Commons Sitting of 3 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edderton, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS, INCLUDING TELEPHONES.
  Account presented, showing the gross amount received and expended on account of the Telegraph Service during the year ended 31st March, 1906, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 369.]
  TREATY SERIES (No. 18, 1906).
  Copy presented, of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Belgium respecting Commercial Travellers' Samples. Signed at Brussels, 10th November, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3734 to 3736 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Further Correspondence relating to Native Disturbances in Natal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Board of Education for the year 1904–5 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLcalled attention to the fact that a notice of Motion in the name of Sir James Woodhouse, who was no longer a member of the House, stood upon the Notice Paper. He asked the Speaker to direct that it be expunged.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that the officials of the House had anticipated the hon. Member, and the notice did not appear in the Order Paper to-day.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It was on the Paper that I saw.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have the order book in my hand, and it certainly does not appear there.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Pay of Dockyard Workers.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in reference to the statement just issued by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, whether he can fix a date when an answer may be expected to the following requests which are stated therein to be still under consideration, viz., that smaller deductions may be made from the pay of hired men when placed on the establishment, and that overtime pay may not be subject to deduction, and that the wages of all chargemen of the principal trades at Chatham and Sheerness shall be assimilated and a definite scale of pay instituted.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I am not at present in a position to say when the decision will be announced in regard to the question of the deduction made from the pay of hired men when transferred to the establishment. As regards the other two points mentioned in the Question, instructions will be issued to the yards at an early date.

  Salary of F. M'Govern, Postman at Curlough.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Postmaster - General whether he has received a Resolution from representatives of the people in Curlough, county Cavan, asking that Francis M'Govern, postman on the Bawnboy to Curlough, walk, do have his salary increased; and will the matter have his sympathetic consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have not yet seen this application, but I can assure the hon. Member that it shall receive careful consideration.

  Damage to Postmen's Capes at Cheltenham.
  MR. SEARS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that at Cheltenham postmen are forbidden to hang clothing upon the hooks in the retiring room apparently provided for that purpose; whether he is aware that, in consequence of this order, the men are obliged to put their capes,

  541
  etc., in their lockers, and that in five cases damage to the capes has resulted, and the men concerned have been fined 2s. each; and whether, in the circumstances, he will order the repayment of this money.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will inquire into this matter and communicate with the hon. Member.

  Vacancies for Telephone Exchange Managers.
  MR. WILES: To ask the Postmaster-General when the vacancies for telephone exchange managers announced in the Post Office Circular, No. 729, on the 21st August, will be filled; whether he can state the number of vacancies which exist; and whether the appointments will be announced in the Post Office Circular.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The selection of officers for the situations in question, five in number, is under consideration, and I hope to be able to arrive at a decision in the matter very shortly. Appointments of this nature are not announced in the Post Office Circular.

  Portadown Post Office Staff.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster - General whether a revision of the staff of the post office in Portadown is contemplated; if so, how long has the question been under consideration and can he state the approximate date upon which a decision in the case is likely to be arrived at; whether under such a revision a considerable increase to the indoor staff is intended, and, if so, what is the probable number; whether it is proposed that the present staff shall be obliged to continue for a further considerable period to perform the duties which in course of time will be distributed over an increased staff; and is he aware that some members of the present staff are and have been for some time past discharging the duties incident to the position of supervisors but without official recognition.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Proposals for a revision of the indoor staff at Portadown post office were submitted in February last. The revision provides for a small increase to the indoor staff, and will, I hope, be sanc-
  542
  tioned shortly. Temporary force has been provided to cope with the increased work pending the carrying out of the revision. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's Question I will have inquiry made.

  Withdrawal of Cavalry from Scotland.
  MR. MCCRAE: To ask the Secretary of state for War whether, having regard to the feeling existing in Scotland as to the proposed withdrawal of cavalry from Piershill Barracks, he can make any statement as to the policy of the War Office with regard to the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am well aware of the feeling alluded to, but I am not at present in a position to make any announcement as regards the future of these barracks further than I have already done in this House and in a letter I have addressed to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh in response to a communication from him.

  Allowance to Sheriffs.
  MR. TILLETT,: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a petition presented by the sheriffs of certain citiesand towns being counties of themselves, praying that similar allowances may be made to them as are made to sheriffs of counties at large for, amongst other matters, advertising assizes, the attendance of the sheriff and under-sheriff upon His Majesty's judges of assize, the use of the sheriff's carriage for His Majesty's judges, the impanelling and summoning of jurors, refreshments, board and lodging of jurors when ordered to be detained, and for the fee paid to a common hangman for carrying out a sentence of death; and whether, seeing that in the case of counties, of cities, and towns, the whole of such expenses fall upon the sheriffs themselves, save in two or three cities and towns where by ancient custom allowances for certain of the above expenses are payable out of the boroughs' funds, he will say what steps he is prepared to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Banner-man.) Long-established practice is the reason for making grants in these cases to sheriffs of counties who are appointed

  543
  by the Crown, and for not making them to sheriffs of cities and towns who are appointed by the corporations, and I do not think that there is anything in the circumstances of the present time to call for a departure from that practice.

  Strength of Militia Battalion.
  MR. FIENNES: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the full strength of a Militia battalion, and what

  Names of Battalions below 500 Officers and Men.

  Strength of the Permanent Staffs detailed for service with each.

  Strength on 1st November, 1906.

  Officers.

  Militiamen.

  3rd Battalion Royal West Surrey Regiment

  30

  21

  465

  3rd Battalion Royal Lancaster Regiment

  30

  12

  451

  4th Battalion Royal Lancaster Regiment

  30

  14

  403

  3rd Battalion Lincolnshire Regiment

  24

  15

  379

  4th Battalion Lincolnshire Regiment

  24

  11

  479

  3rd Battalion Devonshire Regiment

  24

  16

  409

  4th Battalion Devonshire Regiment

  24

  16

  357

  3rd Battalion Somersetshire Light Infantry

  24

  14

  242

  4th Battalion Somersetshire Light Infantry

  30

  17

  338

  3rd Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers

  30

  11

  421

  3rd Battalion Cheshire Regiment

  30

  13

  469

  3rd Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  24

  14

  347

  4th Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  24

  13

  417

  4th Battalion South Wales Borderers

  24

  10

  388

  3rd Battalion King's Own Scottish Borderers

  30

  17

  469

  3rd Battalion Scottish Rifles

  36

  9

  418

  3rd Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers

  24

  15

  250

  4th Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers

  24

  12

  366

  5th Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers

  24

  15

  414

  3rd Battalion Gloucestershire Regiment

  30

  15

  404

  4th Battalion Gloucestershire Regiment

  24

  15

  475

  is the strength of the permanent staff detailed thereto; the number and names of the battalions below 500 officers and men; and the strength of the permanent staffs detailed for service with each.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Return showing the number and names of the Militia battalions below 500 officers and men, and the strength of the permanent staffs detailed for service with each. Dated 1st November, 1906.

  Names of Battalions below 500 Officers and Men.

  Strength of the Permanent Staff detailed for service with each.

  Strength on 1st November, 1906.

  Officers.

  Militiamen.

  6th Battalion Worcestershire Regiment

  30

  13

  476

  3rd Battalion Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry

  24

  13

  205

  3rd Battalion Border Regiment

  24

  8

  432

  4th Battalion Border Regiment

  24

  10

  209

  3rd Battalion Royal Sussex Regiment

  30

  19

  361

  3rd Battalion Dorsetshire Regiment

  24

  14

  311

  4th Battalion Oxfordshire Regiment

  24

  14

  286

  3rd Battalion Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Regiment

  30

  11

  414

  3rd Battalion Northamptonshire Regiment

  30

  16

  474

  3rd Battalion Royal Berkshire Regiment

  24

  12

  339

  3rd Battalion Shropshire Light Infantry

  30

  9

  407

  4th Battalion Shropshire Light Infantry

  24

  8

  293

  5th Battalion King's Royal Rifle Corps

  17

  8

  380

  8th Battalion King's Royal Rifle Corps

  17

  5

  346

  3rd Battalion Wiltshire Regiment

  24

  15

  403

  3rd Battalion Royal Irish Fusiliers

  30

  12

  473

  4th Battalion Royal Irish Fusiliers

  20

  10

  248

  5th Battalion Royal Irish Fusiliers

  20

  11

  244

  3rd Battalion Connaught Rangers

  20

  8

  392

  4th Battalion Connaught Rangers

  24

  7

  292

  3rd Battalion Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  25

  10

  415

  3rd Battalion Leinster Regiment

  24

  10

  433

  4th Battalion Royal Munster Fusiliers

  27

  17

  377

  3rd Battalion Royal Dublin Fusiliers

  24

  11

  462

  6th Battalion Rifle Brigade

  30

  16

  439

  Civil Service Rules of Seniority.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the rule of seniority among clerks of the higher grade of the second division of the Civil Service; does it depend on the service and standing of the clerk in the higher grade, as in a distinct class, or on the total length of service in the second division, irrespective of the date of promotion into the higher grade.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) No rule on the specific question has been promulgated, and, in view of the fact that promotions depend on merit and not on seniority, the Treasury thinks it unnecessary and undesirable to make any rule on the subject.

  Employment of Natives in Higher Branches of Indian Civil Service.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India when the Report of the Committee on the extended employment of natives of India in the higher branches of the public service may be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I understand my hon. friend to refer to the Committee of the Governor General's Council appointed to consider reforms in the Indian Councils, and I believe that its Report will shortly be considered by the Government of India.

  Purchase of the Estate of Purefoy Poe, of Callan, County Kilkenny.
  MR. MEAGHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will inquire of the Estates Commissioners if negotiations for the purchase of the Rossmore estate of Purefoy Poe, Esquire, Harley-park, Callan, county Kilkenny, have been completed; if so, has the untenanted land on this estate been included in the purchase; that provision, if any, has been made to restore to their holdings on this estate the representatives of the evicted tenants John Whelan, junior, and John Whelan senior; and if, in the event of the sale of the untenanted lands, due consideration will be given to the enlargement of uneconomic holdings thereon, and the balance, if any, kept in reserve for the restoration to
  548
  holdings of bona fide evicted tenants, many of whom reside in this district.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that eleven purchase agreements signed by tenants on the estate in question were lodged with them in January last. The lands comprised in the originating application include 147 acres, which appear to be an evicted holding, and which the vendor asks the Commissioners to purchase for distribution by them, and 873 acres consisting of the vendor's demesne, which he proposes to repurchase. No applications for reinstatement have been received from John Whelan, senior, or John Whelan, junior. An application has been received from John Phelan, and this has been referred to an inspector for inquiry and report. The question of the purchase and re-sale of the vendor's demesne and of the untenanted land generally will receive due consideration from the Commissioners when they come to deal with the estate.

  Police as Caretakers of an Evicted Farm at Stoneyford.
  MR. MEAGHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland by whose orders the police at Stoneyford, county Kilkenny, are acting as caretakers of an evicted farm on the Glauntha estate of the Rev. Mr. Prichard, from which Mr. Richard Reddy was evicted; whether extra police have been. added to the station at Stoneyford for that purpose; whether he is aware that cattle supposed to belong to the owner or occupier of the said farm did damage by trespassing on the corn crop of a neighbouring farmer, named Lee; that, for the purpose of recovering compensation for this damage, Lee demanded the name of the occupier from the police, and was refused; and whether he will order that Lee and others who may suffer from such trespass as in this case will be allowed an opportunity of recovering damages.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Inspector-General that the police do not act as caretakers of the farm referred to, though they frequently patrol near it for the preservation of the peace. No extra police have been

  549
  sent to Stoneyford station for any purpose. In June last Mr. Lee reported to the local police that some cattle had trespassed on his cornfield, and asked the police for the name of the owner. The sergeant informed Mr. Lee that he should make his complaint to the owner's herd, adding that the police did not interfere in disputes as to trespass. The Inspector-General informs me that the sergeant's action was proper, as it is not the duty of the police to supply persons with material for civil proceedings. If such proceedings were instituted upon information furnished by the police, they might become involved in matters which do not concern them.

  Issue of Loan for Building New Schools at Ferns County Wexford.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant: of Ireland when the loans for the building of the proposed new schools in the parish of Ferns, county Wexford, will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they cannot yet name the precise date when the grants, not loans, for the building of these schools will be issued. The question of the floor-space per pupil to be allowed in the designs for new schoolhouses is now under consideration, and as soon as a decision upon that point is arrived at, which I trust will be very shortly, it may be expected that the issue of building grants can proceed forthwith.

  Sale of Grazing Farms on the Gore-Booth Estate.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the grazing farms of Cletty and Ardrea, on the Gore-Booth, Ballymote, County Sligo, estate, comprising 135 and 354 acres respectively, were offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners, in March, 1905, by Sir Joselyn Gore-Booth, with the consent of the occupying tenant of one of these farms, Mr. Robert Gorman; and, if so, will he explain the cause of delay in completing purchase negotiations.
  550
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that last week they made an offer to Sir Joselyn Gore-Booth for the purchase of the lands of Cletty, which are in his own occupation, and also for the lands of Ardrea and Cloonagashel, which are at present in the occupation of Robert Gorman. The owner has not yet informed the Commissioners whether he is prepared to accept their offer.

  Sale of Tulinaglug Estate, County Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Tulinaglug, situate near Tubbercurry, County Sligo, and until recently owned jointly by Messrs. Phibbs and Cogan, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board by the present owners, Messrs. Martin Phibbs and Bernard Martin, or whether any portion of this estate, which is in Chancery, has been offered for sale to either of these departments recently.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Answer to both branches of this Question is in the negative.

  Puchase of the Begley Estate, Claremorris.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Begley estate, comprising the townlands of Iskerlavally and Drimneen, in the electoral division of Claremorris, union of Claremorris, has been offered for sale by the landlord to the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, what price has he asked, and what number of years purchase, if any, has been offered by the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that the property in question has not been offered for sale to the Board.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants—Case of Joseph Coote, of Carne, County Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application

  551
  for reinstatement from Joseph Coote, who was evicted in December, 1893, from his farm in Carne, Ballyjamesduff, County Cavan, by Lord Farnham; who is in possession of this farm now; and what prospect has this evicted tenant of being restored.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received from Joseph Coote an application for reinstatement, and have referred it to an inspector for inquiry. Until the Commissioners have received and considered the inspector's report they are unable to answer the remainder of the Question.

  Extension of Arklow Pier.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Government will allow the work of extending Arklow Pier to commence.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In reply to the hon. Baronet's Question of the 5th November,† I fully stated the position of affairs in respect of Arklow Harbour. The expert advisers of the Government are unanimously of opinion that the proposed extension of the pier would not effect the desired object, and might involve a lamentable waste of public money. They are further of opinion that the requirements of the case would be met by a continued dredging of the entrance to the harbour, and, moreover, that the necessity for dredging would not be diminished by the proposed extension of the pier. These views have been commended by the Government to the earnest consideration of the Arklow Harbour Board. It is not the intention of the Government to withhold the grant which has been promised for the improvement of the harbour, but it is obviously their duty to secure, so for as may be possible, that the grant to be made from public funds should be expended in such a way as to give the best results. All the £14,000 allotted will be spent upon the harbour; the only question is as to what mode of spending it will really benefit the town, the industrial development of which
  † See (4) Debates, clxiv, 93–94.
  552
  largely depends upon the harbour; and, in face of the strong opinion of their expert advisers, the Government must satisfy themselves, and, if possible, also satisfy local opinion, as to what that mode is.

  Grants to Fishermen on South-East Coast of Ireland.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will permit some portion of the money now utilised and lying to the credit of the Department of Agriculture, to be devoted to the assistance of the fishermen on the South-East Coast of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the purposes to which the unallocated balance of the endowment fund of the Department of Agriculture may be applied have received the consideration of the Agricultural Board, and it has been decided that this balance, amounting to about £130,000. is required to meet the present excess of annual expenditure over normal income for the purposes of agriculture and other rural industries, and sea fisheries, as defined in Section 30 of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act of 1899. The Department point out that they have expended and are expending considerable sums of money on the improvement of fishery piers and harbours in connection with the South-East Coast fisheries, namely, at Arklow, in County Wicklow, at Courtown, Poulduff, and Slade, in County Wexford, and at Passage East, Dromore, Ballinagoul, and Ardmore, in County Waterford. The Department are not prepared, in the present state of their funds, to undertake further expenditure of this nature.

  Sale of Lord Orkney's Estate—Tenants Grazing and Turf Privileges.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lard-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that application has been made to Lord Orkney, who has sold his estate to the tenants at Castle My, County Tipperary, for the purchase of a large cottage, with two acres of untenanted land on the estate, to be used as a school teacher's residence and a village hall,

  553
  formerly used by his gamekeeper; whether he is aware that Lord Orkney has given it to his bailiff, James Hynes, who holds 100 acres of land on this estate and 40 acres on others, and also has made him and his brother, Andrew Hynes, tenants of large portions of cutaway bog and thus deprived the small tenants of grazing and turf privileges which they have enjoyed for over fifty years; and whether, under these circumstances, the Estates Commissioners will sanction the sale of the estate without inquiring into this matter and inspecting the small holdings, and, if possible, seeing that the cottage be obtained for the above useful project.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of the circumstances alleged in the; Question. Purchase agreements signed by James Hynes and Andrew Hynes in respect of holdings on the estate of the Karl of Orkney were lodged with the Commissioners in July last, and the circumstances connected with the purchase of these holdings will be duly inquired into when the estate is being inspected.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants—Case of William Maher, of Thurles.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what steps the Estates Commissioners have taken to reinstate William Maher, of Ballycahill, Thurles, county Tipperary, in his holding, evicted tenant on the property of Dr. Lambe Atthall; whether an inspector of the Estates Commissioners has yet made any inspection of it; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estate Commissioners inform me that they have not received an application for reinstatement from William Maher, and have, therefore, taken no steps in the matter.

  Application of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will make arrangements with the Department of Agri-
  554
  culture, with a view to the more effective application of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, whereby their veterinary inspectors, stationed in the country, will receive notice of any reported cases of disease within their districts direct from the police, and whereby, in reported cases of swine fever where their inspector is satisfied that the disease exists, the Department will authorise them to proceed forthwith with the slaughter of the animals affected, and thus obviate the delays consequent upon the present system.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The veterinary inspectors of the Department of Agriculture are in charge of large districts, and are frequently absent from home on duty. If notifications of disease were sent direct to their private addresses by the police there might be considerable delay in such communications reaching them. Under the existing system, notifications of disease are sent by the Department, with the necessary instructions, to the inspectors wherever they may happen to be, and this system has been found, after many years' experience, to be the most advantageous from the standpoint of the effective working of the Diseases of Animals Acts generally. As regards the slaughter of swine for swine fever, that is quite a discretionary matter under the Acts, and it has been considered better that the Department should reserve to itself the power, in the individual cases, of directing whether slaughter shall be carried out rather than to issue a general authorisation on the subject to the district veterinary inspectors.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants on Mr. W. Nelegan's Estate, County Cork.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several tenants on the estate of Mr. Walter Nelegan, near Blarney, County Cork, have been paying interest to the Land Commissioners at the rate of 4 per cent., and that others on the same estate are still paving rent, as they have refused to sign for purchase until the tenant who has been evicted has been reinstated; whether he is aware that it has been held out as an inducement to

  555
  the tenants to advance the price offered for the land from twenty years to twenty-one and a half years that the evicted tenant will be reinstated; and, seeing that the present occupier of the evicted farm is attempting to add a large sum to the purchase money in lieu of arrears whether an inspector will be sent to inquire into all the circumstances of the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that, according to the purchase agreements lodged in this case, the purchasing tenants have agreed to pay interest in lieu of rent at the rate of 4 per cent. on the purchase money pending the completion of the sale. The Commissioners are not aware of the terms offered to the tenants who have not signed purchase agreements or of the circumstances under which they have refused to purchase, but this matter will be duly inquired into when the estate is being inspected. An application for reinstatement on the estate has been received from an evicted tenant whose former holding is stated to be in the occupation of another tenant. This application, with others of a similar nature, has been referred to an inspector for inquiry.

  South African Compaign of 1881.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is among the survivors of the troops who fought in the South African campaign of 1881, many of whom were severely wounded and invalided, soreness of feeling that they have had no form of recognition, even qualified, of their service, although many men who have received medals for the late war were engaged in operations, temporarily unsuccessful, like the operations of 1881; and whether he will reconsider this matter with a view either of giving to these survivors of the operations of 1881 some modified kind of recognition of their services, or, if that cannot be done, at any rate some recognition of some kind to those who were wounded or otherwise disabled in those operations.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane) This proposal to give medals for the
  556
  campaign of 1881 has several times been considered and negatived, and I see no reason for altering the decision arrived at. Men disabled or wounded in this campaign have received the same treatment as regards pension as those similarly suffering from the results of other campaigns.

  Foreign Office Examinations.
  SIR C. HILL: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which has been caused in geographical circles as shown by the communication of the President of the Royal Geographical Society, he will reconsider the decision to omit geography from amongst the subjects for the diplomatic and Foreign Office examinations.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The assimilation of the Foreign Office and diplomatic examinations with the examination for the Home and Indian Civil Services was agreed to after careful consultation with the Civil Service Commissioners, the object being, as I have already stated, to attract men of university education. Geography is not one of the subjects in which candidates for the Home and Indian Civil Services are examined, and as a knowledge of this subject is very soon acquired in the Foreign Office it was not considered necessary to add it to the list of subjects for examination. Experience will show if a modification of the new regulations is desirable; but I do not propose to make any further change in the Foreign Office and diplomatic examinations unless it is made in the Civil Service examinations generally.

  Macedonian Finance.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the fact that the finances of Macedonia have been administered, under agreement with the Powers, through the Imperial Ottoman Bank since March 1905, he will request the British financial adviser on the Reform Commission in Macedonia to endeavour to obtain financial statements showing the revenue and expenditure under the different headings for the Macedonian provinces since March

  557
  1905, and any further information which it may be possible to obtain to illustrate the financial position in Macedonia during periods convenient for comparison.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The British Delegate on the Financial Commission for the three Roumelian vilayets will be requested to furnish whatever information on the subject is available.
  MR. LYNCH: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed that the sums hitherto derived under Article XII. of the agreement between the Porte and the Imperial Ottoman Bank, or from other sources, and employed to defray the deficit in the Macedonian Budget, shall continue to be so employed, or, it not, to what extent; and whether the additional Customs duties, together with the further amount of £250,000 a year to be provided by the Council of the public debt, will be supplemental to the above sums or in substitution for them.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) As I have already stated, the Forte Has been unable to meet its obligations under the Article referred to out of existing revenues, and the deficits have been made good mostly out of loans. When the resources mentioned in the last paragraph of the Question become available, the Porte will clearly be relieved of the necessity of raising temporary loans for the current Macedonian expenditure.

  King's Plates for Irish Races.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether any, and, if so, how much, public money is paid in respect of racing in Ireland; through whom and on whose advice is this money disbursed; whether he can state the names of the racecourses subsidised and the amounts paid in each case; and whether any representative or elected body in Ireland is consulted on the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The I sum of £1,563 is provided annually for
  558
  King's plates to be run for in Ireland, under the Vote for Miscellaneous Expenses, Class VII, 2. The provision was transferred from the Civil List to Votes in 1831. The conditions on which the plates are competed for are determined by the Master of the Horse on the! recommendation of the Lord-Lieutenant, for Ireland. The payments are made to the winners of the plates on joint application to the Irish Government by the clerk of the course and the lieutenant of the county. The present distribution dates from 1900, when the valuation of the plates was altered and the number reduced to eight, the total amount remaining as before, viz;—

  £

  s.

  d.

  The Curragh

  315

  0

  0

  The Curragh

  315

  0

  0

  The Curragh

  210

  0

  0

  The Curragh

  210

  0

  0

  County Down

  197

  6

  2

  Bellewstown

  105

  0

  0

  Cork Park

  105

  0

  0

  County Galway

  105

  0

  0

  £1,562

  6

  2

  Irish Drainage Board.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will state the names of the different drainage boards in Ireland, saying when, and how they were constituted, and whence they derive their powers.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I understand that there are 121 drainage districts constituted under the Act 5 and 6 Vic, c. 89, and amending Acts, and 63 districts constituted under the Act 20 and 27 Vic, c. 88. To give their names and dates would exceed the limits of an Answer to a Question; but the honourable Member will find them, as regards the first class, in the Report of the Commissioners of Public Works for 1863–4; and, as regards the second, in their Report for 1904–5.

  Cocoa and Chocolate Contract for the Navv.
  MR. GIBBS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any of the cocoa and chocolate supplied to the Navy is bought in Bristol.

  559
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Answer is in the negative; but Bristol firms have the opportunity of tendering if they wish to do so.

  Income Tax Excess Payments.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that repayment claims for return of overpaid income-tax are dealt with by the unestablished clerks in the offices of the surveyors of taxes, and that when a surveyor of taxes is on leave all details of income-tax, including special assessments, are accessible to an unestablished clerk as his deputy; and whether, seeing that within the past five years clerks in surveyors' offices have been convicted of fraud in connection with repayment claims, and that business men object to confidential details as to their business and income being in the hands of clerks who are not Government officials but mere employees of the surveyors of taxes, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The routine work connected with most repayment claims is performed for surveyors by their clerks. But where the amount of an assessment under Schedule D. is in question the case is dealt with by the surveyor himself. In the seventy-nine most important districts the assistant surveyor is in charge during the absence of the surveyor. In forty-one of the remainder charge is taken by another surveyor of taxes having an office in the same building as the absent surveyor. In the remaining districts the surveyor of a neighbouring district takes charge. All special assessments and confidential papers are, by the instructions, to be kept under lock and key, and access to them should not be open to a clerk even in the absence of the surveyor. Only one instance of fraud by a clerk in a surveyor's office in connection with repayment claims has occurred within the last five years, and that did not touch assessments under Schedule D. Surveyors' clerks are required to make a declaration of secrecy.

  Cong Canal.
  MR. FETHERSIONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what amount of public money was spent in the construction of the canal at Cong, county May:, intended to join Loughs Mask and Corrib; is this canal, from absence of water, at present entirely useless; has the Canal Commission invited evidence as to this canal and its utility to Ballinrobe and the district abutting on Lough Mask if it were put in order; and, if not, will he direct the attention of the Commission to the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Board of Works that they have not the materials for stating the amount spent on the canal at Cong, because this canal formed part of a larger scheme which was only partially carried out, and the records available do not distinguish the amount spent on this part of the works from that which was spent on other parts. The scheme provided for both drainage and navigation. The expenditure on the navigation works of that part of the scheme which included the Cong Canal was £10,583, and the Government bore the whole of this charge. The canal was left unfinished. It is useless for navigation owing to the absence of water, which absence of water is due to the fact that the canal was made through limestone which turned out to be fissured. I understand that the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways, besides inviting evidence by notices in the newspapers, also invited evidence directly through the County Council of Galway and the town of Galway, and heard Professor Town-send, the engineer and secretary of the Lough Corrib Navigation, and also Mr. Perry, county surveyor of Galway. I am informed by the secretary of the Commission that if any persons interested in this particular canal still desire to give evidence on the subjects they should address themselves to the Commission, when their applications will be fully considered.

  Ballinagore Police Barracks.
  MR. SULLIVAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the

  561
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the police barrack at Ballinagore, county Westmeath, which was scheduled to be struck off the rolls as unnecessary three years ago, has been retained; whether he is aware that about one-third of the population are infirm and on the outdoor relief list; will he say how many policemen are now stationed there; what was the number of prosecutions for even minor offences for the last twenty years; will he compare the reports, private or otherwise, furnished before the barrack was scheduled to be struck off the rolls, with those made since; and whether, having regard to the small population of the district, he will consider the advisability of discontinuing a police force at Ballinagore, considering that the village is not three statute miles from Kilbeggan and about four miles from the following stations, which surround it in a circle: Castletown Geoghegan, Stoneyford, and Tyrrellspass.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The In specter-General informs me that it was decided two years ago to abolish the police station at Ballinagore, but, owing to the existence of certain disturbing elements in the locality, it was considered desirable to postpone the abolition for a time. Sixteen persons out of a population of 933 are in receipt of outdoor relief. Four policemen are stationed at Ballinagore, During the past twenty years 678 prosecutions for minor offences have taken place in the district. The question of abolishing the station at Balinagore is primarily one for the consideration of the police authorities, who are responsible for the proper policing of the district; and the Inspector General informs me that he will renew his proposal to abolish the station as soon as the state of the district warrants the adoption of that course.

  Irish Land Purchase Return.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to furnish a return substantially similar to those issued under the Purchase of Land Acts, 1885 to 1896, setting out the proceedings under the Act of 1903,
  562
  showing the names of vendors and purchasers, purchase price for each holding, number of years' purchase of each holding, percentage of reduction on rent in each case, amount of bonus paid to each vendor, and the total for each estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the monthly Returns presented to Parliament of advances made under the Irish Land, Act 1903, in which full particulars of every advance made to purchasers are set forth. The form of these Returns was arranged by the Irish Government, the Treasury, and the Land Commission, and it is substantially the same as the form of the Returns issued under the Purchase Act of 1891. The amount of the bonus which may be paid in respect of the purchase money of an estate is not included in these Returns, because the question of the amount of the bonus is not determined by the Judicial Com-missioner or the Land Judge until after the distribution of the purchase money.

  Letterkenny Railway.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received any complaints with regard to the treatment of passengers on the Letterkenny Railway on the Kith instant, and in particular as to delays, overcrowding, and failure to provide light in the carriages; and, if so, whether the Irish Government or the Board of Works will take steps to prevent a recurrence of the matters complained of.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I learn that the Board of Works received information that delays to passenger trains were caused on the Kith ultimo by the derailment of a carriage at Cashelnagore which blocked the Burton-port line, and that a local train which was despatched from Letterkenny to Londonderry at 7.52 p.m. in place of one of the blocked trains was unprovided with lights. The Board immediately brought the circumstances to the notice of the company, and asked for an explanation. I understand that correspondence is still proceeding.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Jam for the Navy.
  MR. BOWEEMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the jam which has recently had to be rejected was made up in solderless tins; whether he is aware that three carpenters have recently been employed constantly in the victualling yard at Deptford repacking tins in new cases owing to their leakage; and whether it is intended to permit the continued use of solderless tins for jams and other forms of preserved food.
  Notice had also been given of the following Question:
  MR. BOWEEMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state the name of the contractor who supplied 269,000 lbs. of jam which were rejected in August last; whether any further quantities, and, if so, how much, have since had to be rejected; and whether the contracting firms supplying the jams are still on the Admiralty list.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIR ALTY (Mr. LAMBERT, Devonshire, South Molton): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the two Questions at the same time. The jam in question was not part of a new delivery, but gooseberry jam which had been a considerable time in store. Some tins of this jam were examined in July last and samples were then submitted to the Government Laboratory, and also to the Medical Officer of Health of the City of London. AH the reports show that the jam is in sound condition and fit for food. In consequence, however, of the recent reduction of the reserves it may be necessary to sell what is now surplus stock. There have been no recent rejections of contractors' deliveries. The firms who supplied this jam are still on the Admiralty list, and as no discredit whatever attaches to them the publication of their names is likely to create a false impression. As regards the second Question, the bulk of this jam was in solderless tins, but the doubt raised as to its condition was not due to any leakage, which is particularly rare in the case of solderless tins. From time to time jam has
  564
  had to be repacked at Deptford before shipment, but where this has been due to leakage the tins which have leaked have always been soldered tins. No reason is therefore seen for prohibiting the use of solderless tins in future supplies.

  Condiments for the Navy.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what quantities of mustard, pepper, flour, and oatmeal have been contracted for with private firms; whether he is aware that, during the past few years, the Government have discontinued the manufacture and preparation of mustard, pepper, flour, and oatmeal at Deptford; whether the steam cooperage is practically idle; and whether it is intended to return to the former practice of having these orders supplied from Government establishments.
  MR. LAMBERT; The quantities contracted for since the commencement of the current financial year are as follows— mustard, 40,000 lbs.; pepper, 30,000 lbs.; flour, 2,700,000 lbs.; oatmeal, 35,000 lbs. The manufacture of mustard and pepper in the victualling yards was discontinued in 1896–7, and that of flour and oatmeal in 1903–4. The steam cooperage was discontinued in 1898–9. Modern naval conditions having rendered possible the adoption of cheaper forms of packages, the use of the old service casks has been much reduced, and is altogether too small to enable a steam cooperage to be worked economically. There is no intention of reversing these decisions, as to do so would only mean extra expense.

  Chocolate for the Navy.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what contracts for the supply of chocolate to the Navy are now running, and with what firms; whether any quantities of chocolate supplied to the Naval Yard at Deptford have had to be returned as unfit for use; and whether it is intended in future to have the chocolate made in the Government chocolate mill at Deptford, which is only now employed about one-twelfth of its time or capacity.
  MR. LAMBERT: One contract for 200,000 lbs. of chocolate was placed this year, but it is not considered desirable to

  565
  state the name of the firm. A. considerable quantity (81,000 lbs.) has been rejected under the contract, the failure being attributed to the unusually hot weather which occurred this year while the manufacture was in progress, and which prevented the chocolate from cooling properly. There is no reason to doubt that the firm will be able to make satisfactory deliveries now that the cooler weather has set in. It is intended to continue, as at present, to manufacture the bulk of the chocolate for the Navy at Deptford Victualling Yard. The small quantity obtained annually from contractors is with the object of keeping the trade in touch with Admiralty requirements, so that in a time of emergency the Admiralty output could be supplemented without delay.
  MB. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): Is the statement in the last paragraph of the Question correct?
  MR. LAMBERT: It may be the case.

  Repairs to Turbine Machinery on Foreign Stations.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the result of the Admiralty's consideration as to the provision of artisans and machinery for carrying out repairs to turbines on foreign stations.
  MR. LAMBERT: Preparations are being made which will enable the foreign yards to deal with repairs to turbine machinery when the necessity arises.

  The Coastguard.
  MR. COCHRANE: On behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Croydon, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to abolish or reduce the coastguard.
  MR. LAMBERT: I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty to a Question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on 21st November.†
  MR. COCHRANE: Is this reduction part of the general naval policy of the
  † See (4) Debates, clxv., 813–4.
  566
  Government, and is it to be carried out step by step?
  MR. LAMBERT: The hon. Gentleman will find a full Answer in the replies of my right hon. friend.
  MAJOR SEELY: May I ask whether the Admiralty, in deciding this question, will bear in mind the large part played by the coastguard in life - saving at sea? Many of our lifeboat crews depend on them for notification of wrecks.
  MR. LAMBERT: I am sure any suggestion from my hon. friend will be carefully considered by the Admiralty.
  LORD BALCARRES: Have any orders connected with the reduction yet been issued?
  MR. LAMBERT: No, Sir.

  Special Reserve of the Navy.
  MR. BEAUCHAMP: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to place the battleships of the "Royal Sovereign" class in special reserve.
  MR. LAMBERT: I am not in a position at the present time to give any information, as the scheme for the re-arrangement of the ships in commission in reserve is still in process of development.

  Channel Fleet—Repairs.
  MR. BEAUCHAMP: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many ships belonging to the Channel Fleet wore awaiting repairs or undergoing refit on 15th November.
  MR. LAMBERT: There wore no ships of the Channel Fleet awaiting repairs at the dockyards on the 15th November; three were in hand undergoing repairs and refit, two of these being battleships and one a third class cruiser.

  H.M.S. "Dominion."
  MR. IDRIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the extent of the injuries to H.M.S. "Dominion," occasioned by her running aground in Canada; and how long it will take to repair her.
  MR. LAMBERT: The bottom of the "Dominion" was more or less damaged for a length of about '280 feet. She will be temporarily repaired at Bermuda, and upon her return to Chatham Yard in February next it is anticipated she may be in hand for three or four months to make good the damage, but this estimate depends on the further examination on arrival at Chatham Dockyard.
  MR. IDRIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether an inquiry has been held as to the cause of the running aground of the battleship "Dominion" in Canada; if no inquiry has been held, what is the reason; and is it intended to hold an inquiry.
  MR. LAMBERT: No inquiry has yet been held in the absence of a senior naval officer, which is due to the fact that the "Dominion" was employed at the time on detached service, and has since been detained at Bermuda for temporary repairs. An inquiry will be held when the ship arrives in England.

  Disturbance at Portsmouth.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state, concerning the three stokers lately sentenced to penal servitude, what were their ages on enlistment; when did each enlist: has each served afloat, and, if so, for how long; what serious entries were against each in the defaulter sheets before the trial; and in what class was each in regard to leave.
  MR. LAMBERT: Only one of the stokers tried by court-martial as a result of the recent disturbance at Portsmouth has been sentenced to penal servitude. This man, Edward Moody, entered the Navy in March, 1905, at the age of twenty-two. He served afloat for six months in the "Majestic." In July, 1905, he was sentenced to five days cells for leave breaking. In the same month he deserted and remained in a state of desertion for seven weeks. On being recovered he was sentenced to twenty-eight days hard labour, and two days after he had completed this sentence he received fourteen days cell punishment or breaking out. A month later he received a further fourteen days cells
  568
  for a similar offence. His character was "indifferent," and he was in the second class for leave.

  Publicity of Courts-Martial.
  MR. SWIFT MACXEILLasked whether in the trial of Lieutenant Collard by court-martial, the same facilities would be given for publication of the proceedings as were given on the trial of the stokers.
  MR. LAMBERTreplied that every court-martial was open to the public. Precisely the same facilities would be given whether the trial were held upon an officer or a man of the Navy.

  Chocolate Manufacture at Deptford.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that there is no practical and experienced confectioner in charge of the Chocolate Department at Deptford; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing some such person.
  MR. LAMBERT: As stated in the reply to a former Question by the hon. Member on the 26th November, t the manufacture of chocolate at Deptford is in charge of practical men. Trained confectioners are not required for this product which is not confectionery chocolate.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: But my Question is, is there a practical confectioner in charge of the Department?
  MR. LAMBERT: I have answered that. The work is done by practical men as I have said.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: No, Sir. I put this Question down on the invitation of the Secretary of the Admiralty, and I ought to have an Answer I think. The real fact is that the head of the Department is a resident engineer.

  Field Force Canteens, Profits in South Africa.
  COLONEL HERBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it was reported to the War Office in December 1902 that the
  † See (4) Debates, clxv., 1223–4.

  569
  profits realised by the field force canteens in South Africa amounted to £700,000; whether the Report of General Lyttelton showed that £140,589 had been expended for the benefit of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, and that the only balance credit consisted of stock valued at £103,528; whether any steps have been taken to fix the responsibility for a deficit of £400,000 which should have been available for distribution amongst those who dealt with the canteens; and whother any part of that apparent deficit has been applied to other purposes than such distribution, and by whose authority.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): As regards the five parts of this Question the Answers are as follows:—(1) No such report was made. The stock in hand of the field force canteens on September 30th, 1902, was at one time valued at the cost price of £722,800, and it is to this that the hon. Member presumably refers. No such figure represented profit. The value of this stock was subsequently found to be, from various causes, very much depreciated, and there were, of course, liabilities to be set against it. (2) Yes, £146,509 is reported to have been so expended. (3) Yes, in April, 1904, the balance credit of the canteens was reported to consist of stock of the nominal value of £103,528. (4) There is no doubt that the profits of the field force canteens were diminished, partly from unavoidable causes and partly from injudicious or bad management; but the hon. Member probably over-estimates the extent of the loss sustained. For losses due to what were considered avoidable causes the officer who held the post of managing director between August, 1901, and September, 1902, was censured and informed that he could not hope for further advancement in the service; he has since retired from the Army. (5) There is a mistake in the hon. Members figures which I have explained. As far as I am aware, all grants from the profits of the field force canteens have been made to the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the garrison; but I would here repeat what I said in answer to a previous Question on this subject— that these canteens are administered locally by the General Officer Command-
  570
  ing-in-Chief in South Africa, and the accounts audited by civil accountants appointed by him.
  COLONEL HERBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement at the beginning of my Question is taken from the evidence given by Mr. Brodrick before the War Stores Commission, and will he inform mo whether any part of the deficit was used in the payment of losses incurred by the management of farms or other similar undertakings in South Africa?
  MR. HALDANE: In answer to the first part of the question of my hon. and gallant friend, I can only say that a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since Mr. Brodrick gave evidence, and the matter has been investigated more completely and thoroughly than it was ever investigated before. It is a mistake to say that £700,000 was lost. As regards the last part of the Question, I cannot answer that on the spur of the moment, but, I will inquire if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes.
  COLONEL HERBERT: I will put down another Question.

  Service Pensions.
  COLONEL HERBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider, in consultation with the Admiralty and with the Treasury, the possibility of remedying the condition of things under which a man who has given over twenty-four years service to his country, partly in the Army and partly in the Navy or Marines, is held to be ineligible for pension; and whether he will consider the advisability of so amending the regulations, and the instructions given to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, as to preclude the recurrence of such a case.
  MR. HALDANE: Steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of the conditions which gave rise to these cases. The general question is not escaping attention.

  Piershill Barracks, Edinburgh.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps are to be taken to render Piershill

  571
  Barracks suitable for occupation by artillery, in view of the fact that they have been condemned as insanitary and unfit for occupation by cavalry.
  MR. HALDANE: Piershill Barracks are not, as they now stand, unsuitable for occupation by a small body of artillery. They were condemned as insanitary for a cavalry regiment on the ground of insufficiency of accommodation, defective structure, and the changed character of the surroundings. Money has already been spent in improving the drainage. A cavalry regiment has attached to it a larger number of officers and of women and children, as of men, than a brigade of artillery.
  MR. DALZIEL: In view of the great interest of this matter to Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his letter on this subject, published this morning, means that it is intended to continue to have cavalry in Scotland?
  MR. HALDANE: We have every intention to continue cavalry in Scotland. As the hon. Member knows, cavalry are moved from time to time. It is a delusion that any cavalry regiment, the Scots Greys or any other regiment, has headquarters in Scotland. A large number of the Scots Greys are recruited in England and Ireland. The whole question is whether we can have a cavalry regiment in Scotland, and it reduces itself to this: I am asked to put down in the Estimates a large sum of money, without regard to the necessary requirements of the Army generally, for this particular local purpose. Well, I decline to do it.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he did not mention the Scots Greys, nor did he ask about headquarters. He asked whether cavalry were to be kept in Scotland.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the hon. Gentleman could not have read his letter, in which he specifically said that it was their intention, as soon as public funds permitted, to have perhaps more cavalry in Scotland. The whole point was whether he was to be coerced into premature action.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether it was not desirable that the recruiting for a Scottish regiment should be confined as far as possible to Scotland.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that raised an entirely different question. He was not proposing to alter the present method of recruiting cavalry regiments. He would be glad to see the regiments associated with Scotland by tradition and sentiment recruited as far as possible in Scotland, but there was no intention of changing the system.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether paying deference to Scottish representations meant coercion.
  MR. HALDANE: No; but people come with local considerations and try to override considerations which affect the good of the Army in general, and in that sense local considerations are not the immediate considerations.
  MR. DALZIEL: Does that refer to Lord Rosebery?
  MR. COCHRAXEasked whether Piershill Barracks were so insanitary that it would be impossible with some slight alteration to provide room for cavalry temporarily.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he was in close consultation with the Medical Director-General and other medical authorities of the Army, who assured him that the structure of these barracks was so old-fashioned and so bad that it was not possible to keep cavalry there, due regard being had to sanitary conditions. At present the rate of sickness was much above the average in any other cavalry regiment, and he did not feel justified in keeping cavalry there for the present.
  MAJOR ANSTEUTHEE-GRAY: Are we to understand that as soon as funds permit a cavalry regiment will be quartered in Scotland?
  MR. HALDANE: As soon as funds permit there will be accommodation provided for cavalry in Scotland, but I must be the judge when it is possible to provide those funds. I have said it is the

  573
  intention as soon as possible to have not one, but probably two, cavalry regiments there. They are very useful for the purpose of training the Yeomanry, and, moreover, Scotland is an important part of the United Kingdom, and it is only right that cavalry should be stationed there. We are quite alive to that.

  Artillery at Piershill Barracks.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTIIER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many horses and men will be quartered in Piershill Barracks when occupied by artillery.
  MR. HALDANE: As far as can be said at present, the numbers will be, approximately, 155 horses, and 335 men.

  Royal Artillery Mess Kit.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the unpopularity of the new mess kit of the Royal Artillery, now about to be introduced; whether he is aware that the new mess kit, though costing about two-thirds the cost of the old kit, is calculated to last only about a quarter of the time that the old kit has been found to last; and whether he will consider the advisability of reverting to the old kit, or, under any circumstances, ascertaining the views of officers of the Royal Artillery, especially of those of the junior ranks, before introducing compulsorily the new mess dress.
  MR. HALDANE: There is no intention of introducing a now mess uniform for the Royal Artillery. The existing pattern was introduced in 1902, and permission was given to those officers in possession of the previous pattern to wear it until January, 1907. The statement that the new kit only lasts about a quarter of the time the old one did is not understood, as the materials are identical.

  Lancers and the Lance.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at with reference to permitting Lancer regiments to use the lance as a complement to their present service equipment.
  MR. HALDANE: It is not proposed to modify the instructions laid down in
  574
  Army Order 39 of March, 1903, with regard to the use of the lance by Lancer regiments.

  Defence of St. Helena.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House what steps have been taken for the defence of St. Helena now that it has been denuded of its garrison, having in view that it is one of the stations for the all-British telegraph cable between Great Britain and her South African, Eastern, and Australian possessions.
  MR. HALDANE: It is inexpedient in the interests of Imperial defence to give this information, but the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the matter has not escaped the attention of my Department.

  The Militia.
  MR. FIENNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the full strength of a Militia battalion, and what is the strength of the permanent staff detailed thereto; the number and names of the battalions below 500 officers and men; and the strength of the permanent start's detailed for service with each.
  MR. HALDANE: In the first part of the Question it is presumed that "full strength" moans the establishment of a battalion. This varies in different battalions from 11 officers and 425 men to 33 officers and 1,273 men; the permanent staff varying from one officer and sixteen non-commissioned officers to two officers and forty non-commissioned officers. As regards actual strength, there wore on the 1st ultimo 46 battalions below 500 officers and men. The names of these battalions, with their actual strength as well as that of the permanent staff in each case, are given in a list which I will circulate with the Votes. †

  The National Gallery.
  MR. MOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the admitted danger caused to the National Gallery in case of fire by the recruiting station immediately at the
  † See Col. 543.

  575
  back of the Gallery, and the promises already made for the removal of this building, he will give instructions to have this carried out without further delay.
  MR. HALDANE: I do not admit that the proximity of the London recruiting depot is a cause of unusual danger to the National Gallery. I would point out that there are some shops distant from the west end of the Gallery about twenty-two feet only, whereas at the nearest point there is a space of 110 feet between the Gallery and the War Department buildings; the buildings which stood upon this intervening space were pulled down at the and of 1902. I notice that there is a fire brigade station at a short distance from the spot.
  LORD BALCARRES: Was it not promised six or seven years ago that the land occupied by these barracks should be allotted to the extension of the two National Galleries?
  MR. HALDANE: Some intermediate buildings were pulled down a short time ago and the space of 110 feat secured. If those responsible for the National Galleries will find the funds for a new recruiting office I shall not stand in the way of any change.

  Reduction of Battalions.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many battalions of regular soldiers have actually been disbanded; what are the numbers of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, respectively, who have been affected by the order; and what are the numbers of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, respectively, of the disbanded battalions who have retired from the service, been absorbed in existing battalions, or joined the Reserve.
  MR. HALDANE: 1. Seven of the ten battalions which it was decided to reduce have not existed as separate units since the 15th November last. Two battalions, now in South Africa, are in process of reduction, while the reduction of one battalion (the 3rd battalion, Coldstream Guards) has been postponed for the present. 2. The strength of the
  576
  nine battalions on the 1st September last was: officers, 237; non-commissioned officers, 751; privates, 5,179. 3. The following return gives the information asked for:—

  Officers. N. C. O's. Privates.

  Retired or discharged on completion of service, etc.

  6

  5

  44

  Transferred to remaining battalions of regiments

  6

  514

  2,843

  Transferred to other regiments or staff.

  15

  23

  416

  To Reserve

  20

  322

  Deserted

  25

  27

  562

  3,650

  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a bounty was offered to men of the disbanded battalions in order to induce them to join other battalions of the Regular Army; and, if so, what is the total amount of money paid in these bounties.
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, Sir, bounties up to £10 have been offered to induce the men to join battalions of other regiments. The offer is still open, and so the total amount cannot yet be ascertained.

  Ipswich Barrack Contract—Rates of Wages.
  MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a volume of standard rates of wages in the kingdom, published by the Labour Department of the Board of Trade on 1st October, 1906, which on page 19 declares the rates of wages for the Ipswich district, as supplied by the National Federation of Master Builders, are 5d. and 5½. per hour; and whether, in view of this statement upon the subject, he will take such action as may be necessary to compel the contractors at the Artillery Barracks, Ipswich, to pay such rates.
  MR. HALDANE: My attention has been called to the statement of standard rates referred to, and it was partly in view of that statement that I have had a special inquiry made, as mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member on the 26th ultimo.† The result, however, of the investigation and of conference with the Board of Trade has been to show that varying rates of wages are at the present time current in the Ipswich district; and it does not appear that the contractors referred to, in paying the labourers 4½d. an hour, are infringing the clause of their contract requring them to pay the rate current in the district. The result of the investigation made is to leave doubtful the Answer to the Question whether there is in point of fact a rate current in the district for competent workmen. I propose, therefore, to ask the Board of Trade to make an independent inquiry.

  Case of Mr. Noreen.
  MR. ALDEN (Middlesex, Tottonham): I beg to ask the Prime Minister what action, if any, His Majesty's Government propose to take with regard to the statements made by the Public Accounts Committee, and especially with regard to the case of the intelligence officer, Mr. Noreen, who defrauded the War Office by sending in a double claim for capturing cattle; and what action they propose to take with respect to Colonel Rickman, who certified the claim.
  MR. HALDANE: The Reports of the Public Accounts Committee are now under consideration in the various public Departments concerned, and in each case such action as may be necessary will be taken in accordance with the invariable rule. I am investigating the circumstances under which the payments to Mr. Noreen wore made. As will be seen from the correspondence printed in the appendix to the Appropriation Account for 1904–05, the case is by no means free from difficulty and even doubt. If, however, after weighing all the facts it appears to me that there is a reasonable prospect of legal proceedings producing any more satisfactory result than further considerable expenditure of public money I shall direct the military authorities in
  † See (4) Debates, clxv., 1228–30.
  578
  South Africa to take such action as the legal advisers of the Colonial Government may advise.
  MR. ALDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that Colonel Kick-man was justified in certifying the claim?
  MR. HALDANE: I have looked into the circumstances, and it is extremely difficult to tell whether he was justified or whether he was not. I am getting all the information I can with a view to placing it before the legal advisers in South Africa. I will tell my hon. friend privately the circumstances so far as I know thorn at the present time.

  Malta.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there has been any further correspondence between the Government and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Malta; and, if so, whether it will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The Secretary of State has received two memorials from the Archbishop which will be presented to Parliament.

  Tanjong Pagar Dock Arbitration.
  MR. WEDGWOOD (Newcastle-under-Lyme): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with reference to the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company arbitration, any sums were paid to Lord St. Aldwyn for travelling expenses in addition to the fee of £5,750; and what foes and travelling expenses the other members of the Arbitration Court received.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Lord St. Aldwyn's fee included all disbursements, as did the fee (4,000 guineas) paid to Mr. Inglis, the arbitrator nominated by the Colonial Government. I understand that the company paid a fee of 0,500 guineas to Sir E. Boyle, the arbitrator nominated by them, of which £5,750 was allowed on taxation; I presume that this included disbursements.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was not the sum paid to Lord St. Aldwyn the

  579
  exact capitalised value of the political pension he surrendered to the late Prime Minister?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not see how that has any connection with the matter.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: We do.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The appointment necessitated Lord St. Aldwyn's going abroad.
  MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square): May I point out that Lord St. Aldwyn was appointed umpire on the nomination of the arbitrator appointed by the company, which was accepted by the Government arbitrator?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I agree. Lord St. Aldwyn had to travel almost the circumference of the globe, and he was away a long period. Expensive as this arbitration has undoubtedly been, I am not at all prepared to say that the expenses paid to him are the least justifiable part.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the cost of the Tanjong Pagar Dock arbitration, how many of the witnesses and counsel heard went out from England and how many were resident in Singapore; also how long the arbitration and witnesses were absent from England, and how many sittings they held in Singapore.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Colonial Government were represented by one counsel from England and two resident in the Straits; the company by two from England and two local counsel. Of the Government witnesses, four went from England and twelve wore resident. Four of the company's witnesses went from England and eight wore resident. I am unable to state how long the arbitrators and witnesses were absent from this country; the latter left England at different dates according to the time required for the preparation of their evidence. The Court held ten sittings in Singapore.

  The Zulu Rebellion and its Results.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies
  580
  whether he is aware that distress exists in the districts affected by the recent Zulu rebellion, more especially in the country between the Tugela and Tongaat Rivers; whether the authorities have sent relief, and to what extent, to such districts; and whether His Majesty's Government will urge upon the authorities the need for further assistance.
  MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government have reason to believe that the Government of Natal are taking, and will take, all necessary measures for the relief of distress among the sufferers by the late rebellion and its repression.

  Mabira Forest Concession.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Mabira Forest Concession in any way nullifies Sir Harry Johnston's assurance to the natives that they would not be dispossessed of their lands and property; and what measures have been taken to prevent the spread of sleeping sickness, in view of the fact that a considerable area of the concession is within the sphere of influence of the tsetse.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The rights of natives guaranteed by the Uganda Agreement are fully safeguarded by the provisions of the lease to the company, a copy of which can be inspected at the Colonial Office. The Secretary of State has not been informed that sleeping sickness exists in the forest; but we have not yet succeeded in discovering effective precautions against it.

  Gambling in the Federated Malay States.
  MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the reasons why the immediate abolition of licensed gambling in the Federated Malay States is impracticable; and if he will also state within what period he expects this evil to be finally abolished.
  The following (Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. LAIDLAW: To ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of the Federated Malay States prohibit Malays, Tamils, and Englishmen from

  581
  frequenting the gambling dons licensed by the aforesaid Government; and if he will state the reasons why the Chinese population is not placed under the same restrictions.
  Mr. LAIDLAW: To ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the fact that the revenue of the Federated Malay States is largely in excess of expenditure, and that there is now an accumulated fund of $25,000,000 in the hands of the Government; and that no financial necessity exists for the $3,000,000 per annum derived from gambling licences.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I will answer the hon. Member's throe (Questions together. The reason why the Chinese alone are allowed to gamble is that in the case of Chinese gambling is a national habit to an extent unknown among the other races inhabiting the Peninsula. Total prohibition is regarded by the best qualified, judges as impracticable at present in the case of Chinese, and the only alternative is to regulate the practice of gambling so that it may do as little harm as possible. In deciding that the immediate abolition of licensed gambling is impracticable, the Secretary of State and the Government of the Federated Malay States have not been governed by financial considerations. They are, however, satisfied that if gambling were at once prohibited the prohibition would be ineffectual. The licensed houses would be abolished, but their place would be taken by secret gambling hells, where gambling would be carried on without any restrictions now imposed, and in circumstances likely to lead to frequent quarrels and disturbances of the peace. Even in the small area of the Straits Settlements, where gambling is prohibited by law, it has been found to be impossible entirely to prevent the existence of such establishments, and the greater area and more scattered population of the Federated Malay States would render the task much more difficult there than it is in the neighbouring colony. There is also a practical certainty that the issue of a prohibition, which could not be made effective, would lead to the corruption of the native police forces by bribery and blackmail. In these circumstances, the Secretary of State considers it better to proceed slowly, and to en-
  582
  deavour to accustom the Chinese population by degrees to the idea of prohibition. As regards the period within which it may be possible to effect a total abolition of licensed gambling, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave in this House on 28th November to the hon. Member for Hoxton.† I can suggest no exact date, but I can assure my hon. friend that His Majesty's Government are no less anxious than he is to put an end to the existing system as soon as it is possible to do so, without causing greater evils than those which it is desired to remove.

  British Indians in the Transvaal.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have yet arrived at any decision with regard to the now Transvaal Ordinance which proposes to inflict disabilities upon His Majesty's Indian subjects resident in the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has informed the High Commissioner that he is not able, without further consideration, to advise His Majesty that the Ordinance referred to should be brought into operation, and it will therefore not be further proceeded with at present.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the report of the proceedings of the deputation which waited on the Secretary of State on behalf of British Indians in the Transvaal on Thursday, 8th November, and appeared in The Times newspaper on the next day, was communicated to The Times by any official of the Colonial Office; and, if so, seeing that no reporters of the Press were allowed to be present, and that the members of the deputation were bound to secrecy, why this report was communicated to The Times and not to those organs of the Press which are supporters of His Majesty's Government.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The report was not communicated to The 'Times by any official of the Colonial Office.
  SIR H. COTTON: May I ask whether at the conference
  † See col. 57–8.

  583
  Lord Elgin said it was at his wish that no reporters were present. How in those circumstances did a verbatim report appear in The Times the next morning?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I can only say that no representatives of the Press in the ordinary senso—no reporters—were present, and that no report of the proceedings was supplied by the Colonial Office. The hon. Member is as able as I am to find out how it was the report appeared.
  SIR E. CARSON: Was any report taken at the time for the Colonial Office?
  MR. CHUKCHILL: I do not know; I do not think so.
  SIR H. COTTON: Were there not two shorthand reporters taking a verbatim report?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I understand from the Question the hon. Member has put to mo that it was at Lord Elgin's desire no reporters were present.
  SIR H. COTTON: Shorthand writers.
  MR. CHURCHILL: If any member of the deputation or anybody else present took shorthand notes, that is another matter.
  SIR H. COTTON: Were not official shorthand writers there?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know, I was not present; but if so there will be a record kept at the office; but the report, however collected, was not communicated from the Colonial Office.
  MR. HAROLD COX: May I ask was there not a similar incident in relation to a deputation to the India Office?
  MR. MORLEY: A report appeared, but it was prepared and issued without the authority or knowledge of the India Office. We had, of course, our own official reporter and a report for our own use.

  Witwatersrand Mines.
  MR. FIENNKS: I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
  584
  whether he can state what labour-saving appliances have been added to the mines of the Witwatersrand since 1st January, 1906; and, if any have been acquired, what number of unskilled labourers has thus been saved.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State does not possess the information asked for, but Lord Selborne will be requested to send a full report.

  Portuguese Labour.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERasked what were the objections urged by the Portuguese Government against granting facilities for recruiting native labour in Portuguese East Africa to the Robinson group of mines, and would the correspondence between the mine group and Lord Selborne be laid.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the time for a statement with regard to recruitment of natives in Portuguese East Africa would not have arrived until the negotiations with the Portuguese Government were concluded. No statement could be usefully made till then.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Cannot you answer the first part of the Question?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I said that no part of the correspondence will at present be laid.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is the correspondence referred to in the hands of the Government?
  MR. CHURCHILLreplied in the affirmative.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Is the situation at present that one capitalist in South Africa is empowered to recruit in Portuguese territory when no other individual is so empowered?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has made a recent statement in the other House on the question, to which I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention.

  Lagos Improvements—The Houssa Eviction.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for the Colonies whether

  585
  he has communicated as promised with the Governor of Lagos concerning the proposed eviction of the veteran soldiers of the Houssa Tribe from houses built at their own expense upon land granted to them by the Government, and with what result; whether the land upon which the houses were built belongs to the Government, and, if not, to whom does it belong; whether, in the case of those who are evicted, full compensation will be granted; whether it is proposed to destroy the mosque belonging to these people, and that the only compensation offered is a grant of £100.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has informed the Governor of Lagos that he relies upon him to prevent feeling of hardship or injustice, and to give liberal interpretation of provisions made for compensation in the case of poor persons affected by these public improvements, and the Governor has replied that Lord Elgin's wishes will be most carefully followed. The land belongs to the Government. Compensation is being granted in accordance with the terms of the Ordinance, which are reported to the Secretary of State to be adequate. But if it should appear that further provision is required to establish these people in suitable homes— means will have to be found for doing so. The mosque has been valued at £100, but the question whether it should be removed or not was still under consideration when the Governor last wrote.

  Immigration and Emigration—Suggested International Conference
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire whether he has received any proposals for holding an International Conference to consider immigration and emigration with a view to their regulation and control.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury, for Sir Edward Grey): No such proposal has been received.

  Chinese Customs.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the House any information with regard to the circular recently
  586
  issued by Sir Robert Hart on the question of the new Chinese Customs Board; and whether he would cause a copy of this circular to be placed in the Library for the information of Members.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: A copy of the circular will be presented to Parliament.

  Karajovo Massacre.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, at the recent massacre at Karajovo, many of the assailants wore Turkish uniforms; that, though within sight of the flames of the burning village, the Turkish troops in the neighbourhood offered no assistance to its peaceful inhabitants; and, if the Answer to these Questions be in the affirmative, whether Ill's Majesty's Government will reconsider their decision to consent to an increase in the Customs duties levied upon British imports into Turkey for the purpose of defraying the cost of the Turkish troops in Macedonia.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: It is stated in the report, which we have received, that some of the assailants disguised themselves as Turkish soldiers in order not to arouse the suspicions of the villagers; and that the Turkish troops, who were stationed at neighbouring villages, saw and heard nothing at the time of the massacre. There is no connection between those Questions and the proposed increase in the Turkish Customs duties. My right hon. friend cannot make any statement about the latter, which is still under consideration. But if it be agreed to, my right hon. friend thinks the hon. Member will see when Papers are published that the last line of his Question is not a fair statement of the main purposes which the Powers have had in view.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Papers are likely to be laid?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot make any statement at present.

  Page's Estate Case.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to an

  587
  escheat in what is known as the Page's Estate case; and whether, in view of the repeated allegations of official connivance in the loss of this property to the Crown, he will consider the advisability of setting the whole question at rest once and for all by appointing a small Committee to go fully into the subject and report upon the same.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): The circumstances of this case, in which it is alleged that there has been an escheat of certain real estate to the Grown were, in or about the year 1870 and have been repeatedly since that date, brought to the notice of the Treasury, with the result that that Department, acting under legal advice, has always, I have no doubt on sufficient grounds, declined to take any action. In view, however, of the interest which appears to be taken in the matter, I have spoken to the Attorney-General, and we propose to examine the documents ourselves.

  Inland Revenue Officials at Somerset House.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is necessary to maintain in the Inland Revenue Department at Somerset House two sets of highly-paid officials to advise the Board, one set with trained and practical experience fitting them to deal with all departmental questions, the other set a clerical staff possessing only piper experience obtained by reading the reports and opinions of the practical men; is he aware that the Board, who are appointed without practical experience, are surrounded by the clerical staff and do not come into direct touch with the practical men, although they are located in the same building; that the clerical staff act as carriers of the reports and papers pro-pared by the practical officials, who must be more competent to explain their own reports and to advise the Board; will he consider whether it would be conducive to greater efficiency and simplify and cheapen the work of the Department, and generally be to the advantage of the Inland Revenue service, for the Board to be in direct touch with their practical
  588
  advisers, and make such advisers the read heads of the Department.
  MR. ASQUITH: the Board of Inland Revenue are unable to admit the correctness of the suggestions conveyed by this Question. In their opinion, which is based on long experience, the present organisation of the office would not be improved in regard either to efficiency or simplicity by the changes suggested. The matter is one which cannot be adequately dealt with in answer to a Question.
  MR. SEARS: Was this reply furnished to the right hon. Gentleman by officials who would be detrimentally affected by a reform of the service?
  MR. ASQUITH: The reply is given on my own authority, and I have satisfied myself as to the accuracy of it.

  Surveyors of Taxes and Repayment Claims.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Surveyors of Taxes, as a rule, certify repayment claims under Section 165 of the Act of 1842, and thus supersede in their functions the Commissioners for general purposes, who alone are responsible for this duty under the section, and for transmitting the claims to the Commissioners for general purposes, and not to the Board of Inland Revenue as such; will he give the authority on which this Board is said to waive in certain cases the certificate of the General Commissioners prescribed by Section 165, seeing that there is no power vested in them for such action under the section; and whether he proposes to amend the law so as to legalise a practice which the Board says saves delay and annoyance to claimants.
  MR. ASQUITH: Surveyors of Taxes examine, and verify the facts relating to, claims to re-payment, and such examination and verification (which they would have to undertake in any case) is accepted as sufficient, without the formal certificate of the General Commissioners, under an administrative order of the Board of Inland Revenue, dated 24th February,

  589
  1887. I do not accept the suggestion that the General Commissioners are "superseded" by this procedure, nor do I think that objection need be taken to any slight deviation which it may involve from the letter of the law, since an experience of nearly twenty years has shown that it results in advantage to the taxpayer without danger of loss to the revenue. I will consider whether any, and what legislation is needed on the subject.

  London Street Ambulances.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take with a view to provide a better ambulance service for street accidents in London.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): I am about to appoint a small committee to inquire into the ambulance arrangements of the metropolis, and my hon. friend has, I am glad to say, consented to give me his assistance in the inquiry by becoming a member of the committee.

  Repatriation of the German Gipsies.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has arranged for the deportation of the large band of gipsies who have caused so much expense and trouble in the country; if so, who is going to pay the expenses of such deportation; and whether he has given or will give instructions under the Aliens Act to prohibit the landing of foreign gipsies in the future at any of our seaports.
  MR. GLADSTONE: At my request the Society of Friends of Foreigners in Distress by willing and effective action, which I think should be generally appreciated, arranged last week for the repatriation of the two large bands of gipsies which have been wandering about the country for some time past. No public money has been provided, but the matter is under consideration. With regard to the last part of the Question, I
  590
  have no power under the Act to prohibit the landing of foreign gipsies as such at any port in the United Kingdom.
  MR. FELL: Judging by their habits is not the right hon. Gentleman inclined to think that these gipsies are undesirable aliens?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a question which has to be considered on its merits by the Immigration Boards.

  Police Arrests.
  MR. FIENNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any and what instructions are given to a police constable to obtain the names and addresses of bystanders who witness the arrest of a person in a public place for an offence there committed.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No general instructions could usefully be given to police constables on the subject; on the one hand a constable's attention would in most cases be fully taken up in attending to his prisoner, while, on the other hand, oven if he had an opportunity of asking bystanders for their names and and addresses, the bystanders would be under no obligation to give them.
  MR. FIENNES: But what facilities are accorded to a person arrested in the streets to got together his witnesses?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I should like time to answer that Question. I think that full facilities should as far as possible be given.

  Marriages with Foreigners.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the suffering of our countrywomen who may be led into marriage with foreigners and may discover that such marriage is farcical, he will consider the necessity of compelling all ministers of religion, or at any rate all registrars, to have some knowledge of the marriage laws of foreign countries, and to inform our countrywomen of the danger they may ineur.
  MR. GLADSTONE: This matter has engaged attention fur some time past, and has, I am glad to say, been dealt with this session by the passing of the Marriage with Foreigners Act, which received the Royal Assent on the 29th November. The provisions of Section 2 of that Act will soon, I hope, apply to marriages contracted by British subjects with subjects of several of the principal European countries. Moreover, instructions have already been given by the Registrar-General that in every case where a British subject proposes to contract a civil marriage with a foreigner a warning of the possible dangers of such a marriage must be given.

  Pewsey Medical Officer.
  MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Hoard whether the Board received a letter from the Pewsey rural district council respecting their medical officer of health, and asking for an interview, dated 11th December 1905; will he explain why this letter remained unanswered until 31st August 1906, an interval of over eight months; whether the Local Government Board received another letter on the same subject from the rural district council, dated 3rd September 1906, which letter has not yet boon answered after an interval of three months; whether the Board will reconsider its refusal to receive a deputation on the subject of the medical officer's salary; and, if so, when the rural district council may expect to receive any communication from the Board.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): This particular case stood over, as some general questions affecting the subject to which it related were under consideration. The Local Government Board have, however, consented to the interview desired, and it is proposed that it should take place this week.

  Vaccination Acts.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is now prepared to state what improvements he proposes to
  592
  make in the administration of the Vaccination Acts in the directions indicated by him on 25th April.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: As I lately stated, this matter is receiving my attention, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement with regard to it.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of issuing a new order with a view to secure that public control and public expenditure go together in this department of their public service?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The question of issuing a new order securing public control over the expenditure is engaging my attention.

  Wages.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the aggregate fall in the amount paid in weekly wages since the 1st May, 1903, in the cases reported to the Board of Trade and regularly published by that Department.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): I am having printed with the Votes a statement showing for each of the last ten years and for the first ten months of the present year the net increase or decrease of weekly wages reported to the Board of Trade. As regards the particular period named by the hon. Member I find that in the thirty-two months from May 1903 to the end of 1905 there was a net decrease of £78,000. On the other hand, in the first ten months of the present year there has been a net increase of £43,000 and wages are still rising. During the last ten years there has been a net increase of £209,000 in weekly wages.
  The following is the statement referred to in above Question:—
  In reply to the hon. Member's Question the following statement shows the computed net increase or decrease per week in the wages of those affected by changes in rates of wages in each of the years 1896

  593
  to 1905, and for the first ton months of 1906.

  Year.

  Computed amount of conge of weekly wages so far as recorded.

  Net increase per week.

  Net decrease per week.

  £

  £

  1896

  26,519

  —

  1897

  31,507

  —

  1898

  80,713

  —

  1899

  90,314

  —

  1900

  208,590

  —

  1901

  —

  76,587

  1902

  —

  72,595

  1903

  —

  38,327

  1904

  —

  39,230

  1905

  —

  2,169

  1906 (First ten months)

  43,037

  —

  Total

  480,680

  228,908

  MR. BONAR LAWasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's reply did not mean that wages were now being paid at a lower rate than in 1903 to the extent of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 a year.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: £35,000 a week.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that daring these years of falling wages the profits assessed to income-tax were always rising.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, Sir, that is so. There is a further fact. The hon. Gentleman opposite has selected a period of falling trade up to the beginning of the present year; whereas the previous years were years of comparative prosperity.
  MR. BONAR LAWasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had not frequently stated that since that date there had been a distinct improvement all round in trade.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, that is so.
  MR. BONAR LAW: Then what about wages?
  MR. BOWLESasked whether this decrease in the aggregate amount of wages paid was accompanied by a large decrease in the number of hours worked.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, that is so.

  Unemployment.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I bog to ask the President of the Board of Trade what has boon the average percentage of unemployment of members of trade unions making Returns since the 1st May, 1903; what was the average percentage for the five years previous to that date; and what has boon the average percentage since the 1st May, 1903, of unemployment among members of German trade unions as published by the German Labour Department.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: The periods named by the hon. Member are so arbitrarily selected that merely to give the figures he asks would give a misleading impression of the course of employment. I am therefore having printed with the Votes the average percentage of unemployment returned by trade unions in each mouth since the beginning of the period to which the Question refers. From May, 1903, to the end of 1905 (a period of trade depression) the average percentage was 5·8. In the first ten months of 1906 it has fallen to 3·9. During the five years 1898–1902 (which was mostly a period of active trade) the percentage was 3·3. The German Returns do not go back before June, 1903, but the years 1901 and 1902 are known to have been years of great depression in Germany. Since June, 1903, the mean percentage published by the German Labour Department has been W. As stated in the Memorandum dealing with unemployment in the second Fiscal Volume published by the late Government this figure is not comparable with the Percentages returned by trade unions in the United Kingdom, as the basis of the official statistics differs in the two countries.
  The following is the statement referred to in above Question:—
  In reply to the hon. Member's Question the following statements show the average percentage of unemployed returned by trades unions in the United Kingdom in

  UNEMPLOYMENT IN UNITED KINGDOM.

  Percentage of trade union members unemployed at the end of each month from January, 1898 to October, 1906.

  Year.

  Jan.

  Feb.

  Mar.

  Apr.

  May.

  June.

  July.

  Aug.

  Sept.

  Oct.

  Nov.

  Dec.

  Mean for Year.

  1898

  5·0

  4·4

  3·1

  2·9

  2·7

  2·6

  2·6

  2·8

  2·6

  2·5

  2·3

  2·9

  3·0

  1899

  3·0

  2·6

  2·5

  2·2

  2·5

  2·3

  2·3

  2·3

  2·4

  2·3

  2·2

  2·5

  2·4

  1900

  2·7

  2·9

  2·3

  2·5

  2·4

  2·6

  2·7

  3·0

  3·6

  3·3

  3·2

  4·0

  2·9

  1901

  4·0

  3·9

  3·6

  3·8

  3·6

  3·5

  3·4

  3·9

  3·7

  3·7

  3·8

  4·6

  3·8

  1902

  4·4

  4·3

  3·7

  3·9

  4·0

  4·2

  4·0

  4·5

  5·0

  5·0

  4·8

  5·5

  4·4

  1903

  5·1

  4·8

  4·3

  4·1

  4·0

  4·5

  4·9

  5·5

  5·8

  5·8

  6·0

  6·7

  5·1

  1904

  6·6

  6·1

  6·0

  6·0

  6·3

  5·9

  6·1

  6·4

  6·8

  6·8

  7·0

  7·6

  6·5

  1905

  6·8

  6·2

  5·6

  5·6

  5·1

  5·2

  5·2

  5·4

  5·3

  5·0

  4·7

  4·9

  5·4

  1906

  4·7

  4·4

  3·8

  3·6

  3·6

  3·7

  3·6

  3·8

  3·8

  4·4

  —

  —

  3·9*

  *Mean for ten months.

  UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG MEMBERS OF GERMAN TRADE UNIONS.

  Membership of Unions Reporting.

  Members Unemployed.

  Number.

  Percentage.

  1903.

  June

  213,962

  6,758

  3·2

  September

  414,855

  9,713

  2·3

  December

  429,318

  11,030

  2·6

  1904.

  March

  431,421

  8,651

  2·0

  June

  490,879

  10,485

  2·1

  September

  575,494

  11,083

  1·8

  December

  616,582

  14,771

  2·4

  1905.

  March

  767,254

  12,131

  1·6

  June

  787,337

  12,937

  1·6

  September

  868,520

  11,805

  1·4

  December

  995,322

  17,861

  1·8

  1906.

  March

  1,118,578

  12,653

  1·1

  June

  1,053,958

  14,310

  1·3

  July

  —

  10,428

  0·8†

  August

  —

  9,940

  0·8

  September

  1,254,941

  13,058

  1·0

  NOTE.—The above figures are an abstract of such official information as is available with regard to the state of employment in Germany, and ate given in order to indicate as far as possible the fluctuations in employment from period to period. The bases of the Official Statistics published in Germany are, however, not the same as those for the United Kingdom, and therefore the figures quoted above cannot be properly used to compare the actual level of employment in the United Kingdom and Germany.
  † It is stated in the Reichs-Arbeitsblatt, from which these figures are extracted, that on the inquiry form for this month it was for the first time made clear to the persons furnishing returns that all members out of work were to be included as unemployed, whether in receipt of unemployed benefit or not. Formerly, a certain proportion of members who were out of work, but who were not entitled to unemployed benefit, were not included in the returns as unemployed. For this reason, therefore, the statistics relating to this and subsequent dates are not strictly comparable with those for previous periods, but to what extent the figures are affected by the difference it is not possible to state.
  each month since the beginning of 1898, and the percentage of unemployed members of trade unions in Germany from June, 1903 to September, 1906.
  MR. BONAR LAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Fiscal Blue-book was published it has been stated in the Board of Trade, Journal that the German Government gave statistics of every kind in regard to unemployment—not only such as are included in our own Returns but also some that are not. And is it not the net result that the amount of unemployment is less than 1 per cent?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. If he will look at the Labour Gazette he will find it pointed out there that the German computation is on a totally different basis from our own.
  MR. BONAR LAW: But—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This is now becoming a debate.

  Weights and Measures.
  MR. B E R T R A M: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the grounds upon which he has issued the now Regulation (1) under the Weights and Measures Acts in substitution for the model Regulation (13), issued by the Board of Trade in 1890 for adoption by local authorities; whether he is aware that the new regulation will, by its insistence upon an annual inspection of all weights, measures, and weighing instruments found to be in use for trade at the premises of every trader in the country, deprive the local authorities of all discretion in the matter; whether he has received from any of the county councils communications as to the additional burden which will be cast upon them by the now regulation; and whether he will consider the desirability of withdrawing Clauses 1 and 9 of the new regulations for the present.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport): The regulations to which my hon. friend refers are still in draft, and have not yet
  598
  been issued. As was stated in the Answer to his Question of the 1st November,† Regulation (1), as proposed in the draft, differs from the existing model regulation chiefly in the direction of relaxation, i.e., of allowing visits to be made at longer intervals than a year, in certain circumstances. Representations have been received from certain county councils on this and other matters connected with the Regulations, and the whole subject is still under the consideration of the Departmental Committee.

  Second Division Clerks.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I bag to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the rule of seniority among clerks of the higher grade of the second division of the Civil Service; does it depend on the service and standing of the clerk in the higher grade, as in a distinct class, or on the total length of service in the second division, irrespective of the date of promotion into the higher grade.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. MCKENNA): No rule on the specific question has been promulgated, and in view of the fact that promotions depend on merit and not on seniority the Treasury thinks it unnecessary and undesirable to make any rule on the subject.

  The Lingfield Prosecutions.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shore ditch, I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the amount expended in costs and expenses in connection with the prosecutions instituted by the Government in connection with the late General Election in the following cases: Rex v. S. Barnes Rex v. Thomas A. Bladder, Rex. v. Eli Peters, Robert Richard Fowler re the Reigate Division of Surrey, Rex v. Baker and More.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. MCKENNA): The net amount of the costs and expenses
  † See (4) Debates, clxiii., 1334.

  599
  incurred by the Director of Public Prosecution in these cases was:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Rex v. S. Barnes

  11

  0

  9

  Rex v.. Thos. A. Blackler

  15

  18

  9

  Rex v. Eli Peters

  2

  13

  5

  Rex v. Robert Richard Fowler

  18

  15

  9

  Rex v. Baker & More (Morl)

  39

  7

  2

  £87

  15

  10

  This net amount is arrived at after taking credit for the county allowances in the cases of:—

  County allowances.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Rex v. S. Barnes

  18

  12

  0

  Rex v.Blackler

  21

  10

  0

  Rex v.Baker & Morl

  87

  4

  3

  £127

  6

  3

  These allowances fall on local funds.

  Delamere Estate, Cheshire.
  MR. A. L. STANLEY: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that twenty-one cottages belonging to the Crown on the Delamere estate, in Cheshire, are leased by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to a man who sublets them to labourers and others at rents which are more than double the rent he pays for them to the Crown; whether such subletting has been carried on with the knowledge and consent of the Commissioners; and whether immediate steps will be taken to terminate such a state of affairs.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: Perhaps I may answer this Question. The cottages in question are leased with a farm of 820 acres for a term which expires at Michaelmas, 1908. No specific amount of rent is, paid to the Crown for the cottages apart from the farm, but I understand that the lessee of the farm sublets ten of the cottages to her own labourers at rents of 2s. a week, while the remainder are sublet to other labourers, one at 3s. a week, and the others at 4s. a week. My noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture does not consider this a satisfactory arrangement, and the matter will be reconsidered on the expiration of the lease.

  Tilonga's Appeal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been directed to the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in an appeal brought before that tribunal in August last by Tilonga, a Native chief, who had been sentenced to 10 years hard labour and a fine of 500 cattle after a trial by court martial, legalized by an Indemnity Act passed by the Natal Legislature before that trial, whereby it was determined that military courts sitting after a proclamation of martial law are not constituted according to the Articles of War or by the Imperial Army Act, and that they are not subject to any superior control so long as their acts are confirmed as the arcs of this court martial were confirmed by the Governor of Natal, under whoso direction they act; and whether, having regard to the fact that as the Governor of a Colony representing the Crown possesses this power it is likewise nested in the Crown itself and liable to be exercised under similar conditions in these countries, he has any statement to make or will give an undertaking that he will consider the law on this subject with a view to its reform in the interests of liberty.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds S.): I do not wish to prejudice the question whether the conviction of this chief was justified on the evidence or whether his sentence was excessive, but I cannot undertake to propose any legislation on the subject.

  Scottish Prisons.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I bog to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether ground is being surveyed for the erection of a new prison in Scotland; where the: prison is to be located; how many prisoners it will hold; and what is the estimated cost.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): For the steps taken in accordance with general prisons policy I would refer the hon. Member to pages 296–301 of the Civil Service Estimates for the current year. Negotiations are now in progress, but I am not now able to give details.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why not in the interest of public economy apply to the Chief Secretary for Ireland for the loan of a few Irish prisons which are entirely empty?

  Unemployment in West Clare.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, owing to the want of employment and consequent distress to the working men in West Clare, he will give instructions to the chairmen of the several district councils and Poor Law unions therein to get the plots of land in connection with the labourers cottages fenced in so as to give employment to the labourers, that they may be able to till the said plots next spring.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.,): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. I understand that no Provisional Order under the Labourers Acts for any district in West Clare has been issued since August, 1903. The Question would therefore appear to relate to schemes which have not yet come before the Irish Local Government Board, and in regard to these the Board have no power to give instructions as suggested.

  Board of Works Employees at Kingstown.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the employees of the Board of Works at Kingstown have been notified that the customary holiday on New Year's Day is no longer to be allowed to them, and, if so, for what reason; and whether the Treasury will allow this holiday in future as heretofore.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Baronet will refer to the Answer which my hon. friend gave to the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin on the 5th April last,† he will find that St. Patrick's Day has been substituted for New Years Day as a holiday at Kingstown.

  Ardara Mail Service.
  MR. SWIFT MACXEILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the incon-
  †See (4) Debates, civ,, 711.
  602
  venience and dislocation of business entailed by the fact that there is no midday delivery of letters in Ardara, county Donegal, where there is a large if not a larger number of letters on the average than in some of the neighboring towns in which there are raid-day deliveries; and whether, having regard to the advantages resulting to the trade of the town by the establishment of a mid-day delivery, he will see his way to the granting of this privilege to Ardara, and the placing of this town on terms of equal advantage with the other towns of this district in the means of postal communication.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): As the hon. Member is aware, I made inquiry a short time ago respecting the postal service at Ardara, The cost of the service is already so high that I should not be justified in extending the existing facilities at the public expense.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Cannot you do it out of the £5,000,000 profits made last year?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The profits were not made at Ardara.

  Public Accounts Committee.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is his intention to afford the House an opportunity of discussing the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee during the present session.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I am afraid it is impossible. The pressure of legislative business becomes greater rather than less as we go on.

  Kent Coal Field.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the reported new finds of seams of good coal in Kent; and whether, having regard to the national importance of establishing a coalfield in the south-Cast of England, and to the unsatisfactory progress that has been made in proving and working the coal since its discovery there some years ago, he will cause the Board of Trade to inquire into the

  603
  matter and get reports from the Government geologists and inspectors of mines which might be laid before this House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not see what steps the Government can take in this matter. I am informed that measures for proving the coal are being energetically carried on; and I cannot see that it is the duty of any Government Department to call for special reports.

  BUSINESS OK THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Prime Minister what days he proposed to assign for the promised debates on the Army and wireless telegraphy, and what business he contemplated taking on Thursday and Friday.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he was afraid he could not say yet when those debates would take place. On Thursday it was proposed to take the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill and to submit a Motion for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule for the rest of the session.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)asked whether the Prime Minister would not give the Report of the Procedure Committee priority over the debates on the Army and wireless telegraphy.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We have certain obligations in regard to those two subjects, but I am very anxious to have the discussion on procedure as soon as possible.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to certain of the Amendments made by this House to the Marine Insurance Bill [Lords], without Amendment; they agree to certain other of the said Amendments, with Amendments, and have made consequential Amendments to the Bill, to which they desire the concurrence of this House; they disagree to certain other of the said Amendments, but have made Amendments in lieu thereof, to which they desire the concurrence of this House; and they disagree to certain other of the said Amendments, for which disagreement they assign their reasons.
NEW BILL.
  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL.
  "To apply the provisions of the Life Assurance Companies Acts, 1870 to 1872, to companies carrying on the business of insuring employers against liability to pay compensation or damages to workmen in their employment," presented by Mr. Kearley; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 360.]

  PLURAL VOTING BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  SIR HENRY KIMBER*SIR HENRY KIMBER (Wandsworth) moved:—" That this House declines to pass a Bill having for its sole object the prohibition and penalising of a large class of His Majesty's subjects in the exercise of admitted rights and franchises, (1) without consideration being given to the whole subject of electoral franchise, and (2) without any relief from the known gross anomalies involved in the present representation of the people in this House, which urgently calls for a redistribution of electoral power, and also (3) without any consideration of the previous constitutional question whether any relation between representation and taxation is to be permanently abandoned, or to what extent it is to be preserved." The hon. Member said he asked himself upon what principle the Government of the day had introduced such a measure? Was it particularly to relieve any class of His Majesty's subjects? It was not a Bill to enfranchise but a Bill which created disfranchisement and disabilities. As its title announced, it was a Bill to impose pains and penalties upon a Parliamentary elector registered in more than one constituency if he should vote in any constituency except that which he had selected for the purpose. It was therefore a Bill to impose a penalty—a penalty for what? A penalty for exercising a lawful right—a right which the Bill did not deny—viz., that of exercising a franchise which had been exercised without dispute for a very long period of time. He therefore again asked himself

  605
  why was it the Government of the day brought in a Bill to impose disabilities, take away rights, and impose pains and penalties? The penalty imposed was that for felony. The offence was called "personation." If a man exercised his own right to give his own vote in his own name in his own constituency he was pronounced in the Bill to be guilty of "personation." Personation of whom? He always thought personation was when a man presented himself somewhere and pretended to be someone else. Under the Bill a man having a vote for more than one place was called upon to set a mark against his name in the constituency in which he intended to vote, and if he failed to do so he was entirely disfranchised. By setting his mark against his name a man held himself up to his political opponents and the local wire-pullers; having ex-eluded himself from voting in the other constituencies he had to be provided against only in that particular one. The penalties imposed for this Bill-created crime—it could not be held to be a moral crime, as there was no fraud and no moral turpitude—were excessive. A man had to forfeit all his rights to the Parliamentary franchise for seven years, and might be condemned to two years imprisonment with hard labour without the option of a fine, and no such luxury as that accorded to first class suffragettes. That might or might not be considered by some persons who were actuated in their legislation by vindictive principles too severe, but he looked upon it as being unjustifiable. He started with the proposition that at all events it was not a Bill which would ameliorate the position of any class of His Majesty's subjects. He had sought in vain in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman who brought in the Bill and in the speeches of other Members of the Government for any reason for bringing in this Bill, either on the grounds of urgency or on the ground that it ameliorated the position of anyone, and he could find no reason at all. The Prime Minister said in almost the same terms as the right hon. Gentleman that the object of the Bill was to do away with the anomaly of strangers being able to vote down residents, and to prevent freeholders from towns being introduced wholesale into elections in county divisions. The second reason was
  606
  one which related to the future, and dealt with prevention, and he had nothing in the world to say against a Bill which provided for the future against the artificial introduction of freeholders from towns or anywhere else merely to swamp a county division or any other division. Anything in the way of the prevention of a wrong of that sort would be perfectly legitimate. But this Bill did nothing of the kind, because it was ex post facto legislation, which destroyed rights which had existed from time immemorial, on the mere ground that it was an anomaly. Freeholders residing in one county were not to be able to vote also in another county in which their property rested, and in which they paid taxes and supported people. This from a Government who said that locality had nothing to do with representation! But let them see, to use an American phrase, "Who is hurt" by the status quo? Was it the Government of the day who had a majority of some 300? No, but when they presently came to examine the figures and the history of the recent past they might perhaps discover a latent reason why in the interests of their Party it had seemed good to the Government to bring forward this measure to confiscate the rights and to disfranchise that large portion of His Majesty's subjects who were voters and electors in more places than one by virtue, not of any fraud, or of any illicit action, but by their having legitimately acquired and become possessed of properties or having set up industries in more than one place. These men had paid taxes to the State and employed labour of all kinds, and yet it was said they were not to be entitled to have a vote in all the counties or divisions in which they were rendering these services to the public good. [Mr. J. WARD: "They take the rents."] If they did take rents they also paid taxes and performed duties. Presently he should have to ask why the Government had arrived at the conclusion that taxation and representation were to be for ever divorced. It was said that manhood and residence should be the only qualification. In that case a general in the Army who had succeeded in saving his country from great perils

  607
  should have no more influence at the polls than the man who groomed his horse. This was a deprivation and not an enfranchising Bill. Why should not freeholders in the county have votes? What was the county? Why should it have representation at all, if the people who were in it and who paid the rates and taxes and were loyal subjects were to be deprived of their votes? Let them take the case of the Universities. It was true the Government did not destroy the University constituencies, but he supposed that would come next. The Rill would, however, have a grotesque effect upon the University seats, as the representation would be left to the heads of colleges and dons who would probably have no residential qualifications elsewhere, and who would have the matter in their hands. The wire-pullers and caucus-mongers would see the advantage of that, and the probability was that they might have as representatives of these great seats of learning not men who were worthy to represent them, but men who were selected for political and much lower reasons than had hitherto prevailed. Or he might instance the City of London. The Liveries of the City were to be deprived of their votes, and the representation would be left in the hands of a few caretakers and such members of the Liveries who chose to reside in the City in order to retain their votes. The Members of the Liveries of which he was one could afford to bear the cheap sneers which were heaped upon them, but he thought the Liveries of the City of London were composed of men who could compare favourably with any body of His Majesty's subjects.
  MR. J. WARD: They have some fine dinners.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he must ask the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent not to keep up a running commentary on the speech of the hon. Member who was in possession of the House. He would have an ample opportunity later on of saying what he wished.
  SIR HENRY KIMBERsaid he was very much obliged to Mr. Speaker for relieving him from that annoyance,
  608
  which had troubled him somewhat, though he had not grumbled at the action of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. He would not grudge him the opportunity of intervening if he wished. The hon. Member happened to be a constituent of his own, and no doubt had some reason to complain because he did not properly represent him. The hon. Member, however, now represented himself. But he bore the hon. Member no ill-will and hoped to continue on good terms with him, and to treat him as every Member of the House was entitled to be treated, as an equal while in it. There were many real wrongs which might have been remedied by this Bill, such as proposals to deal with the votes of the Members of the mercantile marine who by their absence had no opportunity of voting. That was a moot question, and he would not intrude it upon the House now. The same remarks applied to the Navy. But there was a much more serious wrong. We were said to govern ourselves, but under the existing machinery of representation it could not be told whether we governed ourselves or whether somebody else was governing us. In 1893 the late Sir William Harcourt spoke upon a Motion which he (Sir Henry Kimber) introduced in regard to distribution of electoral power, and agreed that serious anomalies in the representation of the people existed, to such an extent as involved the danger of the will of the nation being misrepresented and possibly controverted by the decisions of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman said that no one could deny that great inequalities existed, not only in the representation of Ireland but in regard to that of London, and before long, probably sooner than later, there must be another Redistribution Bill. The subject must be dealt with before long. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he would not traverse any of his (the hon. Member's) statements, and appealed to him to withdraw his Motion, which out of deference to the right hon. Gentleman he did. He brought the matter forward several times in every succeeding year. Ultimately a measure, a very lame measure, was brought in and it came to nothing. We had now a Government with plenty of power and time before

  609
  them, and they used the opportunity not for enfranchising non-represented people but for confiscating rights which had existed for generations, while they declined to take in hand the removal of real and gross anomalies which year after year were increasing and which involved the serious question of whether the power was exercised according to the will of the people. In anything he had said or written upon this subject of redistribution he had always been careful to keep clear from anything like Party bias. It was to the benefit of the House itself that it should represent the real will of the country. There were eight great anomalies from which the people had suffered since 1893, and which were growing in intensity every year. Constituencies of over 40,000 electors, and others with less than 2,000 electors, were represented in this House each by one representative. Over 100 members of this House represented constituencies of over 15,000 electors, fifty Members represented constituencies of under 5,000. Fifty-five Members represented constituencies of over 20,000, fifty - five represented constituencies of 2,000. Five Members, of which he was one, represented as many electors as forty-five other Members. He might fairly contend that four-fifths of the electors of this country were practically unrepresented as regarded the power of voice, and some might say they were misrepresented. Scotland had seventy-two Members, and had an electorate and a population larger than Ireland, which was represented in this House by 103 Members, though he admitted that owing to distance Ireland was perhaps entitled to some special consideration in this matter; at the same time so glaring a disparity ought to be remedied. The average electorate per Member in England was 11,442, in Ireland 6,283. If the electorate of the United Kingdom was divided it showed that one-half was represented by 206 Members and the other half by 464. A majority of 370 represented 2,750,000 electors whilst the minority of 300 Members represented 4,300,000. These anomalies were infinitely greater than that which was proposed to be dealt with by this Bill. This was one of the most grave questions. It was one which
  610
  might cause the will of the nation to be misrepresented and cause the people to govern themselves in a way which they did not wish. That was exemplified by two illustrations. At the time of the passing of the 1885 Reform Bill the proportion of the highest constituency to the lower was only eight to one, and now the proportion was thirty to one, In the general election of 1895 481 contested elections gave to 1,775,000 Unionist voters 279 seats, and to 1,800,000 Liberal voters 202 seats. It was those very contested seats that changed the Government of the day. It was quite possible for the present Government to contend on these figures that they should have been returned to power on that occasion. In the general election of 1906 the Liberal and Labour Parties polled 3,044,000 votes and obtained 428 seats, and the Unionists 2,400,000 and only obtained 139 seats. Each supporter of the Government represented 7,113 citizens, each Unionist Member 17,303. So that their votes were in the proportion of five to four and the Members they returned were one to three. These figures he suggested were the reason for this Bill. The injustice of the present anomalies would be shown by two simple illustrations. In a county of four divisions three Liberals and one Unionist were returned, though the bulk of the votes in the whole county were Unionist; in the other case, the case of a borough, two Unionists were returned by a small majority and one by a Liberal and Labour split, though over the whole area the Unionist total was less than the total of Liberal and Labour votes as a whole. In that case the Liberals were entitled to two Members out of three. These anomalies were more gross than anything touched by this Bill. He would no doubt be pardoned for asking in boyish phrase, What was the game? The game was not shown by a single move. This Bill was one move only. It was part of a sequence of measures introduced by the present Government; the Education, the Land Tenure, the Town Tenants, and this, the Plural Voting Bills. The Education Bill was a Bill to despoil a great Church which had deserved for centuries past the praise and gratitude of a great nation. Whatever its faults—and he was free as a churchman to say there were many—

  611
  it was at least a satisfaction to know-it had done great things for the education of the country. The Education Bill was to despoil the Church. The Land Tenure Bill was a Bill to despoil landowners. The Town Tenants Bill was a Bill to despoil the owners of houses. The Plural Voting Bill was a Bill to despoil electors of their right to vote. All these Bills were disability Bills. They were all Bills which, like this one, took away privileges and rights which free men had got of entering into free contracts and transactions and and exercising their liberties in all things lawful. The very manhood of the country, using it in the sense of voting, or not, was affected. We were gradually drawing toils about our legs which would emasculate the powers we possessed for work and for progress. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman even at this last hour of the passage of the Bill through this House to consider whether he would not hold this Bill in hand until he had taken under his care also the other and larger and more pressing question, the redistribution of seats. If not, he asked the House to reject the Bill, because it was one of disfranchisement and deprivation of admitted rights, because it left increasing evils, which the Government admitted to exist, untouched and unremedied; because its methods were unfair and crude; because it created a crime, and imposed penalties for exercising civil rights; because it ignored the cardinal maxim that taxation should have representation; and because it left tens of thousands of citizens unrepresented in Parliament, and unable to participate in the Government of the country or their own affairs. Finally, he would submit that this Bill was not the Bill of a statesman, but the Bill of a Party, whom accident had placed in a position of temporary power, to disfranchise their opponents.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he was sure the House would recognise in the unique experience of his hon. friend, who had sat for one of the largest constituencies of the country for more than twenty years, a right to claim respectful consideration from all sections for the arguments he put forward. He therefore regretted that during the greater part of the speech
  612
  of his hon. friend the only audience on the Treasury Bench was the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He did not think anyone would under-rate the knowledge which the right hon. Gentleman had of the Bill, or the skill with which he had conducted it through the House, but he should have thought that an old Member of the House, speaking with great experience, might have expected a larger audience on the Front Bench opposite. The right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill observed that he proposed to place a limit on an abuse and an anomaly. It was a convenient thing in all legislation, before attempting to cure, to diagnose clearly the grievance to which the cure was to be applied. In other words, before they tried to correct anomalies they should clearly understand what was the standard, rule, or principle from which it was alleged that the anomaly was a deviation. There were two competitive principles in regard to the issue before the House. In the first place, there was the principle that local interest should be represented even at the cost of an occasional duplication of votes. The second principle, he supposed, demanded the exact proportionment of the voting strength of the individual to the aggregate number of individuals who at any given moment were qualified to exercise the franchise. He knew of no other principles than these two that could be brought forward as the standard in reference to which the issue of plural voting might be considered. He agreed with the late Mr. Gladstone that historically a great deal might be said in favour of the old principle which secured representation to localities, even if it involved the anomaly of the duplication of votes. He did not blind his eyes to the fact that under the conditions of democratic evolution in this country to-day the cause of plural voting examined simpliciter, and with reference solely to its own merits appeared to be a lost one. In his own judgment the case which depended upon local representation, if it involved duplication of votes, was not one which was likely to be successfully decided on its own individual claims to survive, and he would say on his own behalf that, having neither the desire nor the aptitude to play the part of Don Quixote in a

  613
  losing case, he did not propose to contest it in his own constituency. In this respect, therefore, he proposed—and he would respectfully invite his hon. friends to do the same—to affect a virtue if he had it not. It must be conceded, therefore, that everybody who wished to realise a really democratic system of representation must concentrate in support of the other proposition, which involved three reforms—first, the numerical equalisation of constituencies; secondly, a periodical revision of an automatic character; and thirdly, the abolition of the plural vote. So far as he was concerned he should be quite prepared to support the Government in any measure which would adopt the second principle in its entirety. He had a reservation to make in favour of the continued representation of Universities. He agreed that it was an anomaly, but there was hardly a Bill introduced this session by the Government which did not contain an anomaly. Anomalies were the life and breath of the British Constitution. What he objected to very strongly in the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the representation of the Universities was that although he disavowed the policy of bleeding the Universities white, that would be precisely the effect of the Bill in this matter. He preferred the attitude of open, honest hostility to the attempt the right hon. Gentleman had made insidiously to deprive; the Universities of voters year by year, until they were able to turn round and say University representation was no longer able numerically to justify its existence and must be put an end to. The argument of the hon. Member for Northampton did not deserve much consideration when he spoke of the standard of University degrees and indicated that Labour Members would not think it a very high standard. The comparison ought to be between the intellectual power of the average voter and the intellectual power, not of Members of this House, who ex hypothesi ought to possess exceptional powers, but of the individual elector in the constituencies. He had given some attention to a Paper which had recently been laid upon the Table of the House with reference to illiterate voters. He
  614
  found that in England and Wales, out of 4,880,000 there were 19,758 illiterates, or ·4 per cent. In Scotland out of 585,691 voters 2,041 were illiterate, or ·3 per cent. In the case of Ireland, out of 135,882 voters there were no less than 12,510 illiterates, or 9·2 per cent. By a side attack the Government were trying to destroy the representation of the constituencies in which there was a stronger guarantee for a high standard of culture and education on the plea of destroying an anomaly, and at the same time they were deliberately perpetuating another anomaly by which Ireland would continue to be unduly represented, although it contained by far the highest percentage of illiterate voters. In legislating upon this question they had to deal not with one anomaly but with two, namely, the existing disproportion in the size of the constituencies and the system of plural voting. It was highly desirable to inquire what was the extent of each grievance. He gathered from the last Parliamentary Paper issued on the subject that there were about 600,000 plural voters in this country, and probably there were not more than 500,000 who at any given time could conceivably exercise the right to vote. They might reasonably subtract one-sixth as belonging to the i class of agricultural labourers and artisans who had been placed accidentally on the register without their knowledge and without the slightest prospect of availing themselves of the right of plural voting. Making a farther deduction for absentees in a generally accepted average percentage they would get about 400,000 plural voters who would be likely to exercise the plural franchise. It was, of course not reasonable to suppose that all plural voters were on the Oppositition side of the House. Therefore, out of a population of 40,000,000 they had about 400,000 citizens who might be expected to avail themselves of the opportunities given to them by this gross anomaly which the Government thought it worth their while to remove in their first session of Parliament. He would not emphasise at any length the points which had been so ably made by his hon. friend the Member for Wandsworth, but there were four constituencies he desired to mention. One was Romford, with a population of

  615
  217,000; another Walthamstow, with 185,000 inhabitants; the third Wands-worth, with a population of 179,000; and the fourth Harrow, with 177,000. There were five English Parliamentary divisions, in which the total population was far greater than in fifteen Irish borough divisions, which returned sixteen members. The result was that five hon. Members of the House represented as much voting strength in their constituencies as sixteen hon. Members who represented fifteen Irish borough divisions. Those reflections suggested that there must be some reason why the Government had chosen one of these anomalies for correction and neglected the other. Probably the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would say that, although the Government fully recognised the second anomaly, it could only be dealt with just before a dissolution. But surely the anomaly of plural voting could have been far more conveniently dealt with at the same time. What explanation could be suggested for the selection which the Government had made and for the astonishing haste to secure this particular reform? Some hints in this direction had been given both inside and outside the House of Commons The Westminster Gazette, a paper distinguished both for the ability and the fairness of its controversial methods, in discussing the objections advanced upon this subject, said they never could expect to have an anomaly removed except by a Party which was likely to gain politically by its removal. He did not complain of the frankness of that statement. The hon. Member for Prestwich, in an illuminating flash of candour, had said the Conservative Party was the propertied class and this Bill would affect them most. The Opposition could not afford to allow these contemporaneous contributions to their researches to pass without notice. The hon. Member for Stoke had observed with great satisfaction and complete candour that it was the business of the Patronage Secretary to dish the Unionists. Then the hon. Member for the Eskdale Division, although strongly in favour of woman suffrage, deplored and resisted the suggested postponement of this question because the Bill would be useful at by-elections. The hon. Member for the
  616
  Eskdale Division was honest enough to say what most hon. Members opposite were only thinking. These statements enabled the Opposition to generalise the motives of the Government, because on the showing of their own friends they were attacking deliberately the smaller of two anomalies in order that they might make Party capital by disfranchising the plural voter. That was an exasperating policy to come from any Government, and it was particularly exasperating when it came from a Government which made on its own behalf high professions and a claim for public morality. The most suitable Party emblem of the present Government might be borrowed from the kindred sect of the Pharisees. He would recommend them to counter the Primrose League by a Phylactery League. They had introduced the one reform which was likely to benefit themselves, whilst they had left unredressed each greater anomaly which would prejudice their Party interests as a whole. They had heard ad nauseam the right hon. Gentleman state that he could not accept one Amendment or consider another on the ground that it would interfere with the principle of the Bill. The only possible retort to which was, should they not leave principle out of the question? This Bill was doomed as surely as the Education Bill, and he hoped it would receive the treatment it deserved in another place. It threw duties and liabilities upon the plural voter to which the single voter was not exposed, and not a single argument in justification of this course had been advanced in the course of the whole of this debate. He had no objection to the Government in pursuance of a general scheme of reform depriving the plural voter of what they conceived to be an undue and inordinate influence in the voting power of the State, but why should they, in the first place, impose upon the plural voter liabilities and conditions which they did not impose upon the single voter? In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman had deliberately flung away the opportunity offered of availing himself of the residential principle if he had the judgment to concentrate upon a simple and logical principle. In the third place, the right hon. Gentleman had

  617
  exposed the Bill to an objection which, in his judgment, was the most serious grievance of all, namely, the keeping up of the standard of costs in those large constituencies in which the number of plural voters was very great, on the basis that the electorate was unchanged by the existence of the plural voters.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale)indicated dissent.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman shook his head. He was perfectly well aware what the right hon. gentleman meant. He knew that an Amendment was introduced on Report for the purpose of modifying to some extent this particular ground of criticism, but he still said that the Bill maintained the standard of expense in those constituencies where there were a large number of plural voters, because at any moment the apparent aggregate number of voters would depend upon an entirely fallacious basis. If the right hon. Gentleman dissented from that it was perfectly clear that the Bill did not carry out what he said was the object on its introduction, namely, to keep alive as possible voters persons who had qualifications in two constituencies. Unless these voters were kept alive what became of the facility of transference which the right hon. Gentleman said was one of the merits of the Bill? If they did keep these voters alive the result would be that every Member of the House in a constituency would be obliged to reckon a number of ineffective deadheads for the purpose of his campaign, or preliminary campaign, as potential voters, and a candidate must to some extent be put to expense in keeping himself abreast of the removals, and in communicating with the possible survivals. He ventured to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the co-existence of seventeen different franchises—the fruit of the fortuitous development of our franchise system—rendered it extremely difficult for anybody to attempt the disingenuous manipulation of that system as a whole. Those difficulties were insuperable by any Bill that could have been introduced, unless the right hon. Gentleman adopted the course which he thought
  618
  the majority of the House would agree was by far the most satisfactory, and that was to provide that all the elections of the country should be held on the same day. If the Government had wished to carry out their object with the minimum of friction and the maximum of practical result they could have prayed in aid inexorable considerations of time and space and said that all elections should be held simultaneously. He did not think that the Government were unwise from their own point of view in introducing this Bill in the first session of the present Parliament. If they looked back on the political history of the country they would find that it had always been the object of a Liberal Government, though it had not always been successfully carried out, to ensure when returned to power that by no possible means should it appeal to the same constituencies as returned it to power. It was the policy of the Eastern usurper who, having acquired power by immoral methods, proceeded to annihilate the male progeny of his rival. A policy of that kind applied to the case of plural voting would, he ventured to say, speaking on behalf of what he believed was the smallest numerical minority which had ever confronted a Government since the Reform Bill, bear an odious complexion in the eyes of the country who would rightly take the view that the Ministry should not have committed themselves with indecent haste to remove this anomaly in the first session of Parliament—a time when there were many grave social questions which called for the immediate attention of the Government. Hon. Members of the Opposition realised in the plainest possible manner that this Bill was not to be considered alone. It was an insidious incident in a general campaign on which hon. Gentlemen opposite for their own purposes were entering — a general campaign which travelled far beyond the inconsiderable issue of the franchise. They had reached the time when, from the point of view of a possible issue between the House and another place, it was thought desirable that measures of this kind should be hurriedly introduced. In a phrase which was very fashionable some years ago the ploughers of the sands were harnessing their foundered

  619
  horses, and the spirited policy of filling up the cup was well under way. This was one of the Bills which was to be made capital of for that purpose, while an attempt was ingeniously made to pack the jury before the appeal was made to them. He ventured to think the policy would fail. It would fail simply because in England the pettier forms of dishonesty had never succeeded in the long run. He trusted this Bill would meet the fate which some of them anticipated in another place. He and his friends looked forward without the slightest trepidation to the wind and fury now in process of artificial manufacture. It was astonishing to those on his side of the House that an experienced politician like the President of the Board of Trade should not perceive that the artificial indignation he had been expressing in the country was wholly superfluous if the country was really with him on this and other Bills. At the time of the Reform Bill the country knew what it wanted, and it did not require any politician blowing a Party bellows to make it articulate. If the country was not with the Government on this and other issues the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman and others were futile, ridiculous, and contemptible. Their speeches were merely the despairing utterances of battled malice. If the Government had made an honest attempt to make the House of Commons a more faithful representation of every section in the country they would, he believed, have commanded the support of every section of the House, but he did not believe that the attempt which they had made by this measure to load the electoral dice at the bidding of Party agents would survive the Houses of Parliament, and he was certain that it would never receive the deliberate approval of the electors of this country.
  Amendment proposed —
  "To leave out all the words after 'that' and insert the words, 'this House declines to pass a Bill having for its sole object the prohibition and penalising of a large class of. His Majesty's subjects in the exercise of admitted rights and franchises, (1) without consideration being given to the whole subject of electoral franchise, and (2) without any relief from the known gross anomalies involved in the present representation of the people in this House, which urgently
  620
  calls for a redistribution of electoral power' and also (3) without any consideration of the previous constitutional question whether any relation between representation and taxation is to be permanently abandoned, or to what extent it is to be preserved.'"—(Sir Henry Kimber.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid it was quite true that the simple principle of the machinery of this Bill had been fully and frequently debated in the House. It was also true that, not from his own wish, hon. Members had had to listen ad nauseam to his answers to their questions. Hon. Members would not be surprised, perhaps they would be relieved to hear, that he proposed to detain them for only a very short time in answering the mover and seconder of the Amendment. During the earlier stages of this measure the Opposition had constantly stated that for many reasons the Bill, in their opinion, was wholly inadmissible. But this Amendment seemed by implication to suggest that in certain circumstances and with some form of redistribution it would have been almost accept- able and tolerable.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: The principle of the Bill.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid that without the encouragement of hon. Gentlemen opposite it would not have been civil to have said of the hon. Baronet's Amendment that it was a mere pretence and transparent sham. Out of mere courtesy to the hon. Baronet he must be allowed to assume that he seriously meant what be had so solemnly said. The assumption then was that with some form of redistribution this Bill would be acceptable.
  SIR HENRY KIMBERsaid he did not say that. He said the consideration of this proposition ought to be accompanied by the consideration of the other question.
  MR. HAECOURTsaid the hon. Baronet's friends had frequently stated that the machinery which he was anxious to bring into being would be difficult to work and puzzling to those whom it was likely most to affect, but it was generally admitted that the difficulty would only

  621
  be acute in the initial stage of the Bill. Assuming that hon. Members were right, was it not obvious how considerate he had been to those upon whom, owing to their superfluity of power, he was obliged, in justice, to inflict some slight and temporary inconvenience? He had seized the earliest opportunity in the first session of a new and probably prolonged Parliament in order to bring in a Bill to correct these anomalies. It was quite well-known that redistribution belonged to the latter end of their Parliamentary existence. He had therefore arranged with great forethought and much tenderness that these pluralists should have the largest possible interval for their study of the law and in order to acquire the knowledge by which, with the minimum of trouble, they might divest themselves of any inconvenience which might adhere to their superfluity of votes. He had no doubt himself that the plural voters would attach very special value to the interval which he proposed to provide between the passage of the Bill and the change in the electoral machinery coming into operation. The Motion moved by the hon. Baronet was really very similar to those which had been the ordinary concomitant of proposals for the enlargement and the increase of the franchise, but it had never, so far as he knew, been proposed to attach it in past times to a measure dealing mainly with electoral machinery. Whether such Motions in the past had always been honestly intended to be taken in their literal sense, he thought those who were acquainted with the history and opponents of reform might be permitted to doubt. Certainly in many cases they were used as a weapon, not to accelerate, but to retard, reform, and they had often been used as a justification for still more drastic hostility in another place by a body of men who could not be registered, who were never elected, who had no popular sanction for their decisions, and who had no concern whatever with the machinery of registration. He was certainly not prepared to admit that this Bill was undesirable now, because it could not be followed, until a later stage, by proposals for redistribution. If the hon. Baronet were willing to substitute the converse of the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, if he were willing to move that under no circumstances should a Registration Bill be passed unless it was
  622
  accompanied by "one man, one vote," then he would find in him an enthusiastic supporter, though, he was afraid, the hon. Baronet would have to part company with most of those amongst whom he sat. He was surprised that, to-day, and knowing the opinions which had been expressed by hon. Members at other stages of the Bill, the Opposition should be willing to shelter themselves behind what he might be permitted to call without offence an evasive Amendment. When he saw the Amendment on the Paper he had asked himself what was the meaning of it, and he came to the conclusion that what the Leader of the Opposition averred to-day he anathematised yesterday, as in the case of the Trade Disputes Bill. The right hon. Gentleman might say that after all there were a good many plural voters on this side of the House and that he saw no reason any longer to oppose the Bill; that it was too late to change or reject the Bill; that it must be accepted and the responsibility for its working be thrown on the Government. And he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would also arrive at the conclusion that the less said in another place the better. He saw the right hon. Member for South Dublin opposite; he humbly offered to become his confessor, and asked him to repeat his performance of ten days ago in regard to the Land Tenure Bill. On the Third Reading of that Bill, the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth moved its rejection on the ground that it destroyed freedom of contract, and altered the whole position of parties to a bargain but at the conclusion of the debate the right hon. Member for South Dublin said that although he did not like the Bill, yet as the Government on the Report stage had adopted several Amendments, which had gone a long way to meet his objections, he was reluctant to vote against the Third Reading, and he did not do so. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that on the Report stage of this Bill he too had gone as far as possible to meet the objections to some of its details, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might yet re-consider his position, and not allow himself to be led away and led astray by the hon. Member for Wandsworth. He certainly had expected that the Opposition at this stage would have boldly declared that this Bill was to them Anathema Maranatha, and that they would not touch the unclean thing. But

  623
  surely the caution and the timidity of their procedure had slightly smeared them already with his pitch. He was amazed that the Opposition should have adopted such a line of attack as this, and above all, that they should have chosen the hon. Baronet as their champion, when he remembered what was their and his record in the late Parliament on the subject of registration. When he entered this House he used to look with awe on the hon. Baronet with his portly figure and troubled intelligence. He watched the hon. Gentleman marching along the corridors, and he said to himself, "There is the Napoleon of reform." With folded arms and bowed head he conceived of a scheme of redistribution, as if it had been a new Code Napoleon. He watched with anxiety, expectation, and sympathy that period of gestation, and when at last on the 10th July, the poor little mouse was born, they knew what the Tory Party really meant by "one vote one value." The Government adopted the mouse, and gloated at its early vitality. The Prime Minister said that they must pass the Resolutions in favour of a scheme of re-distribution, adding that they were extremely simple, as ten years previously, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had declared that his plan of old age pensions was extremely simple. But those resolutions were never debated in the House. And why? Because the right hon. Gentleman, despite his enormous majority, was told that he would not be permitted to carry them en bloc after one division. Accordingly on the 13th July the bantling ceased to breathe. It was quite true that they were told by the Prime Minister that the Government would proceed to deal with re-distribution by Bill on the precedent set by Mr. Disraeli in 1857; but the right hon. Gentleman did not present a Bill in the House, not oven a ten minutes Bill! The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had always, or nearly always, the courage of his convictions, but who could blame him for not having the courage of the opinions and the re-distribution plans of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth? Think what must have been the position of a philosophic wrangler, suddenly confronted with such a scheme as that which was submitted in July of last year—a scheme founded, as he presumed it was, on nice, accurate mathematical calculations,
  624
  and having, as they knew, no relation whatever to party advantage, and nothing whatever of a political complexion, yet arriving at a result which, when dissected by electoral experts, seemed to show that the higher mathematics irresistibly led to the conclusion that, in violation of the second article of the Act of Union, they must disfranchise twenty-two Irish seats, and that, at the same time, by an equally curious accident, it was essential to preserve intact nearly all the southern and eastern boroughs of England, which, by another extraordinary coincidence did, at that moment, return almost exclusively Tories to Parliament. Knowing the views of the late Government on re-distribution, he saw no reason to postpone this moderate and desirable Bill for any proposals which they might make or with which they would be likely to be satisfied. And, in view of their recorded opinions, there was another Amendment which might be suggested to the hon. Baronet. He thought he could promise the hon. Baronet almost unanimous support if he would move that under no circumstances should any measure of electoral reform be passed that was accompanied by such registration proposals as were put forward by the late Government last year. Of course as regarded future legislation he could not speak for a Cabinet to which he did not belong and he spoke only for himself, but if this Bill might prove to be a courier or forerunner of any greater measures, and if he had acted as a link boy in the fog of our electoral system, he should be content, because in his opinion our present system of representation was an accumulated patchwork, composed partly of a little conviction, partly of a little concession, and partly of a little cowardice. Some hon. Members seemed to believe that this Bill was introduced by him with the delibeerate purpose of inflicting an injury upon his political opponents. [Cries of "Oh."] Well, that had been suggested, and all he could say was that no such consideration affected his mind. For years he had outside the House been an advocate of this reform, and he had always thought that this particular form of representation, the plural one, was one of the most arbitrary and could not be justified. He had always believed that

  625
  it constituted a grave hardship upon all the other voters whose voices were overborne by the superfluous suffrage of those who had no more manhood than themselves. If, supposing right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were right, which he did not admit, then he had only to say that, although plural voters would lose what had been a valuable asset to them, they were only parting with an unfair advantage which they ought never to have possessed—an advantage which had vitally warped the policy of this country for many years past. He claimed that the present measure would enable hon. Members opposite when they returned to the Ministerial Benches, as return no doubt they would, to say that they would represent the true and honest opinions of their countrymen.
  MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)said the right hon. Gentleman when he took part in their debates added immensely to the humour of their proceedings, but he had never listened to a speech which was less satisfactory as an answer to those which had preceded it. Two of his hon. friends had brought forward serious and grave arguments connected with the circumstances attending the introduction of the Bill, to which no answer had been given. Their criticisms of the machinery of the Bill were also well worthy of an answer, but the right hon. Gentleman in the few moments which were left to him in the midst of his numerous quips and cranks had devoted not one single word in reply to any one argument which had been advanced. The right hon. Gentleman who had talked so bravely about courage and cowarice had taken refuge in an attack upon the measure proposed by the Party opposed to him two years ago, which, although he was out of the House, he could not resist the opportunity of criticising notwithstanding the fact that those proposals were not before the country and he was himself responsible for proposals of a totally different kind. He thought a Minister who in his closing pathetic utterances told them that this was the one child he had been nursing for the last six years owed it not only to his friends but his political opponents to
  626
  give some better answer to the arguments which had been brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to offer to become his father confessor. He had not one at present, and if he wanted one he should not trust himself to the right hon. Gentleman after the way in which he had shown him that he would relieve his conscience. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to him to adopt a similar course to that which he had taken on the Land Tenure Bill, but it was extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the difference between the two Bills. In the case of the Land Tenure Bill the Government introduced a long series of Amendments which, in his opinion, altered the Bill in its most objectionable clauses. Nothing of the sort had been done in regard to this Bill. The author of the Bill had told them he had had the subject in his mind and thought for years. It had had all the advantages of Government care and preparation. Yet after the proceedings in Committee the hon. Gentleman was obliged to corns down on Report with a series of Amendments which totalled rather more than the whole of the Bill. And what were those Amendments? Were they a concession in principle? The right hon. Gentleman would admit that they in no way altered the principle of the Bill. All they did was to meet criticisms advanced from the Opposition side of the House, and supported by the very few speakers who rose on the Government side during those debates—for it was a remarkable thing that whenever an hon. Gentleman opposide, not an occupant of the Front Bench, rose to support the Government, he almost invariably criticised the Bill adversely. These Amendments had in no way altered the objectionable features of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman himself would be the first to admit that they had made no alterations in principle in the measure, and that the Bill on its Third Reading was the Bill as it was read a second time, with only such Amendments in the machinery as had been rendered necessary by the criticism levelled against it. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wands worth involved the acceptance of certain principles, and that with the addition of

  627
  these the Opposition would be prepared to accept the Bill. There was nothing whatever in his hon. friend's speech to justify anything of the kind, and nothing in the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool or in any of the other speeches made on the Bill, to justify the belief that the Opposition would accept the present Bill to carry out this reform. He knew it had been said in the House and elsewhere that the Bill was regarded by many on the Opposition side as a Party attack. It was not suggested that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had acted in any way inconsistent with the discharge of his duty. The view he had mentioned, however, was held and held strongly, and he was not surprised at it, for in the course of these debates they had never heard why this particular electoral reform was viewed as so vital and pressing by the Government. There was one very peculiar aspect of the case, viz., that there was no precedent for the introduction of a measure of reform which would have the result solely of disfranchisement. So far as he knew this was the first time a measure had been brought in which sought to disfranchise a number of the electors without at the same time making any change in the franchise conferring further electoral power on others. In this respect the Bill was not only a precedent, but, he believed, a very bad precedent. He remembered the debates on the Reform Bill of 1884, and he appealed to those then in the House whether he was not right in saying that there was no subject on which Mr. Gladstone spoke with greater force and earnestness than the desirability of not disfranchising by Act of Parliament, however necessary it was to enfranchise fresh electors. Under the Reform Bill of 1832 some half million were enfranchised, and by the Bills of 1884 and 1885 some 2,000,000, but the franchise was taken from nobody; whereas under the present Bill the franchise was taken away from some and given to no new body at all. He submitted that that was a very bad precedent to set in reform legislation. The right hon. Gentleman had denied that there was any Party animus as the foundation of the Bill, and he was quite sure from that declaration that to attack a political Party was not his personal ob-
  628
  ject. However, there had been speeches from hon. Members on the Ministerial side which had plainly indicated that the effect would be to injure the Party opposed to them, and he did not think speakers on the Opposition side could be blamed if they took advantage of these stray utterances and gathered from them that there was some foundation for the charge which had been made. The hon. Member for Wandsworth had dealt with the great anomaly in our electoral system—the unequal distribution of political power. Apart from that there were many anomalies, some of a graver character than that with which the Government were anxious to deal. There was the distance of residence of an elector as affecting the voting qualification in town or county. There was the question of the enfranchisement of women, and a multitude of other matters connected with the exercise of the vote and with the registration law, any one of which the Government might well have included in a Bill of this kind. For some reason, however, which they had never heard, all these questions were put on one side as if unworthy of attention, although in the opinion of some of those most experienced in electoral matters they were of much greater importance than the one which was being dealt with. He would like to have heard the views of some of the hon. Members opposite who had had great experience in registration and electioneering, and their criticisms on the machinery of the Bill. They would, no doubt, be prepared to accept the principle that the plural voter was to be interfered with, but he did not believe many of them would be found to justify by speech and argument the particular way in which the Government proposed to carry out that policy. He did not think it possible to exaggerate the injustice of the Bill in that for the first time it imposed a serious duty on the man who possessed two votes without imposing any upon the man who had only one vote. The man who had one vote obtained it as a matter of course, but the man with two votes would have to go through an elaborate procedure or run the risk of being disfranchised altogether. They had asked repeatedly what justification there was for this

  629
  and had had no answer; they had asked repeatedly why the object could not have been obtained by holding all elections on one day, or by an enactment making it illegal for the man to vote more than once. The Government had for some reason chosen another method, and not a single word of justification had been offered. It was an extraordinary thing, too, that the Government had offered no indication of the effect the Bill would have. The question of the University vote had been dealt with, and the Member for the City of London showed the other day what the effect would be on the City of London. In addition there were county divisions in which there were 4,500 pluralist voters of whom 2,500 were retired artisans or mechanic? Surely the House ought to have had some information as to what the probable effect of the Bill would be upon such constituencies as those. If the effect was that which it sought to have, the prevention of a pluralist voter voting except in the constituency in which he selected, it would increase the injustice that now existed, and to select this particular anomaly to deal with was to make far greater than they were now those great anomalies of which the Opposition complained and which they said disturbed the present electoral system of the country. The Bill proposed to do two or three remarkable things in a remarkable way He could not understand why the Government thought it necessary in this Bill for the first time to insist that the clerks should mark in the lists the pluralist voters and to refuse to do what, he thought, they were bound to do, namely, place on the shoulders of the authorities the duty of informing the voters that they were pluralists. For the first time the Government were imposing on the voter a risk of fine and imprisonment for no other reason than that he had two or more qualifications and that he had failed to make a selection. The principle of selection was new and had never been justified. The scheme of the Bill left the powers of the revising barristers in the position in which they now were, and left the primary duty of the overseer of putting every elector in his division on the register as it was, while it imposed on the elector who had more
  630
  than one qualification the risk of being put on the register without his knowledge, and in the end finding that he either lost his vote altogether or ran very great risks. It was true that at the last moment the Government accepted two Amendments which would have a great effect on the operation of the Bill. The proposal of the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division would materially affect the working of the Bill. Although he was glad that that Amendment had been accepted, he was surprised that the Government should have found it right and necessary to accept it when there were opposed to it the identical arguments which they had adduced the day before against the Amendments proposed by the Opposition. But that Amendment certainly mitigated some of the evils of the Bill. The other Amendment placing the powers of prosecuting in the hands of the Attorney-General also would have a good effect. The First Commissioner of Works had just said, with great public spirit, that the Government would take the responsibility for the successful working of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman was very good. He had, however, placed upon the shoulders of the Government a duty which they could not perform. They were not going to carry out this measure. He had always advocated that the Government should become responsible, and that these duties, in common fairness and justice to the electors, should be carried out by Government officials. In all probability the Bill would be found not only difficult to work but absolutely unworkable, and a great injustice would be done to those who only claimed to vote in the elections of the country. He would have been perfectly content to vote for the simple rejection of the Bill without any Amendment at all. On the other hand there was nothing in his hon. friend's Amendment which he was not prepared to support. He agreed with the views laid down, which roughly amounted to this: that if they were going to deal with this great question of electoral reform at all they should deal with it as a whole. He admitted the force of the Government's answer that they could not deal with redistribution at the beginning of their term of office. That was a complete

  631
  answer to the suggestion that they should do it now, but it was no answer to the argument that the Government had no right to deal with the question in this trumpery fashion, treating only a section of the question and doing it in a manner which would seriously increase what was the greatest difficulty at the present time. He would have been perfectly content to vote for the simple rejection of this Bill, which he believed to be unjust. He believed that in its present form there was no demand for it, and that its machinery would prove unworkable. By this Bill they would be for the first time exposing people who had the right to vote to a risk to which they had never before been exposed, and to which Parliament had no right to expose them. On all these grounds he supported the Amendment, because it appeared to offer the simplest method of recording their opinion that the Bill was unjust and unnecessary.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he had never been able to understand why the principle of the Bill was opposed by hon. Members opposite. It seemed to him that an unsophisticated foreigner, ignorant of our ways of Parliamentary life, would imagine that a measure which introduced no new principle, which exactly followed the lines of the British Constitution, and which merely tried to remove anomalies and exceptional hardships, would be justly regarded as an innocent reform and would be gladly welcomed by all Parties. There was no subject upon which there was greater misconception than that of plural voting. To hear hon. Members opposite one would think our system was really a vote for property, that a man got a vote for every 100 acres, or that he voted according to the amount of taxation he paid. There was no relation whatever between representation and taxation. He was bound to say he believed that those hon. Members who said it would be a great advantage to the Liberal Party to do away with the plural voting would be disappointed. They would gain a great deal more advantage if they were to get a measure of redistribution—he meant a fair measure of redistribution and not
  632
  one drawn on the lines of the measure laid before the House last year. The present voting system was unjust all round. Let them take the injustice to the rich man—a great territorial man, for instance, who probably represented his county in Parliament or who might be the Lord-Lieutenant, or who held the more responsible post of master of foxhounds, or was chairman of the county council—a man owning perhaps 20,000 or 30,000 acres of land which happened to be within the same division. Such a man would have only one vote. On the other hand, his neighbour might be a miserable little Radical, a Pro-Boer, a Home Ruler, and a Little Englander; and he with his twenty acres (ten on one side of the boundary and ten on the other) would receive two votes. Such a system was hardly fair. A man might own great factories in Norwich, or in fact own the whole city, but he would only receive one vote, whilst in another borough, that of Yarmouth, if a man happened to be a freeholder and an occupier he stood to receive two, or perhaps three, votes. The real idea of the Constitution was that a man received a vote because he was a man and for no other reason. Another injustice which had been spoken of was the difference between rural and urban voting. They were told that borough freeholders were generally Liberal and therefore the Government would lose by their abolition. Nevertheless, it was an injustice, and he for one would wish to see the injustice removed. The objection to plural voting had become stronger since the passing of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1885. It had been suggested that the elections should all take place in one day, because if that were done the difficulty would be met. This, however, was an error, because, although it would undoubtedly affect the voter who had to come from a long distance, it would not affect the man who could travel from London into the suburbs, for instance, in his motor car. He personally felt regret that the Bill did not embody the principle of residential suffrage. By having residential voting they would very much simplify the register. Every man would then have a vote, and instead of having a disfranchising measure they would have had a great enfranchising measure. He could not

  633
  say what would happen to the Bill in another place, but he hoped that if the Government found it necessary to introduce another measure on the subject next year it would be a strong Bill involving the principle of residential voting.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY (Devonshire, Honiton)congratulated the hon. Gentleman opposite on having made the best defence of the Bill so fur, but he had not said anything to show why the Bill should have been brought in at the present time. Members had been brought back to the House at great inconvenience at a time when they would like to be among their constituents oil the plea that it was for the sake of great public policy. Yet all they were doing was simply wasting time. Instead of bringing forward subjects of practical interest, such as the relations of this country and the colonies, South African policy, and Naval policy, the Government had relegated the House to the discussion of a Bill which was of no practical use or benefit. This Bill, in the words of an hon. Gentleman opposite, was not promoted to remove an anomaly or obtain an equality, but merely to injure political opponents. The Government was making use of its opportunities to strengthen its position, but there seemed in this measure, as in others, a vindictiveness towards opponents of which they had a right to complain. This attitude on the part of the Government was illustrated in the proceedings on the Land Tenure Bill, which, but for the criticism to which it was subjected, would have effected a revolution in agricultural matters to the detriment of both landlord and tenant; and on the Education Bill, which according to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had the avowed object of putting an end to clericalism. That showed the vindictive and the unfair use to which the Government were putting their majority. The object of a Reform Bill should be to enfranchise classes or individuals, but this was a disfranchising Bill. They were not only disfranchising property, but education and intelligence. No effort was made to remove the greater injustice which lay in the fact that a man in a small borough had twenty or thirty times the political power of
  634
  a man in a larger constituency. And upon whom did the disability imposed by this Bill fall? Mostly upon the freeholders of the country, who had been the backbone of the English constitution in times past. There was another point of some delicacy. They had at present Unionists on one side of politics and Radicals on the other, but how long was that going to last? The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil stated that at Huddersfield there were 5,000 men who showed by their votes that they cared for none of those things. The questions on which those men recorded their votes were Socialism, woman enfranchisement, and social reform, to the exclusion of everything else. They must face the fact that a new power had come into existence, and the object of that power was to overturn our existing social system, and to substitute one in which the individual was suppressed and the State was to do everything. When the struggle over that issue came—if it did come—would not Ministerialists who were supporting this Bill feel that they had deprived themselves, in the fight against those proposals, of the assistance of some of the best defenders of property and of individual exertion, and in doing so had to a large extent injured their own interests?
  MR. MONTAGUsaid that once again the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had seen what he declared to be a new record in his Parliamentary experience, and had stated that he had never listened to a speech like that which had been delivered by the First Commissioner of Works. They were getting so-accustomed to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he had never before been so surprised or shocked that they were fast becoming to believe that it was not really the iniquity of the Government that was upsetting him, but the fact that his innocent nature rendered him liable to upheavals of that kind. The complaint made against this Bid was that it had been very much amended on Report. His recollection was that the Bill had been amended in order to meet exceptions put forward by the Opposition, who were so anxious to protect the interests of the absent-minded elector who might forget where, when, for whom, and for what purpose he had voted or even that

  635
  he had voted at all. He did not believe this absent-minded elector existed, except as a figment in the brains of the Members of the Opposition, which figment was responsible for the large number of Amendments put down upon the Report stage. This measure had been called all sort of names. The First Commissioner of Works had said that is was a Bill dealing solely with the machinery by means of which our elections were now carried out. The Opposition on the other had said it was a disfranchising Bill. That term had been used in a sense of which this measure did not permit, for it did not prevent a single man now qualified as an elector from continuing to be an elector. It was true that it deprived the plural voter of all votes except one, but that could not, strictly speaking, be called disfranchising, because it left the man a voter. But, granted for the sake of argument, it was a disfranchising measure so far as it deprived a man of some of his votes. Surely, on the other hand, it was an enfranchising measure, because it made the single voter more weighty and more influential in the elections which took place. Therefore the Members of the Opposition might take consolation from the fact that at any rate this measure enfranchised in equal proportion to the disfranchisement which it caused. They were told that the Bill was objectionable because it did not enfranchise women, did not embody the principle of one vote one value, and several other things. They might as well vote against a Bill dealing with primary education because it did not deal with secondary education. It must obviously be conceded by hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they were to have one vote one value the adoption of the principle of one man one vote was a necessary prelude, and since they could not do everything at once they had better decide what they would do now, and afterwards consider what they would do in regard to other matters. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had asked— Why not have all the elections on one day? That might be a desirable reform, but the intention of this Bill was that a man should not vote more than once. If all elections were on the same day that would only prevent a certain number from voting twice. He knew a
  636
  gentleman who at last election voted in Cambridgeshire and Glamorganshire. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had also asked—Why not prevent a man from voting twice in one year? That would take the value from a by-election as an indication of the opinion of the country, because the electorate would be different at the by-election from that at the general election, and it would be a serious alteration in the electoral constitution of the country. Hon. Members opposite had continually said that this Bill was aimed solely at the remnant of the Conservative Party in the country. Hon. Members opposite were always arrogating to themselves all the virtues that existed, and leaving to Liberals simply the possession of those vices which at the moment they did not desire to use themselves. It would be easy to answer the assertion that this Bill was aimed at the Conservative Party by asking what were the motives which actuated hon. Members in their violent opposition to it? Would they object to this Bill if they believed that every plural voter was a Liberal? Were Liberals precluded from believing that it was because hon. Members opposite supposed that plural voters were Conservative that they were so eager in their defence of plural voting? He suggested that in the few hours that remained for the discussion of the Bill they should confine themselves to its merits, instead of attributing political motives to those who defended it. The Liberal and Conservative ideas of franchise differed radically. Conservatives desired to see a man's interests represented. Liberals desired to see the man himself represented and this was the raison d'étre of the Bill. As to University representation, he attached enormous importance to the opinion of those unselfish and self-denying men who laboured so long and so lovingly in the great Universities of the country. He confessed that it was a matter of some satisfaction to him that they should be directly represented in this House. What value there was in University representation was preserved rather than injured by this Bill. So far from its disfranchising education, intelligence and knowledge, the Bill would probably tend to limit the voters in University elections to those who were interested in the management and work of the University.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUSsaid he could not take the view of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the Amendment now before the House was evasive. More evasive were the arguments brought 'forward in reply to those of the mover and seconder of the Amendment. He fully recognised the force of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman generally introduced into his speeches, but it seemed to him that this evening he had effectually evaded the arguments stated by the Opposition. If any apology were needed for supporting the Amendment it might be found in the circumstances under which the Bill had been discussed. Jt was introduced under what was called the ton minutes rule, which allowed the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure to make a speech to which only one speech was made in reply. Ten or twelve days afterwards, on May 14th, one day, and, one day only was allowed for the Second Reading of the Bill. It was true, six days were allowed for the consideration of the Bill in Committee, but why was it necessary to allow so long a time for that stage? It was simply because hon. Members found that the machinery by which it was proposed to give effect to the measure was unworkable and complicated. It was necessary, therefore, to introduce all kinds of Amendments in order to make the measure workable. It showed a great deal of patriotism on the part of the Opposition that whilst they opposed the Bill on the Second Reading, believing it to be thoroughly bad they devoted hour after hour to introducing Amendments in Committee and on Report with the view of making it a workable measure There could be no doubt that the Bill altered the size of nearly every constituency in the country, and at the same time it changed the conditions under which the electoral franchise had hitherto been exercised. He did not think a Bill that did that could be regarded as an unimportant measure. If the prevention of plural voting wore the sole object which the framers of the Bill had in view, it seemed to him that the desired result might have been brought about; by less complicated machinery. While he admitted that there were some objections to all elections being held on the same day, he thought
  638
  if that had been adopted as a means of preventing plural voting the number of persons who would have exercised the plural vote would have been infinitesimally small and not worth considering. There were other ways in which plural voting might have been prevented. He should have thought that a declaration at the time the vote was given that the elector had not voted in any other constituency would have required simpler machinery than that involved in the Bill. The machinery set up would produce a large amount of friction. Some of the effects produced by the Bill if it became law would be very different from those intended by its framers. He could not help thinking that one effect of the measure would be that many electors would be unable to vote even once, and for that reason it had been called a disfranchising Bill. He was quite certain that was not the intention of those who brought in the Bill. It had been said on the Opposition side of the House that there was a subtle intention on the part of the framers of the Bill that it should have the effect of injuring the Conservative Party. He did not believe that the great majority of plural voters were Unionist, but even if they were he was personally unwilling to ascribe any such motive to the Government. It seemed to him that it would be quite unworthy of a strong Party and a strong Government to condescend to obtain an advantage over their opponents in that manner. He would not believe that they intended to do so. At the same time he pointed out that although he did not ascribe to them any such motive, the effect of the Bill in his opinion would be to disfranchise a large number of electors, and for that reason alone it ought to be opposed. He would also point out that the effect of the Bill would be to penalise the plural voter as such. It was no fault of his that he was a plural voter. Nearly every graduate of a University was a plural voter. He could not see why an elector who might have saved £200 or £300 and invested that sum in rural property away from his own home should be placed in a worse position than the man who had invested his money in Consols; but the one was a single voter and the other a plural voter, and the latter would be subject to all the inconveniences and penalties which attached to the plural voter under this Bill. The last speaker

  639
  had made the unfortunate admission that the Bill would add to the value of the votes of the existing electors. If so, that showed that this was a very important measure affecting the entire electoral system of the country; and for that reason it ought to have received more consideration than it had done. A great deal had been heard in the course of the discussions in regard to the anomalies of our electoral system. He was quite willing to admit that there were anomalies. It was an anomaly that an elector possessing a small freehold in a distant part of the country, far removed from the place of his residence, where he had no special interest, should have a vote for that district, and by moans of his vote be able, possibly to influence the election. That anomaly was said by the Prime Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill to be a grievance, that it vitiated and thwarted the very conditions of Parliamentary representation. He was quite prepared to admit that this might be so, but he could not concede that this Bill removed the grievance. All that the Bill did was to give such an elector the choice of voting at his place of residence or in the constituency in which he had no special interest. He should have thought that it would have been very much simpler to have introduced some such scheme as had been proposed, to restrict the voting to the place of residence. He contended that the Bill with all its complicated machinery failed to effect the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view. Another reason why he supported the Amendment was the uncompromising attitude of the Government in refusing to accept any limitation to the general principle of the Bill. Nothing could exceed the courtesy with which the Minister in charge of the Bill had risen to reply to all the arguments offered against it from the Opposition side of the House. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman and the Government had met every suggestion for any Amendment of the principle of the Bill with an absolute non possumus. They had accepted Amendments, but only on a few details. The Government undoubtedly possessed a giant's strength, and it seemed to him that in this Bill, and in their other measures, they were determined to show that they would use their strength after the manner of a giant.
  640
  In his opinion two cases for exceptional treatment had been made out. One was that of an elector who resided in one place and carried on his business in a neighbouring city or borough. In that case certainly his interests were divided, and it was very difficult for such an elector to say whether he would vote in his place of residence or in the city where he carried on his business. The City of London was a case in point, and if the Bill became law, that constituency would be limited to caretakers and office-keepers. The other case was that of University representation. He might say that unless the University representation were conceded in addition to the ordinary representation—if the vote given to a University graduate were not regarded as an additional vote, conferred on him as a privilege on account of the general intelligence of the constituency, it would be of no use whatever. The arguments in favour of University representation had been fully brought before the House by the representatives of Oxford, Cambridge, Glasgow and London, and he would not now add to t hem. But he would make one final remark. The theory seemed to have been adopted by hon. Members opposite that nothing could be said in favour of plural voting; but from a scientific and logical point of view it was certainly capable of being defended. He would have thought that in a democratic Assembly such as this, the authority of so distintinguished a Liberal as the late John Stuart Mill would have carried with it some weight. He would read a single passage only from Mill's work on Representative Government, with which nearly every hon. Member was no doubt conversant. Mill said—
  "A person may have a double vote by other means than that of tendering two votes at the same hustings; he may have a vote in each ot two different constituencies; and though this exceptional privilege at present belongs rather to superiority of means than of intelligence, I would not abolish it where it exists, since until a truer test of education is adopted it would be unwise to dispense with even so imperfect a one as is afforded by pecuniary circumstances. Means might be found of giving a further extension to the privilege, which would connect it in a more direct manner with superior education. In any future Reform Bill which lowers the pecuniary conditions of the suffrage, it might be a wise provision to allow all graduates of Universities, all persons who had passed creditably through the higher schools, all members of the liberal professions, and

  641
  perhaps some others, to be registered specifically in those characters, and to give their votes as such in any constituency in which they chose to register, retaining, in addition, their votes as simple citizens in the localities in which they reside."
  He had ventured to read that quotation because he thought the view of so eminent a politician might have some weight with hon. Members on both sides of the House. He thought it was very doubtful whether the mover of this Resolution would be able to carry with him all the Members on the Ministerial side of the House; but he found considerable difficulty in realising what reasons there might be for refusing, at any rate, to adopt the suggestion made that the consideration of a reform in our electoral system should be postponed until it was associated with a more comprehensive measure than the present. He could not help thinking that it was a most mistaken and unscientific way of dealing with electoral reforms, to tinker with the constitution by bringing forward such a Bill as this. the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to the arguments brought forward were not worthy of that logical ability which he had shown in his previous speeches. The right hon. Gentleman said he was desirous of showing the greatest possible consideration to the plural voter, and for that reason he was anxious to give him a long time to accustom himself to the novel machinery of the Bill. If that was the case why did he refuse the Amendment to the effect that the operation of the Bill should be postponed until a more comprehensive measure had been introduced? There was no reason why this Bill should come into operation until 1907, and if its operation were postponed until they could consider the other anomalies of our electoral system he had no doubt whatever that there would be very much loss objection on the part of many hon. Members to accept some such proposal as that contained in the measure, provided of course that exceptions of the kind suggested were made. He was unable to appreciate the arguments in favour of the measure, and he ventured to think they had not been fully placed before the House. He was compelled to fall back upon another reason suggested by the late John Stuart Mill, who pointed out—
  "That those who are supreme over everything, those who cannot be resisted, are usually
  642
  far too well satisfied with their opinions to he willing to change them or to listen without impatience to anyone who tells them that they are wrong."
  On these grounds he supported the Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the hon. Member had quoted a passage in John Stuart Mill's "Representative Government "which ought to be quoted with the reserve that it was written when Mill was an official at the India Office, and had not turned his attention to the franchise question, and that it was contradicted by what he said and wrote during the last fourteen years of his life. He had to thank the hon. Member for the support he gave to his proposal that this Bill should be altered into a residential Bill, because the one objection to that proposal from his point of view might be that there was no such thing as residence in a University in the franchise sense of the term, and that the University resident was resident in the corporeal structure of a college building but not in the University, which was an incorporeal thing. That was the objection the hon. Member might have had, and as he thought his Amendment would have destroyed the constituency of the hon. Member it was extremely kind of him to give it his support. The First Commissioner of Works had very naturally rolled up the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth with his Party. The hon. Baronet might have stirred up his Party to propose a redistribution scheme, but the moment they proposed it the hon. Baronet came out as its strongest opponent. He was not sure that his support might not have been got by the sacrifice of Canterbury.
  SIR HENRY KIMBERremarked that his scheme involved the sacrifice of no constituency, but the enlargement of those, including Canterbury, that needed enlargement.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the fate of Canterbury hung for a long time in the balance. The hon Baronet used words following the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, and implied that from a redistribution point of view matters were rather worsened than bettered by this Bill. He had

  643
  ventured to say "No" when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin said so, not only upon the ground alluded to by the Member for the, Chesterton division of Cambridgeshire, that by cutting off the plural voters— by cutting off the people who had ten, twenty, or thirty votes—they increased potentially the power of the people who remained, but because this Bill would directly reduce in suburban and other constituencies the anomalies which existed at the present time. These suburban constituencies had increased and were increasing, and therefore, by taking off some thousands of voters they were decreasing and not increasing the anomalies now existing. When the hon. Baronet raised the question of redistribution, he was afraid some of them used to treat his views with disrespect, because they used to assure him that he would never get his large redistribution scheme, whatever declarations might have been made at a garden party at Blenheim. That prophecy had become true, and in the last considerable debate on Redistribution he would remember that they told him that they were convinced by their experience that the next Redistribution Bill would be upon a simpler franchise. When Parliament made up its mind to deal with this question, it would have to deal with it by a simple single franchise on a large scale and by agreement between the two Parties. He did not think that his hon. friend now believed he was going to get redistribution in any other way, although many hon. Members shared the hon. Baronet's views as to the desirability of redistribution. The hon. Baronet was under a delusion as to the nature of the franchise which he thought this Bill attacked. He had stated that 3,000,000 odd electors voted for the Conservative Party at the last election, and that only 3,000,000 odd voted for the Liberal and Labour Parties; that the Conservative Members each represented 17,000 voters and the Liberal and Labour Members 7,000 each; and he claimed that the Conservative Party were entitled to more Members. The hon. Baronet called these voters citizens, but how many had been counted over and over again? The hon. Baronet had added up the votes cast and had called them citizens. They were not citizens at all. When one person voted
  644
  at the Kensington Town Hall, once for London, and once for the county of Middlesex, was he two citizens? The argument of the hon. Baronet was one of the absurdities which the plural voting system of this country brought before them. The plural voting system which John Stuart Mill at one time advocated, but which he eventually deprecated, was entirely different from the system which now existed; and the special University representation of which they heard just now was entirely different from that which now existed and that which was supported by John Stuart Mill. The hon. Baronet had based his demand upon the fact that these plural voters were freeholders, and that therefore they should have a county vote. But the great majority of the plural voters were not freeholders, and had not the interest the hon. Baronet claimed for them, and the vast number of those who had an out-side-county interest did not possess a vote in regard to it. This Bill was intended to kill, and would diminish, an abuse, in which he included the University franchise—an abuse which was almost entirely confined to this country; which had been swept away in every country in which it had existed; and which exceeded in its present shape anything that over existed in any other country The plan of the Bill was a costly one. He disliked exceedingly the cost involved, but that cost was caused in part by the complexity of our franchises, and in part by his right hon. friends tenderness to the Party opposite. His particular objection to the scheme was that it was a costly scheme. It would admittedly increase expenditure until in the course of years the law had settled down and worked smoothly. He had never been able to understand the ground on which his right hon. friend had rejected the modified scheme which he (Sir Charles) proposed, and which received so much support from the Ministerial side of the House. He had not met anybody on that side of the House except his right hon. friend who was in favour of the particular scheme of the Bill. The scheme which he thought would be preferable to that of the Bill was one which would not throw a choice upon the voter, but would work automatically in the case of residence, except where a man had more

  645
  than one residence, or no residence, in any constituency in which he had a qualification. His scheme was that the residence should be taken as the automatic test by which a man should vote. Whore he had more than one residence, or no residence, in the constituency the machinery of this Bill would work. The Bill would enormously increase the cost of inquiries that would have to be made, and all the Amendments which had been put into the Bill with so much skill would only tend to increase cost and trouble. Before he sat down he would like to refer to the hard case of the county clerks, and in this connection he hoped, and he was sure, his right hon. friend would give personal attention to the Orders in Council that would be made under the Bill. The county clerks would have very difficult and very delicate duties thrust upon them, some of which they might not be able to discharge. It was a very curious thing that the House was not familiar with the extraordinary intricacies of the law of registration. The hon. Member who spoke so brilliantly in seconding the Motion alluded to the seventeen franchises we possessed, but he would defy the hon. Member to name the whole of the seventeen. One was an Irish franchise, unknown even to hon. Members representing Ireland. He believed the only man who knew of it was Mr. Maurice Healy, and that was the seventeenth of the franchises of this country. The difficulties of these franchises faced us at every turn, and we should never, get rid of them until Parliament made up its mind to have a simple single franchise which would lead to the large redistribution which this Amendment-sought. It seemed quite easy for the House on Report to enact, as it did enact, that notice should be taken, as though they were plural voters, of all the persons on the register in whose case Column 2 differed from Column 4. It was not in itself an important thing perhaps. It was to diminish the number of voters to be counted for the purposes of the maximum scale. Although in that case it did not matter very much, it would be of importance soon on account of the tendency in changes of our law to throw more and more the responsibility for the register upon the county clerk. They were throwing upon him duties which no one
  646
  could adequately perform, and which were likely to drive that poor man to distraction. He did not know if hon. Members thought there was any tendency to exaggerate these difficulties. He had spoken very much within the mark in every case. It was thought to simplify the franchise if difference could be detected between the second and fourth columns; but apart from the fact that a man called his place by one name and the overseers called it by another in every county constituency there were towns the suburbs of which were postally different from the ordinary description and the second column had to contain the postal address. The only reason that these details were of interest was because they illustrated the bog and morass into which they were plunged through not making up their minds and having a simple franchise.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid that although the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had advocated principles with which the Opposition did not agree, he had in the main been much on their side, because his speech had been directed against the practicability of the Bill. The constituency which he (Mr. Bonar Law) represented contained many plural voters; but he did not think that was the reason for the strong feeling he had entertained towards the Bill from the beginning on the ground of its unfairness. the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had, in its later stages, shown some sensitiveness under the accusation that it had been introduced for the sake of weakening political opponents. He had even gone the length of saying that the charge was discourteous. In any case they could only judge of the intentions of the Government by the effect of what they had done. He did not wish to be offensive to the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else, but he found it difficult to say what he thought about this Bill in language as temperate as he would like to employ. The spirit in which he wished to deal with the right hon. Gentleman was illustrated by Lord Granville's anecdote of Count D'Orsay's visit to Saunders and Ottley, the booksellers. Count D'Orsay broke out into language full of brimstone, whereupon a gentleman, coming forward in a dignified manner from behind a desk, said he

  647
  could not stand such language and would return the Count's subscription. Count D'Orsay said, "I did not mean anything personal; if you are Saunders, confound Ottley; if you are Ottley, confound Saunders." That was exactly the spirit in which he wished to deal with the right hon. Gentleman. He said deliberately he could see no justification for this Bill if it was not intended to strengthen the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged and to weaken their opponents. He was bound to look at the measure from two points of view, one regarding the principle on which it was based, the other regarding the machinery by which it was to be carried out. From either point of view the charge he had made against the Bill was abundantly proved by its nature. He would take the case of a man who worked in one constituency and lived in another, and paid rates in both, and whose identification with each was so strongly marked that it would be impossible to say with which it was the closer. Would anybody, looking at his possession of the franchise in a broad-minded way and apart from Party interests, not say that, although this was an anomaly, it was one which was fair in itself, and which ought not to be removed until he had made an attempt to get the whole electoral system on to a basis fair according to the principle upon which he was proceeding? What was the principle on which this Bill was based? It implied that the vote of one man ought to have as far as possible approximately the same influence as the vote of any other. The right hon. Gentleman was, however, face to face with an anomaly far greater than that with which he dealt in the Bill. Without a real examination into the subject it was impossible to say that the comparatively small anomaly which he was removing did not itself temper the injustice of the greater anomaly which he was leaving altogether on one side. The Government left the big anomaly alone and dealt with the small one; and the fact that the result of dealing with the small one was certain to be favourable to their Party, while the result of dealing with the other was uncertain, was in itself proof that this' was a gerrymandering Bill and nothing else. If, as he believed, the principle of the Bill was altogether unfair, the machinery by which it was proposed to carry out
  648
  that principle was not only palpably but grotesquely and absurdly unfair. The principle that taxation and representation should go together used to be the principle of the Liberal Party so long as they looked for support from possessors of property. Now that they looked for support, in competition with Members below the gangway, from those who did not possess property, the principle was entirely abandoned. The Government had laid down in this Bill, for the first time in political history, the new principle that possession of property was to be to some extent a disqualification for the right of exercising the franchise. If the Bill became law, every man who had only one qualification would get his vote as a matter of course, without doing anything to secure it. Every man with two votes could only use one after having substantiated a claim for it. In the one case the vote would be a matter of right; in the other a matter of claim. That was obviously unfair. It had been proved over and over again to be even more unfair in practice than in theory. Everyone who had spoken on the subject had admitted that if the claiming of the franchise depended on an individual himself, a very large proportion of the voters of this country would never claim the franchise at all. Everyone, except those who sat on the Treasury Bench, had admitted that the Bill was clumsy and unworkable, and left the door open to every kind of fraud in connection with voting. The professed object of the Government was to prevent an elector voting more than once; their real object was to prevent a man having more than one vote from voting at all. How had the Bill been defended against Amendments? The usual answer of the right hon. Gentleman, when he had no argument wherewith to meet an Amendment, was, "To accept this would be contrary to the principle of selection." And what was the principle? The right hon. Gentleman said on one occasion that a man who did not take the trouble to claim a vote was not entitled to have it. If that was a good principle, why should it not be applied all round, to the man who had only one qualification as well as to the man who had several? But the possession of two votes was considered a disqualification

  649
  for the exercise of the franchise, and the possession of property was to be discouraged. The President of the Board of Trade, in speaking upon the Education Bill, said that clericalism was the enemy. The Government had shown by their actions, more important than their speeches, that in their eyes the possessor of property was their enemy.
  MR. J. WARDpointed out that the speeches made by opponents to the Bill absolutely and entirely contradicted each other. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth made against the Government with regard to their motives in bringing this subject forward a similar accusation to that just made by the hon. Member for Dulwich, and earlier in the debate by the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool. Then there were speeches by Members of the Opposition which absolutely repudiated that accusation as being discourteous and unfair, and admitted that there might be something in the principle of abolishing plural voters, but asserted that the method proposed by the Bill was not the way in which it should be done. He had no doubt that whatever Bill was brought forward to abolish plural voting there would be very considerable difficulty in devising the machinery to carry out the principle. But on the Third Reading of the measure it was not the machinery which should interest them, but the underlying principles of the Bill itself. The question was, were they in favour of one citizen having sometimes two or three, or even a dozen times, as much power in electing representatives to Parliament as another? If they disagreed on that he could understand the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He could understand the opposition to the principle of one voter one vote, which, he confessed in a clumsy sort of way, was attempted by this measure. He was of the opinion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that there was a much simpler way of doing the business than that which the Bill proposed, but he did not think the First Commissioner of Works could have avoided the sort of criticism that was directed against him now, even if he had employed other methods. As a matter of fact, he and the Opposition differed in
  650
  principle upon this Bill. He had heard a formula trotted out a dozen times that afternoon, which stated that every vote should have the same value. What the meaning of it was he did not know. He believed that the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth, when he used that formula, meant that there should be a sort of automatic method of making constituencies as nearly equal as possible. But then it was quite clear that other Members meant nothing of the kind, and that what they meant was that in proportion to the wealth of an individual —in proportion to his material position and to the taxation that he paid to the State he should be given the power to elect representatives. He ventured to suggest that the working man, considering his opportunities and the amount of resource which he had at his disposal, paid as high a percentage of the rates and taxes of the country as any hon. Member in the House. But this measure ought to be discussed on higher principles than that. The question was whether one citizen should have a greater influence in the election of Members to Parliament than another, irrespective of their position in life or their material possessions. He did not agree with anything of the sort. They would find very poor men, who had to work at exhausting bodily labour, with quite as much intelligence as many of the people who boasted of their wealth. They could not make wealth or position a qualification in any shape or form. They had been told that they should not adopt this measure, because there were other and larger anomalies, such as University representation and the glaring difference in the number of electors in many constituencies. There was Wandsworth, probably the largest constituency in the county, where the minority had never been represented in the House of Commons for the last twenty years. The minority in Wandsworth were probably as numerous as many constituencies which were represented. Because the Members of the Opposition were able to point to three or four other anomalies that was no reason why the House should not, attack the anomaly of plural voting. It was a very peculiar argument to assert that they ought not to attack one anomaly without attacking them all. If they did not tackle anomalies one at a

  651
  time they would never abolish any of them. He thought the Government were doing the right thing in this measure. He desired that every adult should be declared eligible to have a voice in the affaire of the nation, and he would like to see all elections on one day. He also desired to see that all public-houses should be closed on the election day, in order that the verdict of the country might be more in accordance with the intelligent and sober opinion of the people; but, because the Government could not attach those things to this Bill that was no reason why the House should not adopt what was now proposed as the minimum demand. He hoped every Labour Member and every democrat in the House would support the Third Beading of this Bill.
  MR. THORNTONsaid his hon. friend's Motion was deserving of sympathy and support. He thought that as the Government limited its proposals to preventing plural voting and refused to deal at all with the question of one vote one value, Unionists were justified in calling a halt before they went further down the slippery slope of redistribution upon which both sides of the House had entered. He still maintained that the proposals in this Bill would probably have the effect of disfranchising a number of electors, and causing injustice to those who were concerned in guiding the constituencies, for the cost of elections would be enormously increased. That was contrary to the principles of those who had brought in the Bill, their desire always having been to cheapen elections. Taking these facts together he was justified in maintaining that the Liberal Party had not logically carried out their own principles in the way the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean believed they ought to have done. They had endeavoured to clear their flanks and drive away what they believed to be hostile bodies of troops, but in doing so they had not carried out the ideas which they as a Party had hitherto entertained, In his judgment there was a hill in front of them, and on the other side a valley filled up with rugged country through which they would have to pass. In the preface to "Rogers on Elections" he found the
  652
  following passage which put this part of his argument very clearly—
  "Until a Consolidation Act is passed defining the different franchises which exist, and laying down an uniform system of registration, both things within the scope of one, or perhaps two moderately short statutes, the difficulty to those to whom the subject is new. of obtaining a clear view of the varieties of franchises, and of the machinery provided for registration, will continue to be considerable."
  That was the opinion of an expert on this question. It had been said in the course of these debates that this was the first occasion on which a disfranchising measure had been placed before the British Parliament for many years. There was certainly a precedent in the reign of Henry VI. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laughed, but he thought this was rather pertinent, because our whole system had depended greatly upon the 40s. freeholder. According to Rogers, Henry IV. in order to popularise his dynasty greatly increased the number of voters who "probably belonged to the freeholders at large, independently of the value of their freeholds." But in 1430, in the reign of Henry VI., an Act was passed restricting the exercise of the franchise, and thereby many people must have been disfranchised. Rogers said—
  "That Statute, after reciting that elections have been made by very great, outrageous, and excessive numbers of people, of small substance, and of no value, whereof every of them pretended a voice equivalent with the most worthy knights and esquires, provided that the knights of the shires … shall be chosen by people having free land and tenements of 40s. value by the year."
  That was equivalent to £45 of our money. Various changes had led up to the broad franchise which we enjoyed at the present moment, and he thought it would be far better to have a consolidating measure which would have in it some element of permanency instead of the partial remedy now proposed. While he would not himself presume to lay down any policy, he thought it was desirable that they should have some guide as to how far they were to go in regard to the question of redistribution. As a Cambridge man he would like to say a word on University representation. He never could believe that the Conservative Party would desert University representation. [An HON. MEMBER: They will not do that.] Certain criticisms directed against the

  653
  unwillingness or inability of our great university representatives to go before and hold their own with popular audiences were untenable. The late Sir Richard Jebb was one of the most interesting and intellectual speakers he had ever hoard, and all those in the House who had come in contact With him were charmed with his utterances. It was the same with the late Mr. Leckie, who had shown himself exceptionally prominent, in debates during the last Parliament. He insisted that the tendency of this Bill was gradually to destroy the representation of Oxford, Cambridge, London and the Scottish Universities, who had always returned members of which they were all proud. Surely this was an occasion when the conception of a workable redistribution scheme, such as was outlined at Blenheim in August, 1901, should be formulated by the right hon. Member for the City. It was a subject of deep regret throughout the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham who took a leading part at Blenheim owing to ill-health was not present to express opinions on a subject regarding which my knowledge was that of an expert.
  MR. VERNEYsaid that the hon. Member for Clapham had spoken with sincere admiration for the representatives of the Universities who had been Members of that House. But he would remind the House that there was no class of people in the United Kingdom who were so largely represented in both Houses of Parliament as the graduates of the Universities without special representation. That was to say, the many brilliant members of Universities in the House had ample opportunities of reflecting the thought and opinion of the Universities of which they were graduates, and he did not think that form of representation was in the least likely to dwindle or disappear in the future. He could not understand how anyone who had read the Bill could have put down the Amendment in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth, which ran that the sole object of the Bill was—
  "the prohibition and penalizing of a large class of His Majesty's subjects in the exercise of admitted rights and franchises."
  That was not the sole or even the main object of the Bill, though it was a necessary incident of the Bill that penalties
  654
  should be imposed to enforce us provisions. The hon. Baronet asked who was hurt by the present condition of things? There was an obvious answer to that. Supposing there were fifty Members who had ten votes each, while all the remainder had only one vote, would not all the latter be hurt by the plural voting given to a privileged few? Precisely the same thing happened in the constituencies. He called this an enfranchising instead of a disfranchising Bill. There were some 6,000,000 voters in the United Kingdom, and he believed between 500,000 and 600,000 plural voters. Who was hurt in that case? The 5,500,000 single voters by the privilege given to the 500,000 plural voters. That was an unanswerable argument. Every plural voter tended to disfranchise the single voter, and thereby every single voter was hurt. He himself was not altogether in love with the Bill, because he did not pretend that it was a perfect measure. But it was one step in the direction of a great reform, and therefore he would give his vote in favour of it. If it were so framed as to render a greater reform impossible he would not vote for it. A great deal had been said about taxation and representation going together. If carried out to its logical conclusion that meant that a man should have the number of votes proportioned to the amount of taxation he paid. But they knew that that was not the case at present. If A paid £100 in taxation and B paid £500, should B have five times as many votes as A? At present the number of plural votes a man had depended upon the kind of property he owned and upon the exact position of his property. If the property was at the junction of three or four counties he might have four or five votes, although that property was only worth £500 a year; while a man with property of the value of £10,000 a year in another situation might have only one vote. On the other hand, a man with largo personal property in stocks and shares might have only one vote, while another with a small, amount of landed property might have several votes, although the former paid a great deal more taxation than the latter. He regretted that this measure did not go further than it did, but he would support it with a clear conscience and with his whole heart.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had, in the course of his speech, instead of using arguments in favour of his measure, devoted the whole of his time to a criticism of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, and especially to the occupants of the front Opposition bench. The single argument the right hon. Gentleman had used in favour of the Bill was that it was an injustice for one man to have two votes and another man only one. If that was so, why did not the Liberal Party when in power bring forward long years ago a measure to remedy that alleged injustice? It was well known that Mr. Gladstone in 1892–5 and during a previous tenure of office had refused to have anything to do with such a measure. Surely it could not be a very great injustice to allow a man to have two votes, because it was the policy of the State to encourage people to invest their money in property. That had always been the policy of the Unionist Party in this country, and also in Ireland when they passed their land legislation for that country. They said that the more owners of property, and especially poor owners, there were the better for the State. In the fifteen largest constituencies in England there were 387,000 electors, while the fifteen smallest constituencies contained 48,000 in round figures. That meant that there were in the fifteen larger constituencies eight times as many electors as in the fifteen smaller, so that the voting power in the smaller constituencies—which ranged from 2,000 to 3,000 electors—was eight times the power of that in the larger constituencies. He mentioned that to show that these people were at present under an electoral injustice. A great many of them, however, had plural votes, and that tempered the injustice a little bit.
  MR. SHACKLETON: That applies to both of them.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Surely it does tend to temper the injustice. Continuing, the hon. Member gave the House three other instances—one from Ireland, one from Scotland, and one from Wales. In Ireland the constituency of
  656
  East Belfast had 15,000 odd voters, while five smaller ones, including Galway and Kilkenny, which each returned a Member, only possessed a total of voters amounting to 13,856. In the case in Wales, Cardiff district had 26,000 odd voters against Montgomery Boroughs with 3,300 voters. That was to say there was a difference of eight to one. The case in Scotland was that of the Partick Division of Lanark there were 18,000 electors odd, while Wigton Burghs had 2,700 voters, a case in which there was a difference seven to one. As an old University man he protested against the attack upon University representation. He thought it was unfair to lessen that representation, especially in view of the able men that the Universities sent to this House. It so happened that at present they had those men on the Opposition side of the House, but it had not always been so. Hon. Members representing University constituencies had sat on both sides of the House. It would be very much regretted if, under this Bill, the number of University voters dwindled down to so small a number that a case could be made out for taking the representation away altogether. Under the heading of education, science, and art, the House was voting this year no less than £16,327,000. That was a very large expenditure, and, surely, such education ought to have some representation in the House. It was necessary that they should have Members who were qualified to give an opinion on educational matters. The Opposition case had been that if the Government were going to do away with plural voting, why did they not bring in a Bill simply saying it was illegal for a man to vote twice, and not a complicated Bill which would be almost impossible to work? If the right hon. Gentleman had no fear of the plural voter, why did he not bring in a simple Bill? Instead of doing so, he had laid himself open to the charge of having brought in this complicated machinery with the express purpose of making it difficult for those people to exercise the franchise at all. The Bill was brought in for the purpose of damaging the Unionist Party. Surely there were sufficient right hon. and hon. Gentleman on the Ministerial Benches without its having been necessary to bring in a Bill to reduce further the small Unionist numbers. They could

  657
  have waited, surely, for one or two years, and then brought in a proper Redistribution Bill, and so dealt with the whole question. The Opposition made their protest—he did not suppose it would have any effect on the Government —and he hoped that protest would warrant the Bill being thrown out by the House of Lords.
  MR. PAULsaid the Bill had been criticised, not so much on account of its substance as on account of its form, but he had noticed that when anyone objected to the principle of a Bill they nearly always discovered that its form was the very worst that could have been selected. The Government had been blamed because they had not made it a residential Bill. He thought the principle that a man should vote whore he breakfasted and slept was a sound one, and that this would in most cases be the practice which would be followed when the Bill became law. It would be difficult to lay down a residential qualification, because of the difficulty of saying where some men resided. He had met once, in Switzerland, an Irish landlord whose eight children had all been born in different foreign hotels. That man had a vote for his property in Ireland, but it would have puzzled anyone to say where his residence was. With regard to the arguments against the form of the Bill, he remembered Sir John Gorst, one of the ablest lawyers in the House, saying that any fool could get up all about the Corrupt Practices Act in one day, and he thought anybody of ordinary intelligence could get up this Bill in half a day. There was no form of study, except bad poetry, which he would not prefer to the revised statutes or even the repealed statutes, which often, however, were more amusing and interesting than the statutes at large, but he derived consolation from two sources. In the first place, he realised that this Bill was not meant for one's own amusement, but for one's general instruction. In the second place, being in favour of the principle which this Bill enunciated, he was not greatly concerned with the particular form in which it was clothed. If all Acts of Parliament were made perfectly clear and intelligible what would become of the legal profession; and if anything happened to the legal profession
  658
  what would become of this House? Where would they go for the humour, the delicacy, and the eloquence which made the debates, to say the least, endurable? The hon. Baronet the junior Member for the City of London made recently a melancholy speech on the future state of the plural voter. It was an important speech, because after all it was men like the hon. Baronet who maintained the financial reputation of the City—a thing of which every Englishman was proud, whether he knew anything about finance or not. It was a most pathetic speech; nothing was more touching than the description of the condition to which the plural voter would be reduced. But much as he might sympathise with the woes of the plural voter, he could not help remembering that the obligations laid upon him must be neglected before he could arrive at his unsupportable dilemma, and that the original duty cast upon him of giving notice to the overseers had also to be discharged by that exceedingly humble person the lodger. He was astonished to hear the right hon. Member for South Dublin, one of the greatest authorities in this House on local government, complain of this obligation as if it were a thing unheard of. The plural voter might have property in half-a-dozen counties and the lodger inhabit only one room, but what difference did that make from the point of view of justice? The objections to this Bill were as to substance as well as to form, and it had been said that though it might be very well to deprive a man of a vote in a part of the country where he had no local interest, if he lived in one constituency and carried on business in another, it was hard that he should not have two votes. The hon. and gallant Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool asked why if a man had one vote for his residence and another for his place of business, a working man should not have a vote for his house and another for the place in which he worked. Hon. Members opposite argued to the effect that a working man did not pay taxes. If hon. Members opposite told the country that at the next election, he could quite understand that in spite of their intellectual calibre their numbers here would be small. Taxation was indirect as well as direct, and every man and woman in this country who was not in the workhouse or

  659
  in gaol paid taxes. The only possible inference that could be drawn from the principle that taxation and representation should go together was that there should be universal suffrage, male as well as female, totally unconnected with the possession of either real or personal property except such as everyone required in order to live. A man who smoked his pipe paid taxes. It was right for a man with property in several counties to have a vote for the county council in each county, because there were as many county councils as counties, but there was only one Parliament. Let him take his own case. He had two votes, and had he chosen to buy a vote for the University of Oxford he would have had three. Why should he have three or even two when his hon. friend the Member for Barnard Castle and the hon. Member for East Birmingham only had one? The thing was absurd. It was not a question of intelligence or capacity. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City had said that the fact of a man possessing property in a great many places was evidence that he had a great many sources of mental activity and had made good use of them. That was a dangerous argument, and he might suggest an analogy which was at least verbally relevant, that the more scattered his property the more scattered his brains.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: What I said was that if a man had two houses it must be taken as evidence that he had more ability and had got on in the world. I did not say anything about scattered property.
  MR. PAULsaid the hon. Baronet had expressed in better language than he the same thing. The man if he were to have two votes must have houses in two constituencies. In the course of this debate reference had been made to the question of University representation. The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool had done him the honour of quoting something he had said about the inadequate character of the examinations for the degree of a bachelor of arts at Oxford. He did not deny that he might have said it, but it was not the main part of his argument, and no doubt things had improved since his time, as indeed he gathered they had from the speech of the
  660
  hon. and learned Gentleman. The main point in his argument was that the vote for the Oxford and Cambridge Universities was not obtained by the bachelor's degree which meant an examination, but by the master's degree which meant paying a sum of money. He had seen it stated since this question was discussed in Committee, and he believed it to be true, that the representation of those Universities had become much less clerical. The cause of that was a very sad one, it being the increasing poverty of clergymen. There were many clergymen in charge of large and poor parishes who had a better use for their money than that of purchasing the right to remain on the books and to vote for the parliamentary representation of their old University. There had been no contested election for the University of Oxford since the year 1878. He would very much like to put it—not to a constitutional authority like the hon. Baronet—but to some humble inquirer after constitutional truth who it was chose the Members to represent Oxford University. If the inquirer conducted his researches in a ruthless and impartial spirit they would lead him at last, unless he were stopped by the porter, into the recesses of the Carlton Club. In speaking in Committee on this subject of University representation he quoted the case of Peel's rejection at Oxford because he was in favour of emancipating Roman Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in an interruption which was at once relevant and courteous, called his attention to the case of Macaulay who was rejected on some similar ground at Edinburgh University. He made some answer to the right hon. Gentleman on the spur of the moment, but, as usual, the best answer occurred to him a quarter of an hour too late. The answer he ought to to have given was that as soon as the electors of the City had an opportunity they elected him. He supposed it was expected of a University that it would be superior to the ordinary run of Party questions. No University, so far as he was aware, had ever been superior to Party. He believed that, with three exceptions, every Member for Oxford and Cambridge might very well have obtained a seat in any ordinary constituency. The three exceptions were Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Gabriel Stokes, and Sir Richard Jebb. If this Bill did nothing

  661
  else than put an end to what was called University representation, but was not representation of a University, he should support it, because it gave the final stroke; to a principle which was not in accordance with the democratic principles accepted by both parties for the last twenty years, and which, so for as it pretended to be special representation, was a mockery and a snare.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYcongratulated the hon. Gentleman on being the first Member outside the Front Ministerial Bench to give the Bill hearty support. An hon. Member who proceded him was extremely angry with the Amendment because it said that the sole object was to disfranchise a certain number of people, whereas this would be only an incidental effect of the Bill. He did not care whether the sole object of the Bill was to disfranchise people, or whether the result of the Bill was to disfranchise people. It was because he believed the Bill would disfranchise people that he intended to support the Amendment of his hon. friend. The Firs: Commissioner of Works had all along advocated this Bill on the ground that there were certain anomalies in the electoral system that ought to be remedied, and said that the Bill dealt with one of the most flagrant. He, however, did not think it was an anomaly. The principle of franchise in this country ever since the time of Henry VI. had been based not upon men but upon property. That might be right or it might be wrong, but it was the principle. The principle of local representation had also held good in this country, and for a very good reason. If we were to have equal electoral areas the result would be that large towns would have undue power in governing the rural districts He considered the principle of local representation ought to be maintained. The interests of people living in the country and the interests of people living in towns were not always absolutely indentical, and it was desirable that the best men possible should be sent to this House to represent the various interests in the country. Local representation effected that result. If the principles of local representation and property qualifications were sound, and also the principle that taxation and representation should
  662
  go together, then there was no anomaly in plural voting, because it was evident that if they admitted these three principles there must be plural voting. The principle that taxation and representation should go together was never meant to imply that a man with large property should have more representation in proportion to the man with a small amount of property. All that it meant was that a man should not have a vote unless he paid according to his means some amount of rates and taxes. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent had asked why people with money should have more votes in proportion to their money. Nothing of the kind was ever advocated from the Opposition side of the House. The hon. Member must have confused a speech of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, who said it seemed an injustice that a man with 20,000 acres in one part of a county should not have as many votes as a man with fifty acres in one part of a county and fifty acres in another. He did not know that the hon. Gentleman ever proposed to make an alteration, because he was under the idea that a Bill should be brought in to give residential qualifications. The same sort of wrong idea seemed to have been in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, because he told the House the other night that it was absurd that a rich man should have more votes than a man because he was poor. All that had been argued, however, was that where a man paid taxes in a constituency he should have a vote in that constituency, and not more than one vote. He was not surprised that there was a little confusion in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, and that he was not aware of the old Radical doctrine that taxation and representation should go together, because he had only lately become a recruit to that Party. He (Sir F. Banbury) supported the Amendment because the Bill was a disfranchising Bill, and was without precedent, as it was not to be followed by redistribution or dissolution. He quite agreed that it would not be wise for the Party opposite to dissolve at the present time. But why should they bring in this Bill now? Why should they not wait until a short time before their dissolution, which must come sooner or later? The violent hurry for the Bill was dictated by the fear of the

  663
  country turning round at the by-elections. This was not a Bill for one man one vote, but a Bill for one man no vote, if that man possessed a certain amount of property. The hon. Member for Northampton had challenged his statement that, as a rule, when a man succeeded in holding property in two or more constituencies it was rather an argument that he was fit to exercise the franchise. He could not consider that all men were equal. He wished they were, but he thought unfortunately some men were better thinkers, clearer reasoners, and more far-sighted than others, and those men generally succeeded in raising themselves in this world, and were generally Conservative. The machinery of the Bill was so complicated that the ordinary person would not know quite what to do in order to ensure his vote. Most people would leave it to the agent, and the result would be that many would be disfranchised. As the Bill originally stood, if a man merely asked for a ballot paper he would be subject to two years hard labour. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman, owing to representations made on the Opposition side, had substituted a fine of £500. He thought that a fine of £500 for asking for a ballot paper, when the man who was asking had the right to be on the register somewhere, was in itself sufficient to justify the rejection of the Bill. The result of all the pains and penalties to be imposed would be that in many oases men who were qualified to give a vote and were anxious to record it would find themselves disfranchised. The effect of the Bill would be to disfranchise voters who did not hold the views of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMSsaid the speeches of the hon. Member for Dulwich and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London showed pretty clearly that the real opposition to this Bill was the hatred of democracy and of the lifting up of the masses. Had it never occurred to them that there were on the Ministerial side of the House men equally interested in property and anxious to safeguard it? The difference between the two sides was as to the lines on which this was to be best accomplished. He maintained that it could only be done by the social and political uplifting of the masses. The only way to preserve pro-
  664
  perty in future was by giving the masses a chance to acquire property. Our institutions were mainly modelled upon those of Athens two thousand years ago, and the attitude of Athens then ought to be the attitude of Great Britain to-day. It might probably be replied that that was ancient history. Let them take modern history. America had done what no other nation had attempted to do. It had established a Republic with the unlimited suffrage of the million. It had shown that a church could exist without bishops. A hundred and twenty years ago it made the sublime, but what seemed then the foolhardy announcement that all men were equal, and to-day it had a territory stretching from ocean to ocean, and the great Republic was stronger than ever. That could not be denied, and they could not stop the advance of democracy.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he opposed the Third Heading of the Bill on the ground that if passed in its present form it would bring nothing but discredit on the House. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had assured them that the Bill would in no way affect University representation, and he accepted the assurance in preference to that of the hon. Member for Northampton, who said the measure would injure it. Therefore he did not propose to deal with the great question of University representation, which might come before the House at some other time. He would only say that, in view of the work which the Universities were doing, he thought it was desirable that they should be represented in the House of Commons. No one who had taken part in these debates had really spoken seriously in favour of the Bill. Though the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure had impressed them at every turn with his ability, had he ever imbued them with the idea that he was attempting to carry through a serious reform in a serious way? The Bill in its pre sent form was absolutely unworkable. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had said that he was not in love with the Bill, though he was in love with the principle of it. No one had supported the Bill in toto as it stood. Why had they not? The Bill was introduced in the spring, and it was practically an open secret that it would

  665
  not he gone cm with. [Cries of "No."] Then that was a mistaken view. It was the view held on the back benches [Cries of "No."] After the vacation this Bill was taken, although there were other more pressing Bills, such as the Workmen's Compensation Bill, which required detailed and careful consideration. The question of principle involved could have been dealt with by a more simple Bill, but this measure had been proceeded with, and after all the Amendments made in Committee and on Report it was still unworkable. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he had introduced the Bill thus early to enable the plural voter to acquire a knowledge of the law; but could it be suggested that that was a fair way of dealing with the question? Surely a Bill of this kind should be made comprehensible from the first to the ordinary layman, and oven to the ordinary lawyer. There was no sort of precedent for such a Bill, which enabled an elector to make an affidavit to the presiding officer in the polling booth that he was not aware that his name appeared in another register. That, he contended, would lead to the blocking of the polling booths by a large number of people at the busiest time of voting. He ventured to submit that the Bill in its present form was absolutely unworkable and ought not to pass the House of Commons. They had been told with cynical frankness that it would have the effect of disfranchising a large number of Conservative voters, and that it would be useful to the Liberal Party at by-elections. But were they quite sure of that?
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid that he believed that the Bill would not greatly advantage the Liberal Party; but that was no reason why an injustice should not be remedied.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he doubted the correctness of the view which he had quoted. Would not the Bill offend men on the Ministerial side of the House, and a largo number of people who were not strong politicians, who might feel that it was not playing the game to pass a Bill which was admitted to be almost a gerrymandering Bill, giving a considerable political advantage to the Party which passed it? He repeated
  666
  that it would have been bettor to have dealt with a question of this kind fairly, on broad grounds, and not in this narrow way, though it might bring an advantage to the Liberal Party. He maintained that the Bill was introduced, not for the purpose of legitimately dealing with an acknowledged grievance by people who wished to sweep it away, but for the purpose heard of elswhere of filling up the cup against another assembly. From either a layman's or lawyer's point of view, the Hill was over-laden with cumbersome machinery which would render it unworkable; and he asked the House most strongly to hesitate before giving it a Third Reading.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was sorry to intervene when so many hon. Gentlemen on the other side desired to continue the debate, but although he did not want to occupy the House for a considerable period he must begin so as to leave a little time for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to defend the Bill, which had not yet been done. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman hoard the entertaining speech made by his subordinate in the earlier part of the debate. If he did he would agree that the speech had almost every merit except that of touching on the question now before the House. With some over-elaborate irrelevance the right hon. Gentleman travelled over most of the legislation of this session and over a large part of the legislation and intended legislation of preceding sessions. He touched on the speech made by him on the Third Reading of the Trade Disputes Hill. He referred to the speech which his right hon. friend made on the Third Reading of the Land Tenure Bill. He gave a very elaborate, if not very accurate history of the redistribution scheme of last session; and finally he paid him the compliment of referring to a polling-card which was circulated in his election in 1895. He was always pleased when the other side came round to that polling-card. As a politician who had been before the public for something over thirty years, he felt that, when the worst that could be quoted against him was not something he had said but something else for which the responsibility could be fastened upon him, he had done pretty well. No higher tribute could be paid to his

  667
  consistency and moderation as a politician than this recurrence to an ancient voting-card which was not his composition. He did not complain on this occasion, but he did not see its obvious and immediate connection with the Plural Voting Bill. Nor could he recall in what connection the right hon. Gentleman brought in that episode.
  MR. HARCOURT: In reference to the words "very simple."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Was he drawing a parallel between the present Bill and my polling-card?
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he was quoting the words used about the redistribution proposals of July last year, that they were very simple, and he recalled that these words had also been applied either by the right hon. Gentleman or his friends to the proposal for old-age pensions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was reminded more of a game called Russian scandal than of anything else he had over heard. They were discussing a franchise Bill. On that it occurred to the right hon. Gentleman to give a history of the redistribution proposals of last year. On that it occurred to him to quote a speech in which it appeared he said that the principle of the proposed Redistribution Bill was very simple, as, indeed, it was. Having used the word "simple" it occurred to him that that commonplace adjective had been previously used in some other connection—that of the voting card of 1895; and so by a happy and natural collocation of literary ideas they were carried from the Third Reading of a one-man-one-vote Bill back to an obscure episode in an election contest which happened ten years ago. He could understand how it was that the light hon. Gentleman, tied down as he had been through the whole of the long Report stage to the dry detail of the Bill, which he had managed with great knowledge of the subject and great tact and dexterity, should have given himself a free rein when he came to the wide and open campaign of the Third Reading of the Bill. Although he did
  668
  not grudge him these excursions either into the immediate or the remote past, he thought he might have come back towards the end of the speech, at all events, to something distantly connected with the measure before the House. The right hon. Gentleman did not do so, and the unfortunate thing was that he had got to speak before and not after the official defence of the Bill. He was not privileged to follow the Prime Minister, who was going to make that belated defence; but he had to deal as best he could, not with the defence that had been made, for none had been made, but with the defence that might be, or would be, made by the Leader of the Party responsible for the Bill. He was not going to discuss the details of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite described the Bill, when it suited the particular connection in which he was speaking, as a machinery Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Merionethshire had spoken of the bearing the Bill had on universal civilisation, and he gathered from what he hoard of the hon. Gentleman's speech that he anticipated from the Bill every blessing that could come to mankind. We were to have small holdings in England, we were to rival the glories of America in literature and art, and Athens in Empire. He did not think all these blessings were likely to result from a Bill which, as its author said, was only a machinery Bill. He could not believe that the mere manipulation of our electoral system was going to make a now heaven or a new earth, and he was the more impressed with that when he remembered that this machinery Bill was one of which the machinery was extremely defective. The right hon. Gentleman had found a great many defenders of what he called the principle of the Bill, but he was not aware that he had found a single defender of its machinery. One of his most ardent supporters, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, had never concealed the fact that he thought the Bill quite unworkable; and he did not believe that anybody thought it workable, from which he was tempted to think that nobody thought it would get the chance of working. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said the Government were perfectly

  669
  ready to take on their own shoulders all responsibility for the Bill and that he was prepared to lay it would work. How the Government could guarantee that the Bill would work surpassed his understanding. They could not treat a Reform Bill as they would treat a bicycle or a motor-car, and give a guarantee with it. They could not claim damages from the right hon. Gentleman if the thing failed; and if the Bill would throw our whole electoral system into confusion, in imposing an unmerited hardship on the voters immediately concerned, and in increasing the cost and expense of the electoral machinery, he could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could have the courage to say that the Bill was one for which he and his friends took the whole responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman had laid himself open to the charge that he had not considered the machinery adequately. He had told the House that two or three years before he came into Parliament he regarded this as one of the greatest problems requiring solution. If a machinery Bill was to be the result of all this cogitation it might have been expected that it would be better adapted to the object it was to carry out than this Bill, which, with so much capacity and good humour, the right hon. Gentleman had recommended to the House. Leaving details, he came to the broader principles more especially germane to the present stage. Upon that subject they had really had nothing from the right hon. Gentleman himself, and they had to turn to speeches of his supporters to find out what it was the right hon. Gentleman desired to effect by this great machinery Bill, which was also a great Reform Bill. The hon. Gentleman who represented one of the divisions of Norfolk made a speech
  670
  earlier in the evening, in which he had the courage to tell the House that the principle of the British Constitution was that a man should have a vote, and only one.
  SIR. BRAMPTON GURDON: That men should have votes, not property.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman thought he was misrepresenting him; he took down the words "the British Constitution was that a man should have one vote, and no more." He did not know where the hon. Gentleman got that view of the British Constitution. It certainly was not from history; it certainly was not from a study of the actual franchise which had been in force in this country since those primeval times when our free institutions first began to take shape; neither did he get it from the teachings of our great constitutional authorities. He could not imagine any doctrine that would have more horrified every great constitutional statesman from Edmund Burke to Mr. Gladstone It was not the principle of the constitution, and never had been recommended by any great statesman who had had the conduct of national affairs for the last 150 years. To find such a doctrine one must search not the writings of constitutional authorities, not their speeches on constitutional subjects, one must search the abstract and theoretical essays, numerous enough in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in foreign countries, and which had their analogue in articles of British production. These, it must be admitted, laid down certain individualistic theories as to the position of individuals in regard to the State. He did not know whether the hon. Member would take them in their rigid entirety and press them to their

  671
  logical conclusion. If he did he would certainly arrive at the conclusion that our present system required a great deal of reform. But what reform? He had no particular love for pedants and doctrinaires, who for the most part were very respectable gentlemen, but whose particular quality it was to take a very narrow view upon imperfect premises, and then to extract from it everything that the laws of logic enabled them to deduce. But what was to be said of doctrinaires who could not set this logical machine to work, who, having obtained their views from imperfect premises, could not deduce their logical conclusions? Was there any hon. Gentleman opposite who would seriously advocate carrying their view to its logical conclusion? It was simple enough; everybody knew that of course it would carry with it female suffrage—obviously it would. ["Why?"] Because he had always been taught to believe that even a woman was human. If they were to plunge into this bog of abstract rights and assert that all men had the absolute right, that could hardly be admitted with at the same time a denial of the privilege to the female sex. Everything they did in the way of franchise for the male they must do, on the principle of the British Constitution, as known not to Mr. Gladstone and other great constitutional authorities, but to the hon. Member for Norfolk, for the female. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not deny it, but they refused to carry it into effect. That was not the only conclusion they must draw. They must, as an approach to a proper system, make equal electoral districts. But, after all, these were merely makeshifts; they did not give equal power to each adult individual in the community. They could not do that, they could not even approach to it unless they adopted
  672
  some system of minority representation of an elaborate kind, He did not know that that was part of the general scheme which hon. Gentlemen opposite proposed to enforce. He listened with impatience to the theory that every man had an equal right to a vote, and the power which a vote gave, when the people who advanced that theory had not the smallest intention of carrying their own schemes into effect. He had never accepted that view of the British Constitution; he did not think it had any historical justification. He believed that our Constitution was and must remain democratic, and perhaps it might become increasingly democratic. But he did not base that belief on the abstract rights of individuals; he based it on the particular needs of the country at this particular time. He believed that the democratic ideal was perfectly unsuited to many peoples, to many stages of civilisation, to whole nations, and to whole races. He thought it was suited to Great Britain in 1906, and we lived under democratic government. The House of Commons was a democratic House. He did not quite know why right hon. Gentlemen opposite had occupied a large portion of the autumn sitting, which ought to have been devoted to a scheme of social reform, to carrying out a purely political measure which did not appear to be of the first and most pressing importance. He reminded hon. Members below the gangway, who specially and peculiarly represented those democratic views at all events of reform, that what was happening now had always happened. The Radical or Liberal Party came into power on the strength of the wonderful things they were going to do in the way of social reform to raise the condition of the masses of the country. Directly

  673
  they obtained office they began to deal, not with social problems at all, but with some political dodge. This Bill would not benefit a single individual in the country; it did not further social reform by an inch. He should have thought the Government might have given them the ordinary leisure of the autumn, or at all events asked them to occupy their time with one or two of those great measures of social reform which they had promised. But the habit was inveterate; they could not help it. It had always been so. It was for that reason that almost all the great measures of social reform had been Tory or Unionist measures. It was not in the least because on that side they were more philanthropic than hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was sure that the Liberal Party were a most well-meaning set of gentlemen, but they had got this ingrained and inveterate practice that when Parliamentary power and time were given into their hands, they set to work to dish their opponents. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was very indignant because it was suggested that this measure was not designed to improve our electoral system but was levelled against political opponents, and he said it was an untrue statement. He accepted the right hon. Gentleman's disclaimer so far as he was concerned, but he would point out that the disclaimer did not come very well from a gentleman who spent a good deal of his speech, which might have been devoted to the Bill, in explaining that the late Government's scheme of redistribution was designed in order to inflict political injury on hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were always ready to give full credit to good intentions, but those who asked to be given credit for good intentions should show themselves capable of attribut-
  674
  ing good intentions to those from whom they differed. But, in truth, whatever might be the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and he was sure they were excellent, could this Bill have any effect in furthering any good cause in the country, in helping on any social reform, or in aiding to carry out any object which any man of independent judgment outside Party strife was likely to regard as a great object? It would inflict, no doubt, great hardships on the owners of double or treble qualifications. It would make a modification in our electoral system, it would, or it was thought it would, inflict an injury on those who were for the present a small minority in that House. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the observation of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who, talking not, indeed, of this Bill, but of a Redistribution Bill, stated that that Bill never could be carried out unless by the agreement of both Parties and in connection with some wide scheme of general reform. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, if that were true, he really thought it possible that Parliament should pass into law a measure which avowedly dealt with but the smallest fraction of a great subject, which avowedly dealt with that fraction in a manner unpractical and costly, which was taken in isolation from every other scheme by which the balance as between Parties could be redressed— was it possible that such a measure could be passed into law with the general assent of the community? He did not think so. The outside public, perhaps, did not take much interest in the matter one way or another, but this they knew, that if they were to deal piecemeal with this question of electoral franchises, it was not decorous

  675
  nor politic, nor prudent for a great majority to attempt to seize the opportunity and put its heel on the minority. From the point of view of the minority, he regarded the policy as ungenerous. But he did not appeal to the generosity of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He appealed to their sense of expediency. From their own point of view, a Bill of this kind, which, on the face of it, whatever might be the intentions of the responsible author, was a gerrymandering Bill, could never be satisfactorily dealt with in isolation. A settlement could only be arrived at when both parties come to some agreement, not merely on the question of one man one vote, but on the question of the redistribution of seats, of the representation of Ireland, upon the question, it might be, of woman franchise—on all those questions which, until they had the courage to deal with them, Parliament and the country would refuse to meddle with in isolation.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs)said on one thing they must all be agreed. They were glad to find the right hon. Gentleman in such remarkably good spirits. He almost recalled to them himself during the debates of the last Parliament, when he commanded an overwhelming majority, and comported himself with a spirit which that position in such a man as he was naturally produced. Why on this occasion was he in such a rollicking humour? Obviously because at last he had found a Bill which he could not only oppose and delay, criticise and denounce in every clause and in every line in Committee and on Report, but which he could oppose when it reached Third Reading. The right
  676
  hon. Gentleman had said truly that if they searched history they would find that when the Liberal Party came into power they addressed themselves to questions of electoral law, which might not have any direct and immediate bearing upon the general tendency of legislation in the country; and that when the Conservatives came in—again he agreed to a large extent with the right hon. Gentleman—excellent measures improving the social condition of the people were passed. And why was this? Because while Liberals were in office they were thwarted and hindered by the Opposition in the passing of these social measures, and they applied themselves to the improving of the machinery of legislation in order that they might be better able in the future to overcome that opposition, and to give the opinions, desires, and sentiments of the people a better and further opportunity of expression. That was the explanation of the strange phenomenon which the right hon. Gentleman had discovered. This was a simple Bill, and the difficulties in it consisted not in the principle, but in the made of applying it. The principle was that no man should have more than one vote. Why was that opposed? It was difficult to discover the foundation of the opposition. The mover and seconder concerned themselves principally with the old accusation, that while the Government were concerned with one man one vote they neglected the principle of one vote one value. That was why the First Commissioner had dwelt so largely on the redistribution efforts of the right hon. Gentleman last year, which ought to debar him, to a great extent at any rate, from bringing any charge of gerrymandering or Party motive when any Government attempted to alter the conditions and the details of

  677
  the system of representation in this country. There must be something more than that to say in opposition to the Bill. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks, who was chosen to represent the opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, made two remarkable statements. He said that a man did not give a vote because he was a man; and he went on to say that property was the essence of every vote given in this country. For this realistic language and his candour they were obliged to him. In his view electors were more animated voting instruments in defence of property. He could well understand that it would be the duty of a representative so elected to frame his policy and that of his friends in the interests of property. But the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did not fall into the error of his hon. colleague He rather tried to slur over, and all through the debate he had neglected to revive, the crudities of the hon. Member for Seven-oaks. The careful way in which the right hon. Gentleman had skirted round this particular subject of "property," and contrived to cast an almost romantic glow upon that very prosaic instrument, must have commanded universal admiration. He would, no doubt, shrink from admitting that property was the ground of the franchise, and he would not admit that property pluralism was necessary for the solidity of the constitution. He had said that the electoral system had its roots in history, and that every statesman of distinction had worked upon this historical basis whenever it had been his lot to modify the electoral system. He had said that our electoral system was based on the representation of localities. Looking to Ireland, Scotland, and Wales he should not have thought that this was the keystone of the right hon. Gentleman's
  678
  policy. But when they came to look closely into this question of the representations of localities, they did not get any nearer to each other, and whilst he agreed that localities were very inefficiently represented in our electoral system the right hon. Gentleman was no doubt perfectly satisfied with it. Here was a case in point. The right hon. Gentleman had said over and over again that it was a great grievance for a business man, conducting his business in one constituency and residing in another, to be deprived of one of his votes and to be called upon to choose which he would use. But if localities and responsibilities were of the very essence of the whole affair, why should business men be given a larger voting power than their workmen and clerks who also earned on their occupation in one constituency and resided in another? If plural voting was almost essential to the constitution, and if the rigid representation of locality was essential, why had the Party opposite, at any time during the past twenty years, when they could do it, not given the power of plural voting to the workman and the clerk, so that they might have been consolidated in the locality in which their separate interests were to be found? That could not be done because they had no property qualification in their workshops or places of business; and therefore their claims lay dormant, so that even underneath these high-flying doctrines of public interest and the necessity of recognising the claims of localities they came clown plump upon their old friend property, which was really the foundation of the whole opposition to this Bill. As to the historic argument, his answer to the right hon. Gentleman was that what might have been very good and suitable many years ago might be in no way suitable to the tendencies and circum-

  679
  stances of the present day, and to argue that re-arrangement in any matter should not be attempted because it was old was the finest old Tory doctrine, from which he should have thought hon. Gentlemen opposite had completely emancipated themselves. They were now anxious to convince themselves that they were abreast of the movement of the modern tendency in politics and were animated by an almost feverish desire to appear to be, at all events, in the front line; and they were good enough to say sometimes that it was the Liberal Party who followed the old methods, used the old arguments, and adhered to the old principles. He could not help thinking that there was a good deal of make-believe in the fears of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the results of a measure such as this. After all, one man one vote was a plain common-sense doctrine. It had been acted on by the Party opposite in their own county councils; and last year, when they introduced a new constitution for the Transvaal, they included the same principle, and in the Transvaal, he would have thought, quite as much as anywhere
  else, the power of property would be considered. What was the opposite course? One man as many votes as he could manage to scramble together. He put it to those most afraid of this Bill whether the constitution of the State was likely to be endangered by the abolition of a system of that kind. There was much more danger to the State in adhering to and hugging old outworn privileges than in freeing ourselves from them. The Government took this one point in the electoral system because it stood by itself, and could be dealt with by itself without raising other questions, without confusing the proceedings of Parliament, and without any necessity of taking it at the end of the Parliament, as they would have to take redistribution. They took it now in order that once for all they might induce Parliament to accomplish a reform which they had advocated for the last score of years, and he believed the general opinion of the country would say it was a useful, safe, and patriotic course to take.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 333; Noes, 104. (Division List No. 456.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bennett, E. N.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Berridge, H. T. D.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Alden, Percy

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'rd

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Buxton. Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Billson, Alfred

  Byles, William Pollard

  Armitage, R.

  Birrell Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cairns, Thomas

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Roland, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Carr-Comm. H. W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Brace, William

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Barlow, John Emmot (Somers't)

  Brigg, John

  Charming, Sir Francis Allston

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bright, J. A.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brodie, H. G.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Beale, W. P.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cleland, J. W.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brunner, J. F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Clough, William

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T.(Ches.)

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Bull, Richard

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James (Aberd'n)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Bellairs Carylon

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Dev'np'rt

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haydin, John Patrick

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morrell, Philip

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morse, L. L.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cory, Clifford John

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Murphy, John

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Murray, James

  Cowan, W. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Napier, T. B.

  Cox, Harold

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hodge, John

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hogan, Michael

  Nicholls, George

  Crombie, John William

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crossley, William J.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somers't, N.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Davies Timothy (Fulham)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'rary Mid)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Delany, William

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Dickwn-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Malley, William

  Dillon, John

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Shaughnessy, P.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Partington, Oswald

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Paul, Herbert

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearson, Sir W. P. (Colchester)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Perks, Robert William

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'th'mpton)

  Elibank, Master of

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Philipps, J. Wynford (P'mbroke)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lambert, George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lamont, Norman

  Pollard, Dr.

  Essex, R. W.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Ac'ringt'n)

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Levy, Maurice

  Radford, G. H.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Raphael Herbert H.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lough, Thomas

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lundon, W.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lupton, Arnold

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rees, J. D.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Macnarmara, Dr Thomas J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ginnell, L.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Arthur, William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'd)

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Crae, George

  Robinson, S.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Robson, Sir Williaw Snowdon

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Kean, John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Killop, W.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rowlands, J.

  Gulland, John W.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Runciman, Walter

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Hall, Frederick

  Markham, Arthur Bail

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Halpin, J.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Massie, J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Meagher, Michael

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Menzies, Walter

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Shackleton, David James

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mond, A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Harwood, George

  Montagu, E. S.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  682

  683

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wiles, Thomas

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Ure, Alexander

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Verney, F. W.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'th'n)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Steadman, W. C.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpt'n)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wardle, George J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Winfrey, R.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Summerbell, T.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  White, J.D. (Dumbartonshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Thomkinson, James

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Toulmin, George

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Forster, Henry William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Haddock, George R.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Castlereagh, Vicsount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Starkey, John R.

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Keswick, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell. (Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Wor.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fare'm)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Liddell, Henry

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gh'm)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Eves'm)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart -

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  BANKERS (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

  NAVAL LANDS (VOLUNTEERS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
  Adjourned at seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.