overseers and Returning Officers rather than the convenience of the election agents. Another reason for adopting the alphabetical system was that it enabled them to get rid of double entries, which it was much more easy to detect in an alphabetical list of names than in a list made out on the street system suggested by his right hon. Friend. For these reasons it appeared to the Select Committee that the list of voters would be best arranged alphabetically, and they accordingly came to the conclusion that the alphabetical system should be adopted for the purpose of the Bill. Therefore, knowing that the decision of the Select Committee was arrived at after careful consideration of the facts of the case, he trusted his right hon. Friend would not feel it his duty to press the Amendment to a division.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, when the Irish Bill came back, he should feel very strongly inclined to state his view of this matter in relation to Ireland. As far as the English Bill was concerned, he was bound to say that he was of the same opinion at that moment as he was before he moved the Amendment. It appeared to him that, in this question, three classes of persons were concerned. They had to consider the position of the overseers, the Clerks of the Peace, and the candidates; the latter especially under an Act which limited expenditure at elections, and he was sure that no one would join more readily than the hon. and learned Attorney General in a proposal which would have the effect of doing away with expenditure that was not absolutely necessary. So far as the overseers were concerned, he could not imagine that what his hon. Friend (Mr. Stanhope) had stated represented in practice the real state of the case; because, if he were rightly informed, the returns in populous places were usually made out in the order of streets. It would, therefore, be imposing a large amount of work on the overseer to make him cut up his lists and re-arrange them alphabetically; and he should think, under the circumstances, that it would be better for the overseer to take the lists of voters according to streets and hand them over to the Clerk of the Peace. He could understand that it would be more convenient for the Clerks of the Peace to have the lists printed alphabetically, and therefore he could not resist the opinion that the evidence given before the Select Committee was for the benefit of the Clerks of the Peace and not for the election agents. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): No; the election agents.] There were a number of Clerks of the Peace called before the Committee, and amongst them the Clerk of the Peace in his own district, a most excellent officer, whose evidence, he must say, had caused him some surprise. The cost of converting the street lists, now in use in many places, into alphabetical lists would be considerable; but the expense of cutting them up again and reconverting them would be very much greater. It seemed to him absurd first to have street lists made out, then to put then into alphabetical order for the purpose of elections, and then for the practical purposes of the locality to put them back again into street order. He would take the town of Macclesfield —not the borough—and he did so because it was a large place, and because the name represented a number of towns which, as boroughs, used to return Members of Parliament, but which were now merged in the county. Now, the overseers of those towns would have first to make out street lists, then the moment an election came they would have to cut them up and put them in alphabetical order, and afterwards bring them back into street order. He did not wish to detain the Committee any longer; but he was obliged to express his opinion that the machinery that would be put in motion by the Bill was extremely cumbrous and, at the same time, perfectly useless.

MR. HEALY

said, he trusted that the convenience of other persons than Clerks of the Peace would be considered in this matter. Members of that House had been for years under the direction of the hon. and learned Attorney General endeavouring to cut clown election expenses. But here was an Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) which would tend in that direction, and they found the hon. and learned Attorney General opposing it—and on what ground? Because of the convenience of Clerks of the Peace. Not a word was said about the convenience of the 650 Members of that House, whose purses ought to be considered— and they, the Members of the House, had to deal with the Bill. He said that they ought to consider this question a little more from their own point of view, and not so much from the point of view of the Clerks of the Peace. For his own part, he was not in favour of allowing his own pocket to be mulcted for the purpose of making an arrangement that would save Clerks of the Peace a little trouble. He contended that nothing had actually been said against the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire, or in answer to the arguments with which he supported that Amendment. It was admitted, in the first place, that the rate collector had to deal with the list of parishioners in the order of streets and by areas; that the list had, so to speak, then to be boiled down into alphabetical order, and when that was done, that it had to be reconverted into a street list. Thus it would be seen that the operation had to be performed twice—once at the expense of the candidates, and then again at their expense. They contended that when this had been done once at the expense of the candidate, no further expense should fall upon them. Now, the hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. E. Stanhope), in opposing the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire, had said that the alphabetical list would tend to prevent double entries. He (Mr. Healy) admitted that as the only argument in favour of the arrangement proposed in the Bill; he admitted that double entries were more possible under the street order system than they were under an alphabetical list. No doubt, it was a much easier process for Clerks of the Peace to detect double entries by that means. But when a man presented himself at the polling station, he could be asked the question—"Have you voted before?" And in his opinion the law against double voting was sufficiently stringent to deter people from committing the act, and besides, the agents of the candidates would be sure to look after the people who were likely to be guilty of double voting. As a matter of fact, in the Irish boroughs, they were not allowed the option of the street arrangement, as against the alphabetical arrangement, so that England had one reform which had not been made in Ireland; and for that reason, if the right hon. Gentleman went to a division, he should support him.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would take this matter into consideration before the Report, when he (Sir E. Assheton Cross) would again refer to it. It was a matter that ought not to be lost sight of, and, in the meantime, he would make further inquiries and communicate with the hon. and learned Gentleman. As he did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, the point raised by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) had been brought very seriously under his notice within the last few hours. He found that the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out a blot on the registration system, and one could hardly suggest the amount of cost and trouble that the arrangement proposed in the Bill would cause. In the first place, the various organizations would have to provide copies of the Registers, and pay 10s. 6d. for them, a sum which would no doubt appear small in the eyes of highly salaried officials, but the cost appeared a heavy one to persons of a different class; and then the committees would have to go carefully through the Registers, and divide them according to streets, a work that would occupy a week or a fortnight at least. This was a Bill intended to facilitate the registration of voters, and yet the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed for that purpose the very worst arrangement possible—namely, that they should be put on the Register alphabetically. At that moment he could only express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire had allowed this matter to drop so suddenly; it was one of the points on which the Government would be ex- pected to yield, and he could promise the right hon. Gentleman that it was a point to be considered before the final stage of the Bill was taken; and, for his own part, he should certainly call attention to it again.

MR. HEALY

Will the hon. and learned Attorney General give us the alternative system which prevails in England?

MR. BIGGAR

said, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross) had not carried this matter a little further, because, although the point was small, it was of great importance to candidates of moderate means, whose expenditure at elections would be considerably increased by the arrangement proposed in the Bill. But he supposed the right hon. Gentleman had an election agent who looked after his political interests, and thus he did not trouble himself about details. His (Mr. Biggar's) own experience, however, was that when a person became a candidate, and did not want to spend much money, he wrote out a list; in one case the candidate came and asked him to get people to vote for him, and what happened? When he set to work to ask the people for their votes, he found those he wanted scattered over all parts of the borough, and it was very difficult to get at them; but having got the list arranged according to streets, he found himself able to get through the list with the greatest ease and call on the electors one after the other in regular order. It seemed to him that not only was there a large extension of the franchise, but an extension of the difficulties in the way of candidates of moderate means in the form of expenses which only persons of large means could afford. The matter would not, on the whole, be felt so much in Ireland, because candidates of the Party to which he belonged would for the most part be returned without opposition; but where there was a contest the expenses would press very heavily on candidates of moderate means, because the number of electors being greatly increased, there must be a corresponding increase in all mechanical work connected with candidatures.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had promised to look very carefully into this matter before the Report, and he therefore trusted hon. Gentlemen would save the time of the Committee by agreeing to the withdrawal of the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he should like to call attention to the reason for moving the first of the Amendments next standing in his name. The Committee would see that the Government were in error as to the provision contained in Subsection (c) of Clause 13 of the Schedule, which was that the overseer should state the nature of lodger qualifications in the manner prescribed. It was not the duty of the overseers, but of the Clerks of the Peace to do this, and therefore he proposed to omit the sub-section in question.

Amendment proposed, in page 19, lines 14 to 17, leave out Sub-section (c).— {Mr. Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to; words left out accordingly.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the same remarks as he had made on the Amendment just agreed to applied to the Amendment he was about to move. Clause 14 instructed the overseer as to the description he was to give of the property or source from which tithe rent charges and other rent charges issued, which constituted a voting qualification. In the same way, as with the lodger qualification, the overseer had nothing to do with this; it was not within his duty; and he therefore proposed to omit the instruction.

Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 24, leave out from "tenant" to the second "and" in line 31.—{Mr. Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to; words left out accordingly.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he had an Amendment which he had intended to propose at paragraph 31, page 24, of the Bill, the object of which was to enable people to obtain the lists of persons disqualified. It having been pointed out to him, however, that page 24 would not be the proper place at which to introduce the Amendment, inasmuch as no point as to date was involved, and that his proposal was not in the nature of a precept, but of an amendment of the law, he would not move it now, but bring it forward on the Report.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

I think it should be done.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 25, lines 37 and 38, leave out "lists of occupation voters," and insert "occupiers and old lodgers lists;" in page 27, line 2, after "August," insert "next;" and in page 30, line 17, leave out "on the 6th of December, 1884," and insert "in the register in force in the year 1884."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there was often an unnecessary amount of expenditure for printing bills, and the next Amendment which he had to propose was for the purpose of saving the cost of printing in the present ease. The words he proposed to leave out were already in the form, and it would, therefore, be quite unnecessary to retain them here.

Amendment proposed, In page 30, lines 20 to 23, leave out "or division of the county of or as the case may be."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to; words left out accordingly.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:— In page 31, after line 9, insert "overseers must insert in the foregoing list the name of the Parliamentary division in which their parish is situate.

Amendment proposed, in page 33, line 20, add:—"Note.—In this form copy particulars from Register of Voters."—{Mr. Tomlinson.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Preston a very good one, and he was prepared to agree to it with a slight alteration of wording.

Amendment amended, and agreed to.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he wished to draw attention to page 33, lines 25 and 26; surely the words should be "in July last?" Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would take note of it?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, his Amendment on the Paper was at page 34, line 5, in the margin, to insert— This form must be omitted in 1885 if the paragraphs of the precept referring to it are not sent. The Local Government Board had issued the form to the overseers this year too late for it to be acted upon.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he wished to move an Amendment in page 35, line 9, after "premises," to insert "wholly or partly." He thought that payment of the poor rate should apply to the whole of the property, and not to a part of it. He thought a difficulty might arise in this case unless his Amendment were agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 9, after "premises," insert "wholly or partly."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he quite saw what was in the hon. Gentleman's mind; but he would point out that for voting purposes, with which alone they were dealing, they required that the premises should be wholly in the possession of a person; for instance, supposing 10 or 12 cottages belonged to a person, they must be wholly in his possession.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he would withdraw the Amendment, and see if he could not, at a later stage, bring it up in a better form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he wished with the Amendment he was now going to move, and with the next Amendment on the Paper, to alter the margin from the right to the left hand side.

Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 33, insert at left hand side of column, "Margin for Objections by Overseers."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had been very anxious about the particular drafting of these forms; but it did not appear very important whether this were put in the right hand column or the left hand column. However, if there was an advantage one way over another, it would be in having the form drawn as it was in the Bill, for the reason that it was in accordance with the old form, to which the overseers were accustomed. To change it now would be to place unnecessary difficulty in the way of the overseers.

MR. H. G. ALLEN

thought it would be very convenient to have the form in the way the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) proposed, because the name of the voter was always on the left hand of the description, and it was a great saving of trouble to have the objection entered close to the name. The Attorney General was quite mistaken in supposing the overseers' objections to be usually on the right side.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he would urge upon the hon. and learned Gentleman the desirability of accepting the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the Committee would agree with him that it was desirable to give the overseers as little trouble as possible during the present year, seeing the vast amount of work they would have to do. He would rather, if he could, adhere to the old form, with which the overseers were familiar.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, in that case, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, his next Amendment was to strike out the words "Cottage in," in line 15, these words being mere surplusage.

Amendment proposed, in page 36, line 15, leave out "Cottage in."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that if the hon. Member opposite looked carefully at the matter, he would see how necessary it was that the words should be kept in. The object of the 4th clause was to distinguish the property qualification, and what they wanted to do was to show where a person was living. In this form, under the head of "descrip- tion of qualifying property" there was no street named, and there was nothing to guide them unless they adhered to such plan as this "Cottage in Lewes Road," or "Green Lane," or "Church Farm," or as the case might he. It was here necessary to have the words "Cottage in."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, his next Amendment was to insert in the form to which the Amendment referred, after "Brick Street," the word "Brighton." His object was to let people understand that they had to put in the whole address. He understood that in some cases letters got addressed without the name of the post town, so that they came back through the Dead Letter Office; if the post town name were put on there would be no fear of that.

Amendment proposed, in page 37, line 20, after "Brick Street," insert "Brighton."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that it would be inconvenient to adopt the Amendment, as it would necessitate a great deal of printing and altering in the Bill; they would have to reprint the word "Brighton," or similar words, some thousands of times.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he presumed the question had been considered since his Amendment had been put upon the Paper, so that it was not necessary for him to insist upon his proposal. He presumed, also, the propriety of inserting this word in other cases had also been considered, and that it would not be necessary for him to raise the point again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was anxious to move an Amendment in this Form, "the Occupiers List—No. 2, Lodgers," and hon. Members, if they would look carefully at the matter, would see that what he proposed was necessary; it had been proposed to him by a gentleman intimately connected with these matters. They had in the 5th column, under the head "Name and Address of Landlord or other Person to whom Rent is paid," the name "William Johnson, High Street." William Johnson would have a different residence from the place where the lodger lived under the form as it stood; and he would, therefore, alter the words "High Street," to the words "51, Brick Street," which came in the 3rd column under the heading "Street, Lane, or other Place, and Number (if any) of House in which Lodgings situate." The Amendment would show that the landlord was living in the same place as the lodger; because the lodger franchise was given to persons living in the same place as the landlord.

Amendment proposed, In page 37, line 20, leave out "High Street," and insert"51, Brick Street."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Question, "That the words 'High Street' stand part of the Schedule, "put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words '51, Brick Street' be there inserted, "put, and agreed to.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he wished to move an Amendment in line 32, in order to prevent a difficulty arising as to persons not knowing what they signed. It often happened that people signed forms without knowing what they were doing. There were two distinct things to be done. In the first place, the claimant's signature had to be witnessed, and there was then the necessity of having someone to testify to the person who was put on the Register being a proper person to be so put on. He was told that a practical difficulty did arise on this matter, and that was why he brought forward the proposal. If the addition he suggested was accepted, he thought the difficulty would be got rid of. He proposed, in line 32, to leave out "at the date," to "correct" in line 33, a consequential Amendment being to insert in line 37— Declaration of correctness of Claim. I am acquainted with A. B. of I have read his claim, and believe it to be correct. My means of knowledge are derived from my being (landlord, brother, &c.) of the Claimant. E. F. (State residence and calling of deponent.) Witness G. H. (State residence and calling of witness).

Amendment proposed, In page 37, line 32, to leave out from "at the date," to "correct," in line 33.—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that the Form in the Bill was the old one to which the overseers were accustomed. It had been found to work very well, and he did not see any necessity for changing it.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, that if it was difficult for a man to define his place of lodging it showed that he was not a proper man to sign the deposition. If a man came forward and said that he was entitled to be on the Register, he should be able to explain where his cottage was. The subject had been brought under his (Mr. Tomlinson's) notice not now for the first time. It had often been mentioned to him that there was great ambiguity in the matter of this form, and that it frequently led to grave mistakes. He thought the sense of the Committee was in favour of his clause.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

asked whether the two signatures were obliged to take place on the same day?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

No.

Question put, and agreed to.