Commons Sitting of 21 June 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bishop's Stortford, Harlow, and Epping Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],
Bead the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
City of London (Tithes and Rates) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Glasgow University (Chair of Clinical Medicine and Chair of Clinical Surgery) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Muirhead Trust Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
St. Mungo's College Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  CONGO TERRITORY.

    BELGIAN RUBBER PLANTATIONS.
    Sir CHARLES DILKEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any information as to the Belgian Government's proclaimed intention of laying down 5,000 hectares of State rubber plantations yearly in the Congo territory; whether His Majesty's Consuls may be expected to report upon the methods of securing labour for these plantations; and if he had information to the effect that labour was being forcibly provided for such plantations in the Bongandanga district or A.B.I.R. territory?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I believe that the intention of the Belgian Government is to lay down, not 5,000 hectares, but 2,000 hectares of rubber
    178
    plantations yearly. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the third part is in the negative.

    KASAI DISTRICT (CONSUL TIIESIGER'S REPORT).
    Lord BALCARRES (for Sir Gilbert Parker)asked if His Majesty's Minister at Brussels was instructed to use the language he did use in transmitting Consul Thesiger's report on the Kasai district of the Congo to the Belgian Government on 7th January last year; and if any steps were taken by His Majesty's Government to protest against the reflections upon His Majesty's Consular staff on the Congo contained in the letter from the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs to His Majesty's Minister at Brussels on that occasion?
    Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There is no reflection upon the British Consular staff in the Congo in saying that they exceed the functions usually exercised by Consuls in other countries. The statement is true, and it is their duty, owing to the special Treaty rights and obligations existing in connection with the Congo State, to exceed those functions. This duty will continue until the condition of affairs in the Congo is brought into accord with the original Treaty obligations of the Congo State, and the annexation by Belgium has been formally recognised.

    KATANGA REGION (NATIVE SOLDIERS).
    Lord BALCARRESasked if the right lion. Gentleman's attention had been drawn to the intention of the Belgian Government to draft 3,000 native soldiers into the Katanga region of the Congo, in addition to the 700 native soldiers now stationed in that region; if he was aware that the military forces maintained by the Belgian Government in the Congo greatly exceeded, having regard both to area and population, the military forces maintained by England, France, and Germany in their respective tropical African dependencies; and, if "so, whether he intended to take any action in the matter?
    Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative; to the last question in the negative, as I do not see that any action is called for.

    RIGHTS or BBITISH SUBJECTS IN KATANGA.
    Lord BALCARRESasked how many British subjects were now established in the Katanga region of the Congo, and in what manner was His Majesty's Government represented at the present moment in that country; and whether any official documents were publicly accessible whereby British subjects intending to settle in the Katanga could be informed of their rights under treaty?
    Sir EDWARD GREY: According to a Census taken on 1st January, 1909, there were forty-nine British subjects in the Province Orientale and the Lualaba Kasai, in which the Katanga region lies. I have no later figures. His Majesty's Government are represented in the Katanga by a salaried Vice-Consul, who is at this moment on his return journey to his post after leave of absence, which was lengthened for reasons of health. The public treaties can be obtained in the usual way. Individuals wishing to inquire on the spot as to their rights can always apply to the Vice-Consul.

    REGULATIONS FOB, EXPULSION.
    Lord BALCARRESasked if His Majesty's Government had examined the decrees recently promulgated by the Belgian Government, especially those dealing with Katanga in connection with the trade in rubber, the leasing of land, and the regulations for expelling persons from Congo territory; and whether His Majesty's Government were satisfied that the rights of British subjects could be freely exercised under these decrees?
    Sir E. GREY: There have so far as I can ascertain been no recent Decrees on the matters mentioned which deal specially with the Katanga, though I am aware that the Katanga Special Committee have recently issued Regulations respecting the lease and sale of lands. As to the second part of the question, I must decline to commit myself to an expression of opinion in regard to any of the recent Belgian Decrees until I see how they work in practice.

    Khond Districts (Liquor Licences).
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the inquiry ordered by the Government of Bengal into the issue of liquor licences in the Khond districts, against which public protests of the people have been made, had been concluded; whether he was in a position to state the nature
    180
    of the report of the Commissioner; and what action the Government of Bengal had taken in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State has no information about the matter other than that contained in a letter and a leading article in the Calcutta "Statesman" of 16th February, 1910, to which his attention has been directed by my hon. Friend. He has called for a report from the Government of Bengal on the points mentioned in the question.

    Peshawar Riots (Refusal to Receive Deputation).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked whether Mr. Merk, Chief Commissioner of the North-West Frontier Province, declined to receive a deputation representing the Punjab Hindu community on the subject of the riots which took place at Peshawar in March last, the deputation being composed of a number of leading Hindu and Sikh residents of Peshawar; and whether inquiries would be made as to the grounds of refusal, and also as to the breakdown of the official arrangements to cope with the disturbances named?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has no official information on any of the points referred to in the question. From the newspaper reports it appears that the Chief Commissioner's inability to receive the deputation was due to his absence from Peshawar on tour. The Secretary of State will inquire into the facts of the case.

    Ahmedabad City (Suspension of Municipal Powers).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked whether the hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the suspension of the municipal powers of the city of Ahmedabad by the Government of Bombay; if so, whether, having regard to a recently published report stating that the municipalities in the Bombay Presidency had made commendable progress everywhere, he could state the reason for the action in suspending the municipal powers of Ahmedabad?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Bombay Government have by Order made under Section 179 of the Bombay District Municipal Act superseded the Ahmedabad municipality for one year on account of its incompetence, persistent default, and abuse of powers. The Order was published in the "Bombay Government Gazette" of the 19th May, with a statement of the reasons

    181
    for the action taken. I shall be happy to let the hon. Member have a copy of it, if he desires. I may add that the most recently published report on municipalities in Bombay, so far from commending the progress of the Ahmedabad municipality, speaks of its "incapacity to treat any subject in a businesslike manner, or to conduct the administration of city government."

    Military Academy, Woolwich (Illness of Cadets).
    Captain COOPERasked the Secretary of State for War whether there had recently been two outbreaks of illness among the cadets at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich; whether any such illness had been caused by bad food being supplied to the cadets; and what precautions were being taken to prevent unsound food being provided?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): There have been two slight outbreaks of illness, one in which seven cadets were affected, of whom one was admitted to hospital and discharged next day, and another in which forty cadets were affected, of whom two were admitted to hospital and discharged next day. Various causes were assigned by the cadets for their sickness, e.g., cider, milk, and potatoes. All articles issued were carefully tested, but no explanation of the direct cause was discovered. The outbreak cannot therefore be attributed to any bad food supplied. Every precaution is taken to prevent unsound food being supplied; the contract terms are strict, and daily inspections of all supplies are made by an officer.

    Retired Veterinary Surgeons (Cavalry Depots).
    Captain FABERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would utilise the services of retired veterinary surgeons for the new cavalry depots or otherwise, seeing that retired officers were used for other branches of the service?
    Mr. HALDANE: There are only two cavalry depots for which veterinary assistance outside the Army Veterinary Corps is required, and for these it is proposed to utilise the services of local private practitioners, as the number of horses is too small to engage the exclusive services of a retired officer. The employment of retired veterinary officers as a general measure is not considered practicable, as it
    182
    would increase the existing excess of officers abroad over those at home, and consequently the difficulty of arranging reliefs.

    Army Commissions (Education of Candidates).
    Major ADAMasked whether, in view of the deplorably low standard of education on the part of those endeavouring to qualify for commissions in the Army, as revealed by the report of the Director of Military Training, the Secretary for War will take steps to procure a sufficient supply of candidates of the former standard of intelligence?
    Mr. HALDANE: The whole question is at present receiving the careful consideration of the Army Council.
    Major ADAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what practical steps he intends to take?
    Mr. HALDANE: The practical steps which are to be taken are under my personal and close consideration, and that of the whole of the staff at the present time.

    Bradford (Yorks) Barracks.
    Sir WILLIAM PRIESTLEYasked what had been expended upon the barracks at Bradford during the last ten years, and to what use were they going to be put?
    Mr. HALDANE: About £12,000 has been spent on these barracks during the last ten years. The barracks will be used for any overflow of troops that may occur from other stations in the Command. It must be remembered that owing to want of facilities for training these barracks are not adapted for permanent occupation by a unit.

    Army Ordnance Department, Colchester (Labourers' Wages).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that labourers employed in the Army Ordnance Department at Colchester receive an average wage of 4¼d. per hour or 17s. 6d. per week; and whether he will consider the possibility of raising these wages to-bring them within the Resolution of this House relating to fair wages
    Mr. HALDANE: The rate of wages is as stated. I am inquiring as to its sufficiency.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have the result of the inquiry.
    Mr. HALDANE: The inquiry is proceeding now.

    Johore Railway.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies if he would state the cost per mile and the total cost of the railway in the Sultanate of Johore to the date of the latest catastrophe; how much that cost exceeded the original price for which a British firm had contracted with H.H. the Sultan to construct the line; the reason for compelling the Sultan to break his contract and enable the Crown Agents to entrust the work to incompetent hands; and the amount of compensation the Sultan was compelled to pay for having broken his contract?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): Figures as to the cost of the railway are not yet available. I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that no British firm offered to construct a line similar to that which has been built, and that there can be no comparison between the present line and the light railway for which a rough estimate was drawn up about twenty years ago. There is no foundation for the suggestion that the Sultan was compelled to break his contract, or that the work was entrusted to incompetent hands, and the hon. Gentleman is no doubt fully aware from definite replies to previous questions that the Crown Agents had nothing to do with the matter. I believe that the Sultan of Johore paid £15,000 in order to free himself from some entanglement with a British firm. There was no compulsion in the matter.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether any liability attached to the giving of expert advice paid for by the Crown Agents for the Colonies; if so, how was the liability enforced when it resulted in defective work and waste of money; how many miles of the Johore Railway had been washed away owing to insufficient and defective bridge openings; whether he had got any estimate of the cost of the repairs; what steps, if any, had been taken to recover that loss from those to whose advice it was due; and whether His Majesty's Government had sanctioned its imposition on the Sultanate of Johore?
    Colonel SEELY: Owing to floods, resulting from very heavy rains, damage estimated at $150,000 was done to the Johore Railway. There was nothing in the nature of the damage done to indicate faulty construction, and the question of recovering money does not arise. The cost of the repairs will, of course, be defrayed by the owners of the line, the Government of Johore.

    Canton-Kowloon Railway.
    Mr. GINNELLasked who were the consulting engineers of the Canton-Kowloon Railway; whether they acted in that capacity in connection with the Shanghai-Nanking Railway, the Hong Kong Railway, and the Johore Railway, all lines that could never pay owing to the cost of construction; whether the late chief British accountant was the nominee of those engineers; whether the amount of his embezzlements had yet been ascertained; and whether any steps were being taken to recover that amount from his nominators?
    Colonel SEELY: The consulting engineers are Sir J. Wolfe Barry and Partners. The consulting engineers for the Johore Railway are Messrs. Gregory, Eyles and Waring. I have no information as to the Shanghai-Nanking Railway. I cannot accept the statement that either the Hong Kong or the Johore Railway can never pay. As I informed the hon. Gentleman on 25th November, the Colonial Office is not concerned with the doings of the late chief accountant on the Chinese section of the line.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether His Majesty's Government was in possession of independent evidence that the Canton-Kowloon Railway could never possibly pay its cost of construction and working expenses; that it was being forced through merely for the resuscitation of Hong Kong at the expense of the Chinese guarantors; and that it had already cost £16,000 per mile; and whether in these circumstances, a further loan for its completion would have the approval of the Colonial Office?
    Colonel SEELY: The answer to the first two parts of the hon. Gentleman's question is in the negative. I have not the exact figures as to the cost of the line to date, and no question of a further loan for its completion has arisen.

    Submarines (Safety Air Locks).
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many submarines in the British Navy were supplied with safety air-locks?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I regret that in my answer to the hon. Gentleman's question yesterday, there was some confusion owing to both his questions, the one with regard to safety air-locks and the other with regard to safety helmets for submarines, having been considered together. If the hon. Gentleman will kindly permit me, to prevent any obscurity I will reply on both points now. The whole of the sea-going submarines in commission—47 in number— have been completely supplied with the life-saving device consisting of air-locks and helmets, sufficient in number for the entire crew. The only submarine boats in His Majesty's service which have not air-locks or safety helmets are the older non-seagoing vessels now on harbour duty, whose size does not permit of the necessary constructive alteration being made.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask how many can get into those air-locks at the same time?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice, I will be very glad to inquire.

    Armoured Ships (Chili and Turkey).
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty had any information as to the ordering from British firms of armoured ships for Chili and Turkey; and, if so, to what class of vessel these ships belong?
    Mr. McKENNA: We have no information as to orders having been placed with British firms by Chili or Turkey.

    His Majesty's Ships "Lion" and "Orion."
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked on what dates it is hoped to launch the "Lion" and "Orion," building at Devonport and Portsmouth, respectively?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is expected that both vessels will be launched in August next, but the exact date has not yet been decided.

    Austro-Hungarian Government.
    Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would state whether the English military attaché in Vienna had asked the naval section there for some details concerning the building of new
    186
    "Dreadnoughts" for the Austro-Hungarian Government; and what the reply was which was received?
    Mr. McKENNA: We cannot make public information received from foreign Governments about their shipbuilding, except what they themselves communicate for that purpose, and in this case—where the subject has been discussed recently in the Parliament of the country concerned—I can only refer the hon. Member to the public statements of the Austro-Hungarian Government.
    Captain FABER: Would the right hon. Gentleman state if it would be possible for any country to buy the Austrian "Dreadnoughts" when they are finished?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I can only give the hon. Gentleman the information which has appeared in the public Press on the subject, and in the Debates of the Austro-Hungarian Parliament. I do. not gather from those Debates that the ships will be for sale.

    Charity Administration (Statements of Trustees).
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the hon. Member for the Stroud Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, what steps are taken to require the trustees of charities to render periodical statements of the income and expenditure of such charities; whether the statements of account of charities received by the Charity Commissioners are audited; and, if so, by whom?
    Mr. CHARLES P. ALLEN: Trustees of charities are required by Statute to render yearly accounts to the Commissioners. In cases of neglect it is the practice of the Commissioners to remind trustees of their duty and, if necessary, to issue peremptory orders for compliance with the law. The Charitable Trusts Acts do not prescribe any general audit of the accounts rendered to the Commissioners or give them power to surcharge; nor is the staff of the Office adequate for so large an undertaking. When the Commissioners' attention is called to any cases of doubtful payments special inquiries are made.

    Unemployed Workmen Act (Grants).
    Mr. JAMES PARKER (for Mr. William Thorne)asked the President of the Local Government Board if he would state the total amount of Grants made by the Government under the Unemployed Work-

    187
    men Act, 1905, for the financial years ending 1907, 1908, 1909, and 1910; the total amounts granted to the various distress committees for the years above-mentioned; and the total amounts granted for relief works, for emigration, for farm colonies, and for women's workrooms during these years?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Bums): The sum voted by Parliament in aid of expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905;, for each of the financial years ended 31st March, 1907–1910, was £200,000, except for the year ending 31st March, 1909, when the amount was £300,000. The particulars desired by the hon. Member, so far as they are in my possession, are shown in a detailed statement which I shall be pleased to send him.

    Old Age Pensions Act.
    Captain FABERasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state whether, whereas under the Old Age Pensions Act in the case of single pensioners receiving 5s. a week and husband and wife 10s. a week jointly no claim is made upon sons and daughters to repay any portion of these pensions, he can see his way to alter the Poor Law so that in the case of single persons receiving 3s. relief, and husband and wife 6s., no claim may be made upon sons and daughters to repay a portion of the relief granted, thus bringing the law regulating relief into line with the Old Age Pensions Act?
    Mr. BURNS: I am afraid I could not promise to introduce a Bill to amend the law in the direction indicated. I need hardly point out that the conditions attaching to the receipt of an old age pension entirely differentiate assistance in that form from ordinary Poor Law relief.

    Postmen on Duty (Illness in Family).
    Captain FABERasked the Postmaster-General if he will state what precautions, if any, are taken concerning postmen going on duty who have members of their families ill from contagious disease?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): In the case of certain specified diseases a postman is placed off duty immediately, and is not allowed to resume until instructions have been received from the chief medical officer to the post office. In the case of other diseases,
    188
    the postman remains on duty, but the case is at once reported to the chief medical officer, who advises whether it is necessary that the employé concerned should absent himself. Absence from duty with full pay is insisted on if there is considered to be any risk of conveying the infection, whether to the local post office staff, or to the public generally.

    Telephone Stations (Cost of Construction).
    Mr. SHERWELLasked what are the reasons for the difference in the average cost of construction per telephone station belonging to the systems of the National Telephone Company and of the Post Office respectively, recently stated by the chairman of the National Telephone Company to be from £22 to £23 per station in favour of the latter company?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My attention has been called to the statement in question, which has since been quoted in several other quarters. The president of the National Telephone Company appears to have overlooked the fact that the expenditure which he took as the cost of the existing Post Office telephone stations included a sum of about £1,000,000 expended in providing plant for the use of his company, although he had previously mentioned the rent paid by the company for part of this plant. This sum should, therefore, have been added to the company's expenditure, raising the average cost by about £2 per station. A corresponding deduction would reduce the Post Office expenditure by about £11 10s. per station. Expenditure on land and buildings seems to have been excluded from the company's cost per station, and included in the cost attributed to the Post Office system. Part of the Post Office expenditure has been for plant to replace the company's overhead wires and cables, and some of their older exchanges, after their system will have been taken over by the Post Office at the end of 1911. About 65 per cent. of the Post Office stations are in London, where a very costly underground system has been provided, and the average length of the lines in use is about double the length of the lines on the company's general system. The Post Office has also provided all the underground junction wires for communication between the exchanges of the two systems in London. If proper allowance were made for these circumstances, the cost of the Post Office exchange system would compare favourably with the cost of the company's system.

    Registration of Leases.
    Captain FABERasked the Solicitor-General if he can bring in a Bill whereby leases should be registered, seeing that certain friendly societies recently suffered heavy loss through the so-called Franklin frauds?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I have no present intention to introduce such a Bill.
    Captain FABER: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman received any complaint or information concerning losses to the friendly societies?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have no answer except what I gather in the Press.
    Captain FABER: Would the hon. Gentleman inquire?

    Government Inspectors (Wales).
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Welsh-speaking inspector of the Board in the Machynlleth division was recently removed to another part of the country; whether his successor could speak Welsh; and what were his qualifications for the post?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Owing to the decrease in the amount of work to be done in the Machynlleth district it has not been found necessary to keep an inspector stationed there, and at present there is no inspector at Machynlleth.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the newly appointed chief inspector of mines in North Wales is Welsh-speaking, in accordance with the provision contained in Section 39 of 50 and 51 Vic, c. 58?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The Inspector recently appointed to take charge of the Liverpool and North Wales District does not, I believe, speak Welsh. North Wales forms only the smaller part of his district. It has never been suggested, so far as I am aware, that the inspector in charge of this district should necessarily be Welsh-speaking. The three assistant inspectors in the district (one of whom is stationed at Bangor and the other two at Chester) all speak Welsh,
    190
    and this seems to make ample provision for the needs of the Welsh portion of the district.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the appointment of a non-Welsh-speaking inspector in North Wales is in compliance with the Section referred to?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that it is so. There must be a certain movement of the inspectors in a regular and established circuit; and, as far as possible, the inspectors whose duties are in Wales are acquainted with the Welsh language.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Am I to understand that the legal officers have advised the right hon. Gentleman that the appointment of a non-Welsh-speaking inspector in North Wales complies with the specific provision in this particular Statute?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that we have kept scrupulously within the limits of the law.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: By the law officers?
    Mr. ASHLEY: Do the three assistant inspectors speak English also?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.

    Agricultural Organisation Society (Board of Agriculture Grants).
    Captain COOPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board make any Grant to the funds of the Agricultural Organisation Society; and, if so, what is the amount of the subsidy and for what purposes is it granted?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board have undertaken to make a Grant of £1,200 a year to the Agricultural Organisation Society for three years from 1st April, 1909, provided that the income of the society from subscriptions and donations in each previous year is not less than £1,200. If the income exceeds that amount, the Grant is increased pro rata up to a maximum of £1,600 a year. The Grant is made to assist the work done by the society in the promotion of co-operation in connection with the cultivation of small holdings.

    North Wales Quarries (Inspection).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether the chief inspector of mines and quarries for North

    191
    Wales was supposed to visit and inspect the open slate quarries, and when; and on how many occasions Mr. Hall, the chief inspector, visited the slate quarries of Carnarvonshire during the last two years?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The inspector in charge of a district is responsible for the administration of the Acts in mines and quarries throughout his district. He shares in the work of inspection, but as the general work of administration falls upon him, including heavy correspondence, preparation of the annual report and statistics, and other matters, the bulk of the work of inspection necessarily falls upon his assistants, two of whom are stationed in North Wales for this purpose. Under the new arrangements, however, which came into force on the 1st of this month, I hope that the inspectors in charge of districts will be able to devote more time to the work of inspection. As regards the second part of the question, I have not the information asked for. As my hon. Friend is aware, Mr. Hall has now retired from the service under the age rule.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, notwithstanding the serious nature of the accidents in these quarries, the chief inspector has not visited the quarries during the last three years?

    Mines Commission (Slate Quarries.)
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES (for Mr. Walter Roch)asked the Home Secretary what reply, if any, he had made to the complaint addressed to him by the owners of slate quarries with reference to the non-inclusion on the Mines Commission of any one with experience of open slate quarries?
    The HON. MEMBERalso asked the Home Secretary whether any of the members of the Mines Commission were acquainted with the working of open slate quarries; and whether, in view of the fact that in two of the largest quarries, Dinorwic and Penrhyn, in the county of Carnarvon, no less than one in three and one in five, respectively, of the inside workers were injured last year, he would consider the desirability of strengthening the Commission by the appointment of a gentleman who had experience of such quarries?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received letters from two owners of the smaller open slate quarries in North Wales asking
    192
    for the appointment on the new Commission of an additional representative of these quarries. Mr. E. M. Greaves, whom I selected as an owners' representative of the slate industry in North Wales, has had experience of working slate both by open quarrying and by mining, and Mr. R. T. Jones, who was selected as the representative of the workmen, is general secretary of the North Wales Quarrymen's Union, and I am informed that the Union includes both the open slate quarries and the slate mines. In these circumstances, I am doubtful if any advantage would be obtained by additions to the Commission, which is already a large one. The Commission will no doubt take evidence as regards both slate mines and quarries.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Seeing that all the accidents to which inquiries have been directed have been in open quarries, may I ask why there is not on the Commission a single man with experience of open quarries?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very anxious to keep the Commission within manageable dimensions. As the hon. Member knows, when the size of a body is increased beyond a certain point, its deliberations are greatly prolonged, and generally no commensurate advantage is obtained. If the hon. Member will submit a special case on the subject I will consider carefully whether any advantage is to be gained.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: In view of the fact that for two years in succession one in three of the workmen engaged in open quarries were injured, will not the right hon. Gentleman appoint on the Commission someone who is conversant with the real difficulty of the open quarries?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no other wish than to meet the general sense of the House in regard to the composition of the Commission, but I hope the importance of keeping the numbers small will be borne in mind.

    Coal Mines Regulation Act (Welsh-Speaking Inspectors).
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked whether the inspector of mines now placed in charge of the Cardiff district had a competent knowledge of the Welsh language which satisfied the provisions of c. 58, s. 39, of The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Cardiff district no longer exists. Under the new scheme

    193
    of reorganisation, following on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Mines, the Cardiff and Swansea districts and the County of Monmouth, which previously formed part of the southern district, have been combined to form the new South Wales Division. The superintending inspector, who before the change had the general supervision of the Cardiff and Swansea districts, is retained with the altered title of divisional inspector. He does not speak Welsh; there is no Welsh-speaking inspector who is his equal in standing and qualifications; but under him is a staff of experienced senior inspectors, each with responsible duties of inspection in the different parts of the Division, all of whom, including the inspector stationed at Cardiff, speak Welsh.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: The previous inspector at Cardiff having been shifted to Yorkshire, is there now an inspector in the Cardiff district?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, there is an inspector stationed at Cardiff, and he speaks Welsh.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give his name?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know the names of the different inspectors, but I can easily ascertain them.

    Ivybridge Sessions (Use of Improper Language).
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was aware that Mr. Francis Lascelles was recently fined £1 and costs at the Ivybridge Sessions for making use of the word "damn"; and whether, seeing this expression was used by Mr. Lascelles after he had been run over by a vehicle while riding a bicycle, with the result that his right ear was nearly torn off, his collarbone broken, and his legs badly bruised, he would under the circumstances have the fine remitted and state the names of the person or persons who asked the police to institute these proceedings?
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies may I ask whether the Home Office proposes to prosecute Lord Milner for an entirely unprovoked use of the same word in regard to consequences?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I made inquiry in the case some time ago, and found that the newspaper reports give a somewhat
    194
    euphemistic account of the language used by the defendant. In view of the facts given in evidence I see no reason for advising any reduction of the penalty imposed.
    Mr. MARKHAM: Was the fine imposed for using the word in the question, and nothing more?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The word which figured in the published reports was not the word employed.

    Women School Inspectors (Welsh Language).
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the President of the Board of Education how many of the women inspectors of schools in the service of the Department had a competent knowledge of the Welsh language?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): So far as I am aware, none. Perhaps I should explain that the women inspectors are appointed with a view to special qualifications in special subjects. I have never heard of any of the women inspectors working in Wales finding themselves embarrassed by ignorance of Welsh.

    Forest of Dean (Court of Verderers).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Office of Woods and Forests, whether, in view of the fact that no cases relating either to vert or venison or other matters, if any, falling within the jurisdiction of the Court of Verderers of the Forest of Dean had, for at least three years, been brought by the Crown officials before such court, and that the meeting of such court, which, according to ancient law and custom, should take place every forty days, now invariably stood adjourned owing to lack of business, the Government would consider the advisability of allocating additional duties to the verderers so that this ancient office might not become a sinecure?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): There does not appear to be any necessity to devise new duties for the verderers of Dean Forest in place of those which have become obsolete. If the hon. Member has any suggestion to make, it will, however, receive consideration.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of extending the jurisdiction of the verderers

    195
    of the Forest of Dean to all cases of in-closure of Crown lands, and to every case in which there is an apparent conflict between the rights of the Crown and the rights of the inhabitants?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should like to consider that question before giving a definite answer.

    Leominster County Court.
    Captain CLIVEasked the Attorney-General if his attention had been called to the evidence in the case brought by Mr. James Docket, formerly political agent for Mr. Edmund Lamb, in the Leominster County Court, on 13th June; and whether the Public Prosecutor proposed to institute proceedings for bribery?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am informed that this case is still sub judice, judgment having been reserved till 18th July next. I cannot, therefore, answer the hon. Member's question.
    Captain CLIVE: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman direct the attention of his colleague the President of the Gladstone League to the matter?

    Labour Exchanges (Selection of Managers).
    Mr. HODGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the 200 applicants who were interviewed for appointments as managers or assistant managers of Labour Exchanges were interviewed by the selection committee or by the divisional officers of Labour Exchanges on behalf of the selection committee?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): Two hundred and four candidates for posts as managers of Labour Exchanges were interviewed personally by the Selection Committee.

    St. Joseph's Catholic School, Southowram (Appointment of Master).
    Mr. BO LANDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he was aware that ever since its foundation St. Joseph's Catholic School, Southowram, Halifax, had had a mistress as head teacher, but that, on the retirement recently of the head mistress, the education committee of the West Riding instructed the managers to appoint a master instead of a mistress to fill the vacancy; whether he was aware that the reports for the past twelve years testified to the efficient work done in the school; and whether, in view of the fact
    196
    that the managers, the parents of the children, and the Hipperholme Council were unanimous in opposing the action of the West Riding Education Committee, he would cause inquiry to be made and would receive a deputation from the managers before the question at issue was determined?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: This case is being very carefully considered, and I hope the hon. Member will allow me to defer my reply to his question for a few days.

    Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
    Captain CLIVEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how long Sir Horace Plunkett was allowed to retain his office in the Government without a seat in Parliament; how long Mr. T. W. Russell has held the same office without a seat; and how much longer he will be allowed to do so?
    Mr. MOONEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether during six years of the period that Sir Horace Plunkett held office he was out of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—while his own party were in power?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Let us hear the answer first.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Sir Horace Plunkett retained the post of Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction without a seat in Parliament for a period of six years and nearly eight months, namely, from 25th September, 1900, the date of dissolution of Parliament, to 21st May, 1907, when he ceased to hold that office. The present Vice-President, who entered on the duties of the post on 22nd May, 1907, has been out of Parliament since the date of the last dissolution, 15th January, 1910, a period of a little over five months. As regards the concluding portion of the question I have nothing to add to my reply to a question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member for East Down on 10th March last.
    Mr. MOONEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman are we to understand from the answer that Sir Horace Plunkett held the position for six years while he had not a seat in this House, and while his party was in power; and that he was re-appointed to the position by the Liberal Government when they came into power?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have given the dates. It is for the House to say what party was in power during that period of time.
    Captain COOPERasked whether any portion of the money advanced by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction to credit societies is looked upon as a bad debt; what steps have been taken to recover this money; whether these societies are unlimited liability companies; and whether proceedings have been taken against all the members composing them?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Department have reason to believe that a small amount will prove to be irrecoverable. The usual steps for recovery have been taken—first, by pressure from the Department, and secondly through the medium of the Chief Crown Solicitor. The proceedings are invariably taken against the two guarantors and the secretary. The societies are not limited liability companies. The Department, whatever the legal position may be, have no intention of taking proceedings against small borrowers, who in most cases would be unable to pay.
    Captain COOPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the amount that is looked upon as irrecoverable; what will be the loss to the Treasury?
    Mr. BIRRELL:I have not got the figures before me, but if the hon. Gentleman gives me notice I can get them.

    Application for Reinstatement (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners received an application for reinstatement from Daniel Shanahan, an evicted tenant on the estate of the Knight of Kerry, Farranreigh, Valentia; and what steps, if any, they have taken in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Daniel Shanahan, who was evicted from a holding on the estate of the Knight of Kerry, but as his application was not received before 1st May, 1907, the date mentioned in the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, the Commissioners are unable to deal with it under that Act.

    Budget, 1910–11.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in preparing his Budget for the current financial year, he will consider the desirableness of seeking new sources of revenue by imposing
    198
    an ad valorem, Stamp Duty upon all contracts for the sale and purchase of stocks and shares, whether for investment or speculative purposes, in substitution for the Transfer Duty at present payable upon the actual transfer of securities, of taxing racing stakes and betting transactions, theatre, music hall, and other entertainment receipts, aerated waters and other non-alcoholic beverages, advertisements, titles, and foreign investments, of instituting an ad valorem receipt stamp, and of calling in to the Department of the Public Trustee all dormant cash balances and unclaimed securities in the hands of bankers?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I shall be glad to consider these suggestions in conjunction with the various other proposals which have been brought to my notice for raising the revenue required for the financial year.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Arising out of that answer, which I have received with unvarying courtesy for the last five years, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that many of these suggested taxes already prevail in other civilised countries, and with most satisfactory results; and whether he will consider the idea of a conference between, say, four representatives of the Treasury and four men of business and financial experience?

    Ministry of Mines.
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister if he will say whether there is any civilised country in the world where representative institutions exist which has not established an office of Minister of Mines; and whether, seeing that mining is now the largest industry in this country and that the loss of life and danger to life is far greater than in any other large trade, he will consider the desirability of removing the control of mines from the Home Office to a special mines department in charge of a Minister responsible to Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): According to my information, there is no European country in which the office of Minister of Mines exists. My hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware that a Department of Mines was established at the Home Office by the present Government in 1908, and I am not prepared to recommend the removal of the control of mines from the Home office.
    Mr. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman say where he gets his information as to the Ministers of Mines? I will send him the information to-night.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The matter has been most carefully gone into.

    Political Intimidation in Rural Districts.
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated at Alfreton on 24th January that it was the intention of His Majesty's Government before the next election to put a stop to intimidation in the rural districts and to prevent landowners canvassing their tenants and land agents watching at the polling stations; will he say when a Bill to deal with these matters will be introduced; and whether he or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will introduce this Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that my right hon. Friend has expressed a hope that it might be possible by Act of Parliament to put a stop to intimidation, but we shall not be able to introduce legislation on the subject during this Session.
    Mr. PAGE CROFT: I desire to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department the following question, of which private notice has been given: Whether his attention has been called to the continuous intimidation of electors and speakers at Unionist meetings in East Dorset by the Radical party; if so, what steps he intends to take to prevent such intimidation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No complaint on this subject has been received by the Home Office. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the specific cases to which he alludes, and if they appear to come within the jurisdiction of the Home Office, inquiry shall be made.

PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (WOMEN) BILL.
Mr. SHACKLETON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can see his way to give the House the opportunity on the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Franchise (Women) Bill to discuss the subject? [HON. MEMBEES: "NO, no."]
The PRIME MINISTER: I must ask my hon. Friend to postpone that question till Thursday.
Several other Members took and subscribed the oath.

BILL PRESENTED.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PRISONS BILL.
  Criminal Law and Prisons Bill,—"To mitigate the Criminal Law, and otherwise to amend the Law relating to the administration of justice in criminal cases, and to make further provision with respect to prisons and convict prisons, and to prisoners and convicts, and for other purposes connected therewith."
  Bill presented by Mr. LUTTRELL; supported by Mr. Burt, Sir Charles McLaren, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Byles, Sir Robert Price, and Mr. Beale; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 6th July.

  LAND PURCHASE.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I rise to ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill "to amend the law relating to the purchase of land under compulsory powers." The system of compulsory purchase recognised is, of course, an old established system and is necessarily the system employed in cases, for instance, where land is needed for national defence, for the lighting of the coasts, for water supply, or the development of the country, for roads, bridges, railways, harbours, and many other matters which have become increasingly necessary. I think any one who has to do with it will agree that the machinery, which is mainly based upon the Lands Clauses Act, is of a somewhat antiquated character, is unsatisfactory in working, is very cumbrous, and very costly in its operation. The main object of that machinery is to have some mode of fixing the price, and the difficulty of fixing the price is very great, and even under the machinery so provided the fixing of the price varies very much in different cases, and taken as a whole is both arbitrary and empiric. The main difficulty as to price is not so much as to buildings and improvements, or even such matters as compensation for severance, but relates particularly to the case of the variableness of the land itself. If there was satisfactory provision for fixing the price of the land itself, all those other things outside the land, houses, buildings, improvements, and all other

  201
  special features like that; could very easily be dealt with. In other words, if the land matter were settled these things might settle themselves.
  The real problem is, how are we to obtain a system for finding the value of the land itself? The key, I think, to that solution, is to be found in the new valuations which are now in process of being made under Part I. of the Finance Act so recently passed. As regards the measure which I am asking leave to introduce, I should like to point out, in the first place, it does not propose in any way to extend the power or scope of compulsory purchase. It proposes to leave the general powers in regard to compulsory purchases as they are now. Its object is simply to facilitate the fixing of the basis of the price, and to do that only in so far as the price covers site value. The essence of the proposals are that where land is purchased compulsorily under statutory provisions that the buyer or the seller shall have power to require the full site value as adopted for Part 1 of the Finance Act, shall be taken as the basis of the price, so far as the full site value is concerned for the purpose of the purchase. That applies, of course, only by what is covered by site value. It does not apply to the amount or to the ascertainment of the amount of any other factors, for instance, the buildings, the improvements, the effects, the drainage, or such matters as severance; these things will all be dealt with as now. This Bill does not cover any provision outside the site value. All these things are left to be adjusted on the same basis as now, and also all additional compensation, for instance, compensation in respect of compulsory purchase and additional allowance of 10 per cent. are left entirely unaffected by the provisions of the Bill. The only object is that where there is already compulsory purchase, and where there is a valuation of the full site value, that that should be utilised as the general basis of the purchase so far as the site value of the land is concerned, leaving all these other things on exactly the same basis as they are dealt with now. I venture to think that some such proposals as these are but once the sequel and the complement of the new valuation under the Finance Act. I ask leave to introduce the Bill.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONrose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to oppose?
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member, in introducing his Bill, has used all the old stratagems of language; but, so far as I understand the intentions he has expressed, I feel very strong opposition to the proposals he has put forward. I do not think I should be prepared to carry my opposition so far as to prevent the hon. Member from having the pleasure of seeing his Bill in print, or perhaps, for stronger reasons, prevent the House seeing proposals so remarkable as those put forward enshrined in a Parliamentary Bill
  Mr. JOSIAH WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to speak in opposition to this Bill unless he is prepared to divide the House against it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member told me he was going to oppose the Bill, and I have no reason to suppose that he will not do so.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: He said he would not press the matter to a division. I am in the recollection of the House. Only a minute or two ago he said he would not divide, and has he not therefore withdrawn his right to speak on the question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member said he was going to oppose. I do not think that that necessarily meant he was going to divide against the Bill. A Bill was opposed just a week ago, but was not divided against—
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The question came up when a Bill which was opposed and not divided upon was before the House last week. You were not in the Chair, and the point was raised then whether you did not give a previous decision that anyone who spoke against a Bill introduced under the Ten Minute Rule should divide upon it—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am sure I never gave such a ruling. It would be impossible to carry it out. How could I compel a Member to divide against a Bill? I could not take him into the Lobby myself.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I want to offer only a few observations as a sort of caveat against the supposition which might arise that a Bill like this was likely to go through the House by consent. The hon. Member is proposing a complete change of the system on which compulsory purchase is based. He is against the

  203
  salutary principles of arbitration. I do not think he disputes at all the impartiality of the present method of arbitration, but he would abandon that for the hard and fast cut-and-dry course of purchase on the basis of the present Finance Act. I confess that it is here that I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not exactly apprehend upon what precise value in the Finance Act he proposes to base his purchase. He talked about "full-site value." I suppose that is the old proposal of which we heard so much last year in a new suit of clothes. Full-site value is not one of the values that appear in the Commissioners' rules. There are two values that appear upon the Commissioners' rules. One is total value, and the other the assessable value. The hon. Gentleman proposes, as a basis of purchase, full-site value which is purely imaginary. The whole question came up when the question of full-site value was under discussion. Perhaps the hon. Member was not here at the time, he might have been away on one of the fortnightly excursions of the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury. Although the proposal is, I think, unjust and absurd in regard to England and Scotland, when you apply it to Ireland it is absolutely impossible. I do not know whether the question has occurred to the hon. Member how Ireland would be affected by the application of the Bill. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite are apt to talk a great deal about Ireland, but reflection upon the subject is very often conspicuous by its absence. A moment's reflection will convince the hon. Gentleman of the absurdity of his proposal as applied to Ireland, because this valuation is not going to take place there. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the valuation in Ireland was going to be "roughed out" from the fair rents on the basis of taking over land for land purchase and from Griffith's valuation. If you are going to apply the system of the hon. Member's Bill to Ireland you will have results absurd in theory and impossible in practice, and even if you could carry them out they would extinguish the last spark of vitality in the system of land purchase in Ireland, which has already suffered seriously from what I may call the Radical operations of the Chief Secretary. The hon. Member opposite was apparently rather anxious to persuade the House that this was a Bill of very limited application, but
  204
  although its powers are limited in application they are linked over a very wide area. I have looked up part of the area over which these powers extend, and I find, among other bodies, they extend to the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, Lloyd's Signal Stations, the Post Office, Commissioners of Sewers, Commissioners of Works, powers of acquiring land for allotments, the Development Fund, electric lighting power, and other things, and all these bodies are to be entrusted for all time with an option on land on the basis of its site value. The first immediate result of that policy is going to be confiscation. Do hon. Members not realise that you cannot expect to sell land at the same price when it is subject to such a call? If you pass this proposal the first result will be that the present owner will suffer an immediate and irrecoverable loss. Who is going to bear that loss —the State and the local authorities? Not a bit of it, but the owner of the land. Hon. Members opposite sometimes talk about Colonial methods, and they appeal to Colonial precedents. I do not think a great deal of Colonial precedents in regard to land legislation, because you can do a great many things in a new country which you cannot do with justice in an old country. But even taking Colonial precedents, you cannot find a precedent for any such proposal as that which is put forward by the hon. Member opposite. In New Zealand the local authority has a call such as the hon. Member wishes to give on the basis of the assessment, but the owner has a corresponding advantage because he can turn round and say, "This assessment is too high; either reduce my assessment or take over the land at that assessment." Even this privilege is not offered to the unhappy landowners of this country under this Bill. I am not, however, anxious to deprive the hon. Member of the pleasure of seeing his Bill in print, but I wish to point out that, unless he changes its character very much, its future stages are likely to be attended with considerable difficulties.
  Question put, and agreed to. Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dundas White, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Sherwell, Mr. Hemmerde, Mr. Price, Mr. Mond, Mr. Wedgwood, Mr. Chancellor, and Mr. Aneurin Williams. Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time. (To be read a second time upon Wednesday, 29th June.)

  BEGENCY BILL.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I am heart and soul in agreement with the Prime Minister in hoping that the contingency contemplated by this Bill may never arise. In point of fact such a contingency has never arisen. Altogether there have been four Regency Bills. The first was in 1537 by Henry VIII., and it was the only one that ever came into operation. I think we are pretty safe in believing that such a Regency Bill as this will not come into operation in the present case. This Bill, in my judgment, involves principles which are not completely consonant with constitutional usage in this House. I know the Prime Minister has stated that this Regency Bill is an absolutely necessary one, but I traverse that statement. Should it please God to remove the King tomorrow the present Heir-Apparent would be amply and abundantly competent to carry out all the duties required of him. I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should direct his attention to the fact that, although four Regency Bills have been introduced during the last 317 years, not a single Regency Bill has contemplated a Regency taking effect when the Heir-Presumptive has reached the age of sixteen years. Take the Regency Bill of Henry VIII. It was passed in the year Edward VI. was born, and in reference to the age-limit it is interesting to note that it was in the event of a Prince of eighteen years of age or a princess sixteen years of age. I think in these days when women's rights are so much in the ascendant that the age for a King attaining full power may easily be sixteen years of age instead of eighteen, inasmuch as Henry VIII. was no very great admirer of ladies.
  I now come to the Regency Bill of 1751. Under that Bill George III., the Heir-Presumptive was eleven years of age. Under the Regency Bill of 1765 George IV. was three years of age, and in the case of the Bill of 1830 Queen Victoria was only eleven years of age. In 1840 no children were of age at all, because none of them were born. Why should we have all this embarrassing legislation for a contingency which we all hope and believe will not arise, and even if it does arise the present Heir-Apparent would be fully able to fulfil all the duties of the position.
  206
  Take the case of Queen Victoria in 1830 immediately after the death of George IV. If was said by the Liberal party then: "How can you dissolve Parliament and leave no provision with regard to the succession?"
  "The King is sixty-five years of age, and the Heir Apparent is only eleven."
  Sir Robert Peel answered that admirably. He said:—
  "We may hear a great deal about the power of the Crown in this case."
  and then he said:—
  "The powers of the Grown is now vested in the hands of responsible Ministers, and they and they alone, are responsible for them."
  What difference is there between a youth of sixteen and a youth of eighteen so far as great political power and management are concerned? I should say none whatever. The matter is one absolutely of Ministerial responsibility, and, if that is so, this Bill is as useless as we all hope it may be inoperative. Mr. Gladstone, expounding the political institutions of England for the benefit of the American Republic, in 1878, spoke of Ministers having absolute responsibility and of the Crown having practically none except through their hands. This is what he said:—
  "There can be in England no disloyalty more gross as to its effects than this superstition which affects to assign to the Sovereign a separate and so far as separate transcendental sphere of political action. Anonymous servility has in these last days hinted such a doctrine, but it is no more practicable to make it thrive in England than to have ten jungles of Bengal on Salisbury Plain."
  Having said that much, may I, without entering into details, say how I think this Bill, although useless, is not consonant with the principles of government as we understand them. The illustrious person named in the Bill is perhaps the very best selection on constitutional principles that could be made, and absolutely accords with the constitutional precedents; but there are powers in which this Regent, if she were appointed, would be curtailed in the exercise of the Prerogative. It is said that a Regent should, if possible, on account of the uncertainty and embarrassing position, have more power than the Sovereign. These three cases in which the Prerogative is concerned, such as the succession to the Throne, are merely relics of past times, and could have been safely left out. The other matters in reference to the Scotch and Established Church are there, but I think it would be in constitutional principle and practice to leave out everything which indirectly re-establishes the Veto of

  207
  the Crown. It is really contrary to the tendency of legislation of both Houses. I hope the Prime Minister will have no great difficulty in leaving that out.
  There is another provision—Section 5— in reference to religious declarations. The Bill is a great improvement on other Bills, but it was only such an improvement as you would expect when you have a Gentleman at the head of the Administration who from his early years has had a hatred of religious disabilities of any kind. Section 5, however, is not necessary for the purpose for which it is enacted. In the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 the Regent was one of the specially excluded officers. Strange to say, that fact was relied on in 1867 in the House of Lords, when an endeavour was made to repeal the Declaration with reference to minor officers. I think I have stated the chief things that may in some way or other need rectification if it be necessary to pass this Bill, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to the principle that there is no infancy for the Sovereign and to the well-known constitutional morality that Ministers, and Ministers alone, are responsible for the Executive Government of the country, whether it might not be well to drop the Bill? I hope, in any case, the Bill will never come into operation, and that His Majesty the King may see his children's children.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The House always listens with interest and no doubt instruction to my hon. and learned Friend when he deals with points of constitutional law and history. On such points there is no higher authority among us, and for that reason I have listened with great consideration and respect to what he has said on the various points he has raised. As regards, first of all, the necessity of a Bill of this kind, I entirely agree with him that in point of law the Sovereign, though still an infant, is capable of discharging all regal acts; but, nevertheless, it has always been felt that at least the same precautions which a man would take with regard to his own private property by providing a proper guardianship for his heir during infancy ought to be taken by the Legislature when dealing with such an infinitely important matter as the succession to the Crown and the exercise of the various prerogatives which still belong, and always; will, I trust, belong to the holder of the Throne. It has, therefore, with the single exception he
  208
  mentioned in the reign of Henry VIII., when I think the age was sixteen, been the uniform rule in a Regency Bill to provide for the continuance of the Regency till the child who succeeds to the Throne attains the age of eighteen.
  4.0 P.M.
  As the hon. Member suggested, it makes no difference whatsoever as to at what stage of the child's life you make the provision— whether at the time of the Regency the child is seven or whether he is sixteen years of age. According to law, it does not matter at what particular age we make the provision. We act upon precedents. In the most recent—in the case of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, in 1830, and in the case of our late lamented Sovereign, in 1840—we provided for the Regency to continue until the successor to the Throne came to the age of eighteen. With regard to the other points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he will agree with me, I think, that they are Committee points, and do not strictly rise on the Second Reading of the Bill. I agree there is some force in what the hon. and learned Member said as to whether it is necessary in the altered conditions of modern times to continue the provisions of the fourth Clause of the Bill. But they are copied from previous enactments, and the omission of them may give rise to suspicions and apprehensions in some over-sensitive quarters, although I do not believe that the dangers against which they are intended to guard are dangers which in any real sense of the word need fill our minds with the notion that it is necessary to take precautions against them. On the whole, however, it seems better to follow precedent and to adhere to established rule. With regard to the fifth Clause my hon. and learned Friend has acknowledged that in point of phraseology it is an improvement on precedent, although it makes no alteration in substance. While I think the hon. Member was well founded in saying that the terms of the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 are in themselves sufficient to disable any person professing the Roman Catholic faith from exercising the office of Regent. In the two cases which have occurred since 1829 the corresponding provision was inserted ex abundante candela, and that is the reason why the Government have thought it very desirable to put the provision into this Bill. These are not arguments of substance, but they are Committee points which, if necessary, can be discussed at a later stage. I will only

  209
  conclude by once more re-echoing the wish expressed by my hon. and learned Friend, and shared, I am sure, by every Member in every quarter of the House, that the contingency contemplated by the Bill may never come into operation.
  Mr. LUTTRELL; There are several points in the Bill to which objection may be raised, and which certainly are deserving the consideration of the House. For instance, there is the latter part of Clause 3, which provides that if the Sovereign enters into a marriage which is objected to by the Regent that marriage can be declared null and void. That is a very serious provision in itself. What does it mean 1 It means that the Sovereign is under a great temptation to enter into a marriage knowing that the full responsibility of marriage, as it is generally recognised in this country, does not rest upon him. He knows that the marriage can be lightly set aside, and he therefore does not enter into it with that feeling of responsibility which ordinary citizens have. I think it is wrong to put such a temptation before the Sovereign. But looking at the matter from the point of view of the poor girl who happens to fall in love with the Sovereign, it is indeed an extremely hard case. She is to be punished, while he is to get off scot-free. Then, again, the persons who act as matchmakers are subject to a very grave penalty—for death, I believe, is the punishment awarded for high treason. Again, why should the poor girl who has been foolish enough to fall in love with the Sovereign and marry him be liable to the same fearful penalty as that set apart for high treason? I think these are serious objections to the latter part of Clause 3. Again, to Clause 5 there are great objections. There are many on this side of the House who hold that there ought to be no religious disabilities whatever. The fact that a Government which not so very long ago tried to get rid of religious tests in education should now be making proposals which would have the effect of allowing a test to be imposed on the person whose duty it is to educate the Sovereign is most inconsistent. I fully recognise, however, that these are objections that can and will no doubt be raised in Committee on this Bill.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I should not have intervened in this discussion but for the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Donegal, who is admittedly a very profound student of constitutional
  210
  law and history—who deserves all praise in respect of the depth and width of his knowledge, but who does not always bring to bear upon it judgment as sound as his reading is deep. On this particular occasion he has seemed to lay down a doctrine which appears to me to be utterly unconstitutional. According to his showing the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility altogether supersedes the exercise of will on the part of the Sovereign in the performance of legal Acts. I am sure that that is an entirely unconstitutional doctrine. As recently as 1850 it was laid down that it was untrue that the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility had superseded the freedom of the exercise of the Sovereign's will. Indeed, Ministerial responsibility means exactly what it says: Ministers are responsible legally, and in extreme cases criminally, for the acts of the Sovereign done when they are in the position of advisers of the Crown. The Sovereign in every case exercises an absolutely free choice in legal acts, but the Ministers have the choice, if their advice is neglected, to continue in office and accept responsibility or to resign. The Sovereign, like any other citizen of this country, is bound to act according to law, and it is entirely untrue to say that modern constitutional practice has reduced him to a dummy. The Constitution leaves the Sovereign perfectly free to perform all legal acts, and Ministers, if their advice is neglected, can either resign or accept responsibility.
  Mr. HOLT: I can only echo most sincerely the hope that this Bill will never come into operation. But I want to draw the attention of the House to Clause 4, which prevents the Regent from giving assent to any Bill for repealing, changing, or in any way varying the course of succession, or repealing or altering the Act of Uniformity. The present Government are pledged up to the hilt to uphold the disestablishment of the Church in Wales. The great majority of their supporters are also pledged to vote for that measure, and surely that means altering the Act of Uniformity, and if disestablishment is not held to be altering the Act of Uniformity, then I think this particular provision is of very little value. Another question being raised by devout Churchmen was that of the revision of the Prayer Book, which is clearly an alteration of the Act of Uniformity. I think it is very unsafe to put forward the suggestion that the number of

  211
  subjects to which the Regent may give assent should be limited, because it must hamper Parliament; and although it may be suggested that these are obsolete provisions, the very fact that they are re-enacted in 1910 tends to show that they are not so very obsolete. There was a good deal of trouble with George III. in respect to the Catholic Emancipation Act with regard to the Coronation Oath, and if you are going to re-enact these obsolete provisions you will give great justification to any future Regent to say that Parliament has just recently affirmed this principle. Then, as regards Clause 5, I have always been brought up as a most convinced Protestant Dissenter myself, but I agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken that the time has come for all of us who advocate freedom from tests for teachers to also advocate freedom from tests for the Regent. I believe that there should be absolute religious equality for all religious sects before the law of this country. I ask for that myself, and I am freely willing to give it to all other sects, whether I agree with them or not. They, at all events, ought to have the same rights that I have, as far as the law is concerned. That, too, belongs to an obsolete time. No one, I think, believes now that the personal act of the Sovereign can be of sufficient importance to affect the Protestant character of the religion of the people of this country, and if we cannot remain Protestant without these safeguarding provisions of Acts of Parliament, it seems to me about time we ceased to be Protestant altogether, for our religious faith cannot be of a very valuable description. When the Prime Minister introduced this Bill a few days ago he told us that it was strictly founded upon precedent, and I have no doubt that that is correct; but may I suggest to him that there are a great many precedents which are extremely bad, and that human progress is bound up in breaking bad precedents?
  Bill read a second time.
  Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House."— [The Prime Minister]

  CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir Henry Craik), giving the Committee
  212
  power to divide the Bill into two Bills, one extending to England and the other to Scotland, is not in order. The Bill does not naturally fall into two portions, and it would be impossible to so divide it. If the hon. Member wishes to have two Bills, he can in Committee move to strike out the words "Great Britain" in the first Clause, and to introduce the words "England and Wales" as an Amendment of the Bill before the House. It will then be necessary to bring in a separate Bill for Scotland, and in that way he will accomplish his purpose.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: May I point out, Sir, that a similar Motion was moved by Mr. Buchanan in 1900 to divide the Bill into two parts. The following appears in the "Parliamentary Debates" of that year:—
  "Mr. Buchanan (Aberdeenshire, E.) said his object in submitting the Instruction standing on the Paper in his name was to get two separate Bills for England and Scotland, as was the case in previous Censuses."
  He then moved:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, one extending to England and the other extending to Scotland.
  "The House divided: —Ayes. 52; Noes, 125. (Division List No. 69)."
  Here we have a Bill which I find is almost identical with that before the House, and Clause 12 of that Bill, which applies to Scotland, is absolutely word for word the same as the Clause applying to Scotland in this Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: What has happened during the last ten years with regard to Instructions has been to limit the opportunities upon which Instructions can be moved. The method which I have pointed out is really a much better method of arriving at the same result than that which the hon. Members seek, because really if they were successful in carrying their Instructions it would be totally impossible to divide the Bill into two parts. Where would you divide it? How many Clauses would be in the first part, and how many in the second? It would mean a complete reconstruction of the whole Bill. I have considered the matter and I have come deliberately to the conclusion that the position of the hon. Members will not be damnified in submitting their case to the House, but that it will really stand upon firmer ground if the course I have indicated is pursued, because the answer to the Instruction would at once be made, "You cannot divide this Bill, where are you drawing the line, on Clause 3, Clause 4,

  213
  or Clause 5?" and so forth. It is a physical impossibility to divide this Bill into two parts, but, on the other hand, if the words "Great Britain" are struck out and the words "England and Wales" inserted, then it would be perfectly possible to bring in a Bill to deal with Scotland alone, and that would accomplish the purpose which the hon. Members wish. Therefore, I think in this case we are wise in rejecting the precedent which the hon. Member cites, because the same object may be achieved in a much better way. My ruling also applies to the similar notice given by the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury).
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY (Deputy-Chairman) in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)

  CLAUSE 1.—(Census to be taken in 1911.)
  A Census for Great Britain shall be taken in the year nineteen hundred and eleven, and the Census day shall be Sunday, the second day of April in that year.
  Sir F. BANBURYmoved to leave out the words "Great Britain" ["A Census for Great Britain shall be taken"], and to insert instead thereof the words "England and Wales."
  The reason that I move this Amendment is because, up to the year 1900, it had always been the habit to bring forward three Bills for the Census, one for Ireland, one for Scotland, and one for England and Wales. In the year 1900 the custom was abandoned and only two Bills were brought in, one Bill for Ireland and one for England and Wales and Scotland. The Instruction moved in 1900 to divide the Bill into two parts would have had the same effect as my Amendment, and it was supported by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Burns), who will, I presume, support my Amendment, as he is always consistent. Not only was it supported by the right hon. Gentleman, but by the present Lord Advocate and by one of the Junior Lords of the Treasury. The answer to Mr. Buchanan, who desired to have a separate Bill for Scotland, by the right hon. Gentleman who was then in charge of the Bill and the Lord Advocate of that day, was that it would be much better to have a separate Bill for Scotland, but in the congested state of the business obtaining
  214
  at that moment in the House, it was quite impossible to get the three Bills through, and for that reason, and that reason only, the Government had departed from the ancient custom and had put Scotland in with England. At the present moment the situation is quite different. There is no congestion of business, and the right hon. Gentleman is face to face with one of the most reasonable Oppositions that any Government have ever seen, and one which is only too anxious to assist him and his party so long as they are reasonable. Therefore, the ground for opposing this Amendment in 1900 falls to the ground, and there will be no difficulty in getting another Bill through. It was thought, in 1900, that this would be a better course, not only by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but by the present Lord Advocate, who ought to have some knowledge of the principles of Scotch law. I do not pretend to be an expert in Scotch law, but it is perfectly clear that it differs from that of England, and Scotch Members are always holding that they are a superior race, and that their knowledge and their laws are superior to English laws. It would, therefore, be much better for them and for us if they were, as they did up to 1900, to have a separate Bill to carry out the special provisions applying to Scotland. Clause 13, which provides for the application of this Bill to Scotland, provides that: "'Secretary for Scotland' shall be substituted for 'Local Government Board' and 'Board'; 'Registrar General for Scotland' for 'Registrar General'; 'registration district' for 'registration sub-district'; and 'poor-house' for 'workhouse'"; and a great many other things. It would therefore be very much simpler if Scotland were dealt with by a separate Bill, and this Bill dealt with England only. When anyone now wants to find out how this Bill applies to Scotland he has to read Clause 13, which, like all clauses which deal with legislation by reference is incomprehensible except to legal experts who have looked up all details of the references.
  Therefore, I think I have made out an unanswerable case for my Amendment. It is a case which the bulk of the Scottish Members, including the Law Officers of the Crown and the Lord Advocate, wished to have put in and I can conceive of no objection to it unless it is the objection which was raised by my party ten years ago that the House was too much occupied. That is not the case to-day, and it will be a

  215
  good thing that they should have something to do, because at present we are spending our time in taking holidays when we might be here discussing useful measures.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I should have thought that on a question of considerable importance to my country the Secretary for Scotland and those of my patriotic colleagues who sit on the other side of the House would have shown sufficient interest in it to give a little time for its consideration. I rise to support the Amendment, because I should like to ask a few questions and satisfy my own curiosity. I have long, as a Scottish Member, attempted to rise to the very great heights of patriotic ardour which my fellow Members on the opposite side have shown. I have never been able to understand exactly the theory which guides them in regard to these questions. They tell us often that we on this side are ignorant of Scotland and careless of Scotland, and that we are ready to leave Scotland to be deal with entirely by the Imperial House of Commons. I am not quite so sure but that that might be done, and Scotland might be dealt with very satisfactorily. I have always resented the idea that Scotland should be governed only by the Scottish Members, and I have not yet found that that opinion is disagreed with so strongly in Scotland as the ardent patriotism of its Radical representatives would give us to believe. But, whatever we may think about legislation for my country being laid down by a Home Rule Parliament or by the Imperial Parliament, I think we may at least insist that proper attention shall be given to the affairs of Scotland and that separate Scotch bills should be brought forward dealing with questions such as these in which Scottish arrangements differ from English. It is all very well to say it is convenient and saves time, and is useful to make the same Bill apply to Scotland. That is not what one would expect from these ardent patriots who are urging nothing but Home Rule as the solution of Scottish questions. In fact, hon. Members remind me of nothing so much as the lady in "Tristram Shandy" who, when found fault with by her husband for purchasing silk at two guineas a yard, immediately fell down to taffetas at 2d. a foot. Hon. Members opposite cannot have Home Rule, so they will have nothing but absolute subjection to the rights and principles which guide English
  216
  legislation. They cannot have a Parliament of their own, so they will not ask the Imperial Parliament even to take the trouble of considering Scottish questions separately.
  Is this quite so easy a matter to legislate by one Act as one would believe from what is said by the Front Bench opposite? We know these Front Benches have a way of making excuses for everything they do. Up to 1900 separate Census Bills were uniformly passed for England and Scotland. Why has this good and useful precedent, which lasted for more than 100 years, been broken away from, and why is it broken away from by the very people who in their patriotic ardour fought against it in the year 1900? How is it that they objected to it, and when it comes to their turn they do exactly the thing which they objected to? The supervising authority in regard to the Census is absolutely different in England and Scotland. The President of the Local Government Board, who is the only Minister present to answer for the Bill and give any reason for the principles that it contains, has nothing whatever to do with Scotland, and, more than that, has absolutely no authority over Scotland. Have we no Scottish Minister who can tell us what are the reasons for this change of proposal, and why the only Minister in charge of the Bill is one who has absolutely no authority over Scotland, and will have nothing whatever to do with the Census taken there? The Registrar-General is a different officer in Scotland. The Registrar-General for England, I suppose, is under the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, but the Registrar-General for Scotland is absolutely independent of the Local Government Board. I want to know why he is brought into the same Bill? Not only that, but all the subordinate officers and the very districts are called by different names. The people who are to carry out the details of this work are not only different persons, they are persons chosen on an entirely different principle.
  I want to know who are to be the enumerators in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman, as I expected, cannot tell me, and I have failed to make it out myself. Under Clause 3 of the Bill we are told that "overseers and assistant-overseers of the poor, relieving officers for Poor Law unions, and collectors of poor rate, shall, if so required by the Local Government Board, act as and be enumerators for the purposes of this Act." Does the right hon.

  217
  Gentleman not know that not one of these officers exist? In Clause 13 I find that "sheriffs, sheriffs' clerks, chief magistrates, town clerks, inspectors of the poor and assistant-inspectors of the poor, shall perform such duties, etc." Are they to act as enumerators? Instead of taking Poor Law officers to act as enumerators, you are taking judges and stipendiary magistrates acting under the authority of the law. The right hon. Gentleman cannot even tell me whether I am right or wrong in that supposition. I assure him, quite honestly and sincerely, that I do not know any more than he does from reading the Bill. You lay down certain rules for England, which the enumerators are to follow, and you have told them what they are to do. Under Clause 17 they are to perform, not the duties laid down by the Bill, not the duties which Parliament prescribes for them, but such duties as may be prescribed by some bureaucrat in some office. By jumbling up Scottish legislation with English you have not only led to confusion, but you have absolutely left these rules which you carefully laid down in your Bill for England to be prescribed as is thought proper by some bureaucrat in an office irresponsible to anyone. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman intends? Why does not he take the whole power himself? The attendance of Scottish Members and the absence of the right hon. Gentleman responsible for Scottish business during the discussion on this measure, which is very important for Scotland, shows what is the real worth of all this talk of Home Rule. It comes from the lips outward. I now ask the Lord Advocate who are to act as enumerators for Scotland? Are they to be the sheriffs, sheriffs' clerks, chief magistrates, town clerks, and the inspectors of poor, or are they to be the people indicated by Clause 3 of the Bill? It would be useful to know, and it is very difficult to make out from the Bill. Then you have the rule laid down that they are to perform, not certain definite duties, but certain duties which may be prescribed for them. They are to perform such duties as were imposed by the old Act of 1890, which was a separate Act for Scotland. You are not going to have a separate Act for Scotland any longer. You have followed the very device which you denounced and voted against in 1900, which raised the indignation of all your patriotic feelings, and when you want to lay down definite rules you have to go back actually to the separate Scotch Act of 1890. Is this not a very
  218
  reductio ad absurdum? You cannot have a Home Rule Parliament and you cannot have all legislation made by the few men who pretend that they represent the whole feeling of Scotland, which they do not, and because you cannot have that you have nothing but botched and huddled and jumbled legislation, mixed up in a corner in an English Bill, so confused and so ill thought out that the Minister in charge of the Bill has to confess himself ignorant of how it will act in Scotland.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) quoted "Hansard" of some ten years ago, in which my name figured in the Division List inconsistent with the advice which he rightly assumed I was going to give the House to-day in answer to his Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not assume that at all; I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to be consistent—that he had made an error, and forgotten how he voted, and that he would now admit his error.
  Mr. BURNS: Consistency is only a virtue in one's "salad" days. When one is responsible, one is obliged to revise one's previous opinions; one's duty is to the whole, and not to a section. The right hon. Baronet was under the impression that I should support the views of his Amendment. I can assure the hon. Baronet that I am going to do no such thing. What concerns me is not the quotation he has given, but rather the reason that induced him then to abstain and yet in the present Debate to adopt another view. I was anxious to know if he was going to tell the House what was the reason that induced him to abstain, but he did not, though I think I could gather.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did state the reason.
  Mr. BURNS: I thought I could gather it, because to-day the hon. Baronet, who is an Imperialist in politics, and who invariably preaches the unity of the Empire, is against the struggling nationalities which, as some of his Friends say, are part and parcel of the United Kingdom. He to-day takes up an entirely different attitude in Census matters, and he twits the Lord Advocate with not being here to demand on behalf of Scotland a separate and distinct method of numbering the

  219
  people of North Britain. He supported that view by making a statement in which he had the concurrence of the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Sir H. Craik). The hon Member said that it has been practically the rule to have a separate Bill for Scotland for 100 years. That is not so. From 1840 to 1900 there has been a Census Bill for England, Wales, and Scotland, while there has been during the same period a separate Bill for Ireland, and we are under the impression that the rule that has been adopted from 1840 to 1900 should still continue.
  Mr. ASHLEY: There was a separate Bill for Scotland in 1890.
  Mr. BURNS: I beg pardon. I should have said from 1840 to 1890, and not to 1900. The hon. Member for Glasgow University went further, and said that he was surprised that no one was here to answer the point put by the hon. Baronet as to a matter which he thought went down to the very roots of Scottish life. Well, I hope my hon. Friend will pardon me if I reply by suggesting that we consider the practice which it has been thought necessary and advisable to follow regarding Bills of a similar character to this, and Bills embodying a large amount of legislation should be followed in this case, namely, to pass it so as to apply to England and Wales, and put in a clause at the end of the Bill adapting it to Scotland by the necessary Amendments to enable the measure to apply to both countries. We think it saves time, and that there is no reason why separate legislation should go to the extent of having separate Bills for England, Scotland, and Ireland. If we were to recognise that demand in this particular case, there is probably reason why the Welsh Members should ask a separate Census enumeration for Wales. Hitherto in this matter one Bill has been thought to be all that was necessary for England, Wales, and Scotland, whilst, owing to some extent to the great difference between Ireland and the other parts of the United Kingdom—hon. Members opposite frequently recognise and sometimes emphasise the difference—it has been the rule to have a separate Census Bill for Ireland. It seems to me that the arguments advanced by the hon. Baronet or the hon. Member for Glasgow University are not such as to warrant us accepting the Amendment. The hon.
  220
  Member for Glasgow University asked What is the meaning of "overseers of the poor" in the English Bill, and what relationship have they to Scottish life, institutions, and officials in Scotland? He will find on page 5 of the Bill, Clause 13 providing for its application to Scotland, and in the four Sub-sections all the questions he put to me are answered.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: No.
  Mr. BURNS: Well, that is my interpretation of his question. For instance, he wants to know who is the equivalent of an English overseer of the poor. He will find in Sub-section 4 that "Sheriffs, sheriff clerks, chief magistrates, town clerks, inspectors of poor, and assistant inspectors of poor," and so forth—
  Sir H. CRAIK: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that a sheriff in Scotland corresponds to an overseer of the poor in England?
  Mr. BURNS: I did not say so, but we were anxious not to exclude any person who may be called upon to take any part in the work of the Census. We have put in the Bill this provision, that these persons, in the absence of others, may be called upon to help. Both in England and Wales overseers of the poor will only be called upon in certain rare and improbable contingencies. If enumerators are not available for the particular work of the Census, they would be called upon. If that contingency does arise, it will be necessary to make someone responsible, and the overseers of the poor are the persons named for England and Wales, while in Scotland the persons would -be those named in Sub-section 4 of Clause 13. The hon. Member asked, What is the type of persons who are to be enumerators? Well, he claims on other occasions that the Scottish people—and I think it is generally admitted—are probably, and to an extent even beyond the German people, the best educated people we know. Scotland boasts of its education, and the state of things there is mainly due to the fact that they had a system of education by means of parochial schools at a time further back than any other part of the United Kingdom. It may be assumed, therefore, that the Scottish enumerators will not be behind the English, Irish, or Welsh. On that matter we were advised by the Committee that sat on the question of the Census. Mr. Agnew, a competent witness who gave evidence, at the time expressed

  221
  himself quite satisfied that the enumerators appointed to carry out the work on the previous occasion were quite fit. Since that testimony was given the general standard of education and competency has improved everywhere, and not less in Scotland than in England and Wales. It is the opinion of those connected with the Registrar-General's office in Scotland, England and Wales that the men who will be employed will be from the point of view of fitness and competency for this class of work better than their predecessors of forty and fifty years ago. Another question asked was whether this is not a case in which separate legislation should be insisted upon? The Scottish Office in conjunction with the Local Government Board are quite content with this amalgamated Bill. It follows the example of previous legislation which adapts English Bills to Scotland, and it seems to me that the case submitted by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment does not justify the Government in accepting the Amendment. I therefore ask the House not to accept it.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that consistency is a virtue of one's salad days and he does not consider consistency a ground why he should accept the Amendment. On the other hand, he opposed the Amendment on the ground of precedent. Surely it must be seen that that is not a reason which avails him in this particular instance. If it be true that from 1840 to 1900, according to the right hon. Gentleman, or as history says, until 1890, this House followed for five decades the practice of dealing together and not separately with England and Scotland, and, if at the end of these five experiences Parliament abandoned the practice in 1890 and took a different view that is a very good reason for not dealing with England and Scotland in one Bill. In 1900, it is true, the two countries were included in one Bill, but that was not on account of legislative difficulties, but because of the highly congested state of Parliamentary business in that Session, as those who were in the House at the time will remember. The right hon. Gentleman has not made any attempt to resist the proposal on the ground of administrative convenience or advantage. He says it is according to modern principles of draftmanship that the Bill should be applied to England and Scotland. We are to have what is called an "Application Clause" with respect to
  222
  Scotland at the end of the Bill. That procedure has some advantages, but surely in this case there is a balance of inconvenience rather than advantage. We cannot apply the Bill to Scotland without word of reference that those who are to carry out the work are to look to another piece of paper and to other documents for information, so that whatever you gain by supposed convenience of draftmanship you lose by the vicious principle of legislation by reference.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. FALCONER: I intervene in this discussion solely for the purpose of pointing out to the President of the Local Government Board that the practice which he has suggested, is a growing one, namely, that of dealing with Scottish matters by a separate clause in an English Bill. It is one which is deprecated very much from the point of view of those who have the responsibility of trying to carry out these Acts of Parliament in Scotland. It is difficult, in the first place, because there are many expressions in an English Bill which do not have any technical meaning in connection with Scottish law. It is difficult also because it is almost impossible to frame a Bill with a set of rules of procedure applicable to England and apply the measure to Scotland without introducing some part of English procedure which has nothing corresponding to it in the legal procedure of Scotland. These are difficulties which constantly arise in connection with general Acts. I admit that we are driven to this position when the time which can be given for legislation in regard to general matters in this House is limited, and very often the representatives of Scotland have to consider whether they will take a clause in a general measure applicable to Great Britain or go without any general legislation on the subject at all. I admit that in that dilemma it is better to take a clause with all its inconvenience than stand out for a separate Bill. I am bound to say that is a very bad practice. It works out badly in legislation, and it is very inconvenient for the people who are regulated by these Acts of Parliament. It ought not to be followed where it is possible to avoid it. I would, therefore, in this case ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not reconsider this matter, and, as there seems to be plenty of time at the disposal of both sides of the House to facilitate the getting through of all necessary legislation, I would ask whether he would not revert to what, I am

  223
  sure, many Scottish Members consider the better practice and have a separate Bill for Scotland, especially in cases where he has a clause such as we find in this measure, giving not only definitions which are separate but a definition clause making provisions under enactment which are separate, and bringing in a separate Bill for Scotland, passed in 1890, as part of the Definition Clause, and defining the duties for the different classes of people. I am sure that everyone who has to carry out this Census operation in Scotland, and there are many people who will have to be engaged in it, would be greatly convenienced if they could have one complete code in a complete Scottish Bill. Then they could carry out their duties with knowledge, instead of wondering what is the meaning of the different expressions of English administration, and having, perhaps, to send for the Census Act of 1890 in order to understand the meaning of an English Bill of 1910–11.
  Mr. ASHLEY: The defence of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill was really nil. The only defence he put up that I could see was that it was less trouble to carry the Census through an omnibus Bill instead of having separate Bills, as has been suggested by my hon. Friends behind me. He cited precedent. He said that the precedent was to have one Bill for England and Scotland. It is very refreshing indeed to have hon. and right hon. Gentleman on that side of the House quoting precedent. To follow precedent is a very excellent thing in its way, but we have heard a great deal lately of the bad effect of following precedent. We have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister this afternoon. Therefore it comes rather badly from that side of the House to have as the only argument put up in support of having one Bill only for England and Scotland, the argument of precedent. They have not got even the very good reason which was given in support of a Motion similar to this in 1900— namely, that there is not time. It is notorious that there is plenty of time to pass three separate Bills if we only approach the matter in a reasonable spirit, which there is no disposition not to do. The House has been adjourning early, discussions have not been at all prolonged, it has not been found necessary to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, and, therefore,
  224
  there can be no just reason why, as far as time is concerned, two Bills should not be brought in—one for England and another for Scotland. What seems to me is the greatest reason why the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London should be accepted is that at the present moment there is a Bill being put through to take a Census for Ireland. I can quite well understand having an omnibus Bill which would apply to England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. I can quite well understand having a separate Bill for all those four countries; but I do not understand why it should be considered right to have one Bill for England, Wales, and Scotland and a separate Bill for Ireland.
  Why should Ireland be put upon a different footing from England, and have a separate Bill all to itself, while England, Wales, and Scotland are put together in one 1 Surely, if it is right to have one Bill for Ireland, it is equally right to have a Bill for Scotland. Surely my hon. Friend behind me (Sir Henry Craik) thinks that Scotland is as much deserving of consideration as Ireland. Scotland has been much longer within the Union, and therefore ought to have her demand conceded before those of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman surely could give the reasons if he wished. He did not say one single word of solid reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. He simply said he thought it was a good thing to follow precedent. He implied that it gave less trouble to his Department, and he also said that, in his opinion, it would be better not to have separate Bills. That may be so. The right hon. Gentleman is a man of great common sense. Possibly he is right. But what we want here are arguments in favour of the course the Government is pursuing, and not the bare word of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. Not having the honour to be a Scottish Member, I should like to protest on behalf of the Members on this side of the House at the absence of the Lord Advocate, who has now left the House. He was here for about ten minutes while this Amendment, which affects Scotland, was being discussed, and he did not say a word about it. He has now left the House, and I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has any answer at all to what has been said. I think that when there is an Amendment like this, which affects Scotland, I should move the adjournment of the Debate in order to secure the attendance of the Lord Advocate.
  Mr. BURNS: May I appeal to my hon. Friend?
  The CHAIR MAN: I do not think I could take it at this stage. If any real inconvenience was being caused by the absence of the Lord Advocate—
  Mr. ASHLEY: There are very intricate questions connected with Scotch administration and Scotch technical terms which English Members, at any rate, cannot understand in the very least. Therefore, what we desire is to have present some Scotch Member of the Government, who should be able to explain these matters to us so that we should be able to decide whether we shall vote for this Amendment or not. Therefore I press my Motion for adjournment on the ground that we cannot vote properly without understanding what is going on.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: On the question of adjournment, I should like to second the Motion.
  The CHAIRMAN: There is no question of adjournment. At the present moment I cannot take the Motion for adjournment.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: On that point, surely the fact that there is no Scottish Minister in attendance
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot argue on my ruling.
  Mr. BURNS: As has been suggested by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, the Lord Advocate came in to attend to that section which relates to Scotland. He has been compelled to go away only for a short time upon public business that necessitates his absence from the House, I believe only for a few minutes. But the hon. Member will pardon me if I suggest to him that the difficulty that he points out is almost imaginary. The procedure that we are adopting in regard to this Bill and the application to Scotland of the Census legislation for England and Wales has been adopted with the approval of the Scottish Office, and has been objected to by no authority responsible for Scottish affairs. It is a matter of convenience for both Scotland and England and Wales that they should be embodied in one Bill. Particularly is that so because unfortunately owing to the untoward circumstances of this Session, into which I need not go, we have been unable—not through any fault of the two Departments—to bring in this Bill in the month of March or April. And I say that because
  226
  I am anxious to reply to the hon. Member who has spoken as to time. It would be practically and physically impossible for us to withdraw that portion of the Bill that applies to Scotland, and bring in a separate Bill applicable to Scotland only as suggested by my hon. Friend, because the Registrars-General in both countries have been proceeding very properly with all the arrangements for the taking of the Census on the basis of this Bill going through; and I can assure my hon. Friend that it would be impossible for us to accept the suggestion of a separate Bill, as time would not permit. So far as difficulties are concerned, we do not anticipate the least difficulty in having a Census of Scotland taken under the conditions embodied in this Bill any more than we had when a Census was taken in that country under a precisely similar Bill on a previous occasion.
  Sir WALTER MENZIES: I confess that there is a great deal to be said for the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, which was seconded by the hon. Member for Glasgow University. But if they had backed up their position and their arguments with any reference to facts which would be wanted by the Scotch people, and which would not be received in the Census, then I should be inclined to vote with them in a Division on the subject. But I am not aware that the people of Scotland want any information from this Census which they will not get under this Bill. If they could have pointed out that the population of villages or towns or separate counties would not be received under this Bill, then I should have voted with them. If they could have pointed out that there was any great demand for an immediate Census, then I should certainly have "voted with them; but I can find no such demand. I think the Census will be taken quite as well under this Bill as it would be under a separate Bill; and, of course, with regard to the different names which are given to the enumerators and those connected with them, I have no doubt whatever that the Scottish Office will issue a leaflet giving all necessary information. The hon. Member for Glasgow University taunted as much as ever he could us hon. Members from Scotland with a certain want of patriotism in not insisting upon a separate Bill for Scotland, and said that we were giving lip-service to ideas regarding Home Rule for Scotland which we did not want to follow up by votes in this House. I can only say with regard to

  227
  that that I myself have stated in the country that I believe that a Scottish Grand Committee sitting in this House would serve the purposes of Scotland at the present moment so far as Home Rule is concerned. But I have to acknowledge with regard to that position that my belief and my opinion have received a very severe shock, and that occurred only lately at a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee, when I was told by a Noble Lord now in this House that the idea that Scottish opinion should be deferred to in legislation simply because it is Scottish opinion was of no moment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: My recollection is that I said that Scottish opinion was not decisive. Of course, it is natural that Scotland or any other locality should have its local opinion, to which due and reasonable deference should be paid, but the doctrine that Scotland is a separate country entitled to manage its own affairs indifferently to English opinion is a doctrine which is absurd from the point of view of history and common sense.
  Sir WALTER MENZIES: The exact words of the Noble Lord on that occasion, so far as I remember them, were that there were some muddle-headed people, Irishmen and Scotchmen, who supposed that the opinion of Scotch Members upon Scotch legislation ought to be deferred to, but that there was nothing of the kind. If that is the case, even at the Scottish Grand Committee, then I have to acknowledge that there is a great deal to be said for the proposal of the hon. Member for the City of London and the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow, that there should be separate Bills for everything relating to Scotland.
  Mr. JOHN P. BOLAND: The President of the Local Government Board in his speech just now remarked that the Registrars-General of England and Scotland had already made their arrangements on the basis of this Bill, and that to separate this measure into two Bills would mean an alteration of those arrangements. There are several Amendments on the Paper, but if arrangements have already been made upon the Bill as it is, what is the good of our discussing them? If officials immediately a Bill is introduced are to make their arrangements and get their forms printed, it is practically doing away with the power of this House to shape legislation. If the argument of the right hon.
  228
  Gentleman is to be carried to its proper conclusion that would be the result. Ireland holds the position she has always held in this matter, and if Scotland were separated from Great Britain for the purpose of the Census she would be in a better position than she is in now. From the point of view of legislation it seems to me that it is better that Scotland should have a separate Bill for this purpose. In Ireland, for the purposes of our legal procedure, for the working of our courts, it is much more valuable to have Irish Bills kept separate from Bills for the United Kingdom than to have them all lumped together, because the adoption of the latter course would cause a tremendous amount of difficulty to the law courts and to public men. Another reason why I think the President of the Local Government Board and Scottish Members on the other side should welcome this Amendment is that it comes from these benches. After this Amendment is taken to a Division the hon. Member for Aberdeen University and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London will give up, when writing to Scotland, the practice of putting in the address the letters "N.B.," and will recognise Scotland as a national entity by addressing their letters to Scotland, and not to North Britain. It is an additional advantage when we find that the representative of the City of London is going to be found in the same Lobby with us, and that he is going to recognise in future that Scotland is not really a part of Great Britain, but is a nation in itself, demanding separate legislation for dealing with the Census and with other important matters. I believe that, in the interests of legislation, and in the interests of the public service, it is an advantage to have a separate Bill for the Scottish Census. I am glad to welcome the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University among those who are at last coming to recognise that there are other nationalities in the United Kingdom than that of England.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: I do not know whether the hon. Member who has just spoken is aware of the fact, but the reason why Members do not add "N.B." in addressing their letters, but put "Scotland" instead, is that many of the letters addressed "N.B." go to New Brunswick, and not to Scotland. I am glad to think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen University thinks this is a case in which Scotland

  229
  should have separate treatment. I do not know the reason why we should not have a separate Bill in this instance. If there be any good reason I should be glad to know it. No one knows better than the hon. Member for Aberdeen University that, so far as concerns ecclesiastical matters, scholastic matters, and other matters of importance, Scotland is in an entirely different position from that of England. All our laws and customs in Scotland are different from those of England. I only want to know whether there is any real objection—as we are told there is—or what objection there can be to Scotland having a separate Census, apart altogether from England and Wales, and also Ireland.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): There is no objection to Scotland having a separate Census. Scotland had a separate census. The only difference we have made is that a separate Census is provided for in the same Bill as provides for the Census of England and Wales. In 1901 this House came to the conclusion, after considering the question, that it was quite possible to include the provisions for the Census in Scotland in the same Bill as provided for the Census in England. It was an experiment. In 1890 Scotland had a separate Act. It was found, however, that by skilful draftsmanship and the application of a little good sense that a Bill could be drafted, including all the necessary provisions for both countries. The experience of 1901 has shown that the House was right, and the Census was never better taken in Scotland than at that time. We have a separate Report from Scotland, a separate Census, and the procedure is exactly the same as if it were under a separate Bill. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board explained, we are enabled to include all the provisions in this Bill which would be found in a separate Scottish Bill. Therefore, in the interests of saving time and of saving money, we have thought it right to follow the precedent of 1901. Having found by experience that we had made a correct experiment, we propose to repeat it now.
  Mr. GEORGE FABER: The Lord Advocate was absent from the House—
  Mr. URE: I was engaged on public business.
  Mr. GEORGE FABER: I was not about to cast any reflection upon the right hon. Gentleman, as he would have seen had he waited until I finished my sentence. I
  230
  was about to say that the Lord Advocate, unfortunately, was absent from the House when the President of the Local Government Board made his second speech. In his first speech the right hon. Gentleman based the present procedure upon precedent. Now there was the precedent of 1890 and the precedent of 1901, and the former precedent is against the right hon. Gentleman. I think it was in 1900 that the President of the Local Government Board, being then in Opposition, and when he had greater freedom and lesser responsibility, voted against the very course which is now being pursued by the Government of which he is so distinguished a Member. His argument as to precedent, therefore, is not entirely sound. Then, again, his second speech is inconsistent with his first. An hon. Member put it to the Government that we had plenty of time to divide the Bill, and to bring in one for England and one for Scotland. One of the reasons why, in 1901, that course was not followed, was that there was a great pressure on Parliamentary time, and the two countries had to be driven abreast, both being put into one Bill. That reason does not operate now, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted in his second speech. Then he fell into this line of argument: "If we had only known that we were going to have plenty of time"
  Mr. BURNSindicated dissent.
  Mr. GEORGE FABER: Yes; only in those earlier months, and from the events which occurred, it was found that Parliamentary procedure was practically dislocated. But the right hon. Gentleman admitted that now there would be plenty of time to divide the Bill into two, one for England and one for Scotland. What is to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from dividing the Bill now? He knows perfectly well, quite as well as I do, that there is nothing. So he had to fall back upon this argument: "Oh, but we have now given all our instructions." But why did you give all your instructions, and make all your plans before the Bill was introduced into the House? Why should you assume that the Bill was going to be put through the House practically without alteration? I know that this Government, even with its present hotch-potch majority, in nine cases out of ten can carry their Bills in the form in which they bring them in; but surely that amounts to discourtesy, and it is not treating the House well that the Government should say, in

  231
  their magnificent style, that it does not matter what the House does or how it discusses a Bill. They have made up their minds to pass it without the alteration of a dot or a comma. We are convinced that there is plenty of Parliamentary time for the purpose of dividing this Bill into two. If the Lord Advocate had heard the President of the Local Government Board's second speech, he would not have based himself so certainly as he did on the general convenience of having the Bill in this form, because the right hon. Gentleman did not share that opinion. The Lord Advocate, not having heard the President's second speech, took the line which he did, saying that the precedent of 1901 was good and that the Government, having to make up their minds between that and the precedent of 1890, discarded the latter as bad. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board does not share that view. I am sorry at the want of unanimity on the Treasury Bench on this matter. It would have been much better, there being time to do it, to have had separate Bills, one for England and one for Scotland.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The Amendment of the hon. Baronet assumes that England and Wales are one. I object entirely to such an assumption as that. Wales is far more different from England than is Scotland. We have got our own language. Welsh is spoken in every county in Wales. We have got dozens of Welsh newspapers with circulations of thousands per week. We have a periodical literature and other activities of national culture.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If the hon. Member votes for the Amendment he will vote to have Great Britain left out.
  Mr. L. WILLIAMS: To bring England and Wales together shows an absolute ignorance of the condition of things in Wales. If you are going to get a separate Census Bill on the ground of the antiquity of the connection, then Wales has the first right. As the Lord Advocate has pointed out, this is really a very small matter. We all get a separate Census. We get a separate Census in Wales though we never had a separate Census Bill, and there is a separate Census in Scotland exactly as if there was a separate Census Bill. Therefore, though I am very anxious on any real matter of importance to insist on the separate entity
  232
  of Wales in these matters, and especially matters of legislation, I think this is a very trivial matter.
  Sir H. CRAIK: The hon. Member (Mr. L. Williams) says that Wales is more separated from England than is Scotland. What are the facts? The Registrar-General for England is the Registrar-General for Wales, the enumerators are the same, and the general law is the same in England and Wales. In Scotland there is a separate Registrar-General, and the Local Government Board which acts for England does not act for Scotland. There is a separate Local Government Board for Scotland, and all the law and ail the minor officials who are mentioned in this Bill are entirely different from those of England and Scotland. Those are reasons why we say Scotland does not stand on anything like the same footing as England.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns) to say in his first reply that there had always been one Bill for England and Scotland until 1890. I do not think that is correct. My hon. Friend the Member for one of the divisions of Sheffield pointed out that in any case the last Bill of Scotland joined with England must have been in 1880. The debate which took place in 1900 on this point showed a very different state of things. Speaking on 9th March, 1900, the Member for Aberdeenshire E., Mr. Buchanan, said:—
  "I wish to draw the attention of the Lord Advocate rather than the President of the Local Government Board to one point…Hitherto there has been a separate Bill for Scotland, but in the present case there is only one Bill, and the Scottish census is put into an interpretation clause at the end of the Bill. There have been substantial differences in the way in which the census has been taken in England and Scotland. I daresay that these differences may be provided for under this Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate has departed, not only in this but in other Bills, from what has been the general practice on Scotch legislation…"
  The then President of the Local Government Board said in reply:—
  "If the Scotch census has been included for the first time in the English Bill; it is solely in order to save Parliamentary time in a Session when less time than usual will be available for legislation."
  I say that is not the case now. The then Lord Advocate said he
  "always understood that the counsel of perfection was to have measures which dealt equally with the three kingdoms. That was the whole tendency and desire of modern legislation. The only difference between England and Scotland in this matter was that in Scotland the names were rather different."
  In the Committee stage Mr. Buchanan again moved an Instruction to divide the Bill into two parts. So that both on the Second Reading and Committee stages

  233
  Mr. Buchanan and the then President of the Local Government Board held distinctly that it was an innovation that we had for the first time in 1900. The only reason given in favour of the proposal to include both countries in one Bill was to save time. There was a Division and the Lord Advocate voted with Mr. Buchanan. That is only ten years ago, so that the very last time the present Lord Advocate voted for the Amendment which I am now bringing before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said, "Oh, yes, but that was in my salad days. Now that I am in office I throw over all the opinions I had in my salad days." I shall not venture to apply that to the Lord Advocate.
  Mr. URE: Experience has justified the action the House then took.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Lord Advocate does not commit himself quite so far as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns). He gets out of it in another way. He now says he was wrong then; that the experience of the measure shows, as it very often does, that the Conservatives are very often right and the Radicals very often wrong, and that therefore he follows the precedent brought in by my colleagues. There is no doubt the only argument advanced in 1900 against this Amendment was that there was no time. There is plenty of time now, and therefore I shall divide the Committee.
  Colonel GREIG: I think I should state, as a Scottish Member, my view on this Question before the House, and as it is perhaps a little different from that of the other Scottish Members I may give the reasons for it. We have been treated to an exhibition that we Scottish Members on this side will note with considerable satisfaction. We have at last attracted the attention of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), and his enthusiasm for separate legislation for Scotland will, I hope, communicate itself to other Members who sit on the opposite side of the House, and, above all, to the Noble Lord who sits for the University of Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil). We have had an exhibition within the last week or two as to real legislation for Scotland in the action of certain Members on the opposite side of the House. 1 am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow (Sir H. Craik) taking a course which I think we
  234
  all approve of now to a certain extent, but which is somewhat different to the action taken the other day.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Not by me.
  Colonel GREIG: This Bill raises no separate principles at all of legislation or law. The law in Scotland as to the taking of the Census is, I believe, absolutely to the same effect and on the same lines as in England. The machinery, no doubt, is somewhat different, but, as the Lord Advocate has pointed out, once the Bill is set in motion, that separate machinery will be set in motion, and the thing can be done separately. As a matter of convenience, and as a matter of precedent, it has been pointed out that the whole of the legislation necessary for the Census can be combined easily and properly in one Bill. I will say at once I am in favour of separate legislation for Scotland, on principles vital to the law of Scotland and to Scotland itself; but it is rather extraordinary that the enthusiasm we have seen displayed this afternoon on the opposite benches on a matter that is purely trivial, and in open court, as it were, where observations of this sort will filter down to the Scottish newspapers, that that enthusiasm disappears when we have a Scottish Temperance Bill, where we have English Members telling us that that is separatism, in a country where the temperance law is quite different, and that it is silly to have separate legislation. Curiously enough, the strongest supporter of that line was the hon. Member for Glasgow University.
  Sir H. CRAIK: The hon. Member entirely misrepresents me. I did not say that, separate legislation was not a good thing or a desirable thing, but I said that a separate legislative body was a most undesirable thing, which is quite a different question.
  Colonel GREIG: I do not deny what the hon. Member says. I only say, and I think I am within the recollection of Members on this side that we were told that separate legislation for Scotland was silly That was the expression used by the hon. Member.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I never used that.
  Colonel GREIG: It was used by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford. We have had now an expression of opinion in favour of separate legislation for Scotland. Let that be carried out on vital matters and we are perfectly

  235
  content. On this occasion, although I hold that view, I believe this Bill is the most convenient, most in accordance with precedent, and the least likely to arouse opposition from irresponsible Members on the opposite side, and I shall support the Government.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Several criticisms have been directed against certain observations made by an hon. Friend and myself some days ago in the Committee Room upstairs; but I do not think those observations have any bearing on the present discussion. We deny that there can possibly be more than one nation within the United Kingdom. When an hon. Member opposite spoke of the realm and of the nation, I was tempted to ask what he meant by those terms.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: A realm is a territorial division, while a nation is a people.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not think the definition is correct. If it is, there are in this Kingdom one nation and several realms. My definition of a realm would be that it is subject to one king. What a nation means is a most intricate question. In the United Kingdom there is only one nation; but there are local circumstances in Scotland, or in London, or in Hertfordshire, and if you are dealing with a measure which has relation to
  those local circumstances, that measure must fit in to the circumstances. I have never denied that, and I do not deny it now. I am afraid, however, I shall find it impossible to support my hon. Friends to-night, my difficulty being that they do not seem to have made out a case for separating the Bill as a matter of machinery. They have not sought to make out a case on national grounds, because they do not believe any more than I do in a separate nationality. Hon. Members opposite have spent time in proving that the national issue does not arise, and I think they are right. The question is purely one of machinery, and therefore it must be decided on business considerations. Is one Bill more convenient than two, or are two Bills more convenient than one! Personally, I think that one Bill is more convenient than two, and I only regret that the Government did not include the Census for Ireland in the Bill for Great Britain. The sole reason I can think of for their not doing so is that it would have made more apparent the inconsistency of the way in which they have dealt with the religious question in Ireland.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 131.

  Division No. 75.]

  AYES.

  [5.50 p.m.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Glanville, Harold James

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Glover, Thomas

  Agnew, George William

  Clough, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Alden, Percy

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Greenwood, Granville George

  Allen, Charles Peter

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

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Armitage, Robert

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Gulland, John William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hancock, John George

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Barnes, George N.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Barton, William

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Beale, William Phipson

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Haworth. Arthur A.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Henry, Charles Soloman

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Bowles, Thomas Gibson

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Elverston, Harold

  Hindle, Frederick George

  Bryce, John Annan

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Falconer, James

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Hudson, Walter

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fleming, Valentine

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Fester, John K. (Coventry)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Grady, James

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Toulmin, George

  King. Joseph (Somerset, N.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lambert, George

  Pearce, William

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Verney, Frederic William

  Leach, Charles

  Pointer, Joseph

  Vivian, Henry

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Walton, Joseph

  Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wardle, George J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  M'Laren. F. W. S. (Line, Spalding)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Manfield, Harry

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Schwann, Sir Charles E.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Millar, James Duncan

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Mond. Alfred Moritz

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Snowden, Philip

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Winfrey, Richard

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wing, Thomas

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Munro, Robert

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Muspratt, Max

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Sutherland, John E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master

  Nussey, Sir T. Willans

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Nield, Herbert

  Adam, Major William A.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Gretton, John

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. A. G.

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Peel, Hon. Wm. R. W. (Taunton)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Barnston, Harry

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

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

  Hardy, Laurence

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

  Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hope, James Fitzalan

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge University)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Calley, Col. Thomas C. P.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Clyde, James Avon

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. A. (S. Geo.,Han. Sq.)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Duncannon, Viscount

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Valentia, Viscount

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Mason, James F.

  White, Major C. D. (Lanes. Southport)

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

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Fell, Arthur

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newman, John R. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  F. Banbury and Sir H. Craik.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. FELL,moved to leave out the words "second day of April," and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-eighth day of May."
  6.0 P.M.
  This Amendment practically postpones the Census for two months from the date suggested in the Bill, and I hope that the President of the Local Government Board, when he has heard the reasons I shall adduce, will agree that there is a strong case for the postponement until the days are longer. The date proposed in the Bill is 2nd April. Next year that date comes before Easter; but the most important point is that it falls at a time when in ordinary circumstances the equinoctial gales prevail in this country. It is therefore the most inconvenient time that could be selected if weather and considerations of that kind are to have any influence in deciding questions of this sort. The day after the Census is one in which a very full day's work is required of the enumerators and other officials. What they will have to do is shown in Clause 5:
  "Shall visit every house in his district on the day next following the Census day, and shall collect all schedules…and shall complete such of the schedules as on delivery thereof appear to him to be defective." It is a most strenuous day's work for all concerned in it, and I should have thought it would be at once apparent that the longer the day you could get for the purpose the better, because it is more than can be done in a day. Therefore, I suggest that by postponing it for a couple of months you will enable the work to be carried through with much greater accuracy, because it will be done in daylight instead of, to a considerable extent, in darkness, as in the earlier period now fixed. The days are more than an hour longer in the evening on the day I suggest. It will, therefore, give a twelfth more time for the collectors of these papers to visit the houses, and to do the far more important part which is thrown upon them— that is, to fill up these papers, if necessary, or to assist the occupiers to fill them up, and to correct them where there are manifest errors. This can only be done in the poorer quarters of the town by daylight. Unless you do it in daylight I do not believe you can do it at all. I suggest the time when you will have an hour or an hour and an half more daylight, and thereby those concerned will be enabled to make up the Census papers more accurately.
  240
  There is another point which I call attention to. That is the prevalence at that time of gales in this country. In the last ten years there have been two occasions, I believe, when the Census could not have been carried through. The one occasion was in the first week in April when the snow was at least a foot deep in many parts of this country, and when the papers could not have been collected. It is a perfectly good and valid reason that you should not select a time which is of all times one of the most doubtful in regard to the weather. There has, I say, been snow on two occasions early in April. In the country it will be very difficult to carry this Census through, because the equinoctial gales may be expected about that time. At that time there is very rough weather. There are many other days in the year—long days—and it will be just as well to hold over the taking of the Census till eight weeks later than proposed.
  I have a third reason—[Laughter]— which I hope, if we are considering this matter seriously, will have some weight. I do not know whether hon. Members on the other side intend to discuss this matter seriously. If they are going to do so my reason will surely have some weight with them. It is this, that those persons who winter abroad and who for their health or other similar reasons are not able to return, or have not returned, to this country by 2nd April will have returned eight weeks later. That is a perfectly good argument. People who go abroad are the older people—heads of families and the heads of houses. These are the people who will have to fill up these forms. I cannot see why this Census should be carried through in the early spring and before Easter—why it cannot wait till Easter is over and these people have all returned and are living in their houses. Thus when they receive their papers in due course they will be able to fill them up, and greater accuracy will, I believe, be obtained. For these reasons, unless the Government have some strong reason to the contrary for the selection of such an early date as the beginning of April, I do not see why the matter should not be postponed to a more reasonable time, when, I believe, it will be carried through with much greater accuracy.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I hardly think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has dealt seriously with this matter. I would point out to him that he has in his

  241
  last reason destroyed his previous two— if they were reasons. He began by asking the House to give more time for the enumerators to perform their task. It is quite clear that the more people you have in the country at a later date the greater that task will be. His last reason was that there are many people who are not able to stand the infliction of the English winter. I believe this is the best climate in the world, and that all these people will have come home. Therefore the reasons the hon. Gentleman gives for postponement are in reality reasons for keeping to the date already fixed. Let me reassure him. It is not true that people do not come back to England in April. Why, Sir, April is one of the best months of the year in this country.
  Mr. FELL: The 2nd April!
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: They come back as soon as April is heard of. Does not the hon. Gentleman remember what Browning said:—
  "Oh to be in England
  Now that April's here."
  Let me take his argument as to the weather. The hon. Gentleman says that the 2nd April is a time of the equinoctial gales. How does he know?
  Mr. FELL: The gales, I believe, always follow about a week or ten days after.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I know something about the equinoxes, I ask the hon. Gentleman what is his definition of the equinoxes?
  Mr. FELL: Equinoctial gales.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon Gentleman's information is in relation to the gales! I know something of the gales. Let me inform him that the equinoctial gales come at a considerable period before or after the equinoxes, according as the humour takes them. It would be an admirable thing, for a sailor at any rate, if not for the enumerator, if you could be sure when the first equinoctial gale would come. Nothing is more uncertain, let me assure the hon. Gentleman, than gales of wind. You cannot tell whence they come or whither they go. Nor can you tell when they will arrive. It is a sad picture that the hon. gentleman has drawn of the enumerators being blown out of their senses by the equinoctial gales, but it is one that really cannot command the attention of the House. The hon. Gentleman says that the equinox is the
  242
  worst time for taking the Census because of the lack of daylight. It is an ideal time in my opinion. It is the time when day and night are equal. It is the average ideal day of all the year. There is neither too much light nor too little. It is absolutely, I repeat, the ideal day of the year. Therefore it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman opposite cannot sustain that argument. Were it not that I have never seen pretty artistic obstruction in this House I would really believe that the hon. Gentleman was at this moment guilty of obstruction.
  Captain BRYAN COOPER: I regret to be obliged to vote against the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I would have voted for him possibly had he also put down a similar Amendment to the Census for Ireland Bill, for the result of this Amendment will be that the Census will be taken on one day in England and another in Ireland. I wish he had extended his charity to the enumerators of Ireland.
  The CHAIRMAN: The question in this Bill is that of Great Britain.
  Captain COOPER: Very good, Sir. I will come to the interests of Great Britain now. It is desirable that persons should not be counted twice over. It is quite conceivable that a Member of this House might possibly be enjoying an Easter recess on 2nd April and be enumerated in Ireland, and then subsequently be counted in England.
  Mr. BURNS: There is small point in the alteration of the date as put by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. If the Amendment is carried the Census would probably be taken at a day different in Ireland to that of England, Scotland and Wales. But may I put it to the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment that our experience—which in this case has many precedents—is against him. We find that during the last sixty years the Census has been taken seven times. This will make the eighth. The dates have ranged between 30th March and 5th April. It seems to statisticians desirable to keep up the continuity of the dates, so that they may be comparable, whether it be in Ireland, or in England, Scotland, and Wales. Another argument against the adoption of this Amendment is that, oddly enough, it is the very day—the hon. Gentleman mentions 28th May—for "flitting" in Scotland. That is the day in Scotland on which the largest number of people, particularly of the working classes,

  243
  move to fresh lodgings and into new houses. I think that his suggestion about there being more daylight on 28th May than in April is really a disadvantage, because in the early days of April the fact that the hours of darkness are longer induces a number of men, particularly those who are engaged in the building trade, or in agricultural operations, to add an hour or two—it may be two or three hours—to their time at home in order to grapple with the Census paper. I do not know that there is much to be said about the gales. As a rule when the weather is threatening certain men stay at home. I do not think there is much argument in that. As to the English weather, I can only shelter myself behind the very good judgment of Sir George Wombwell. He said that for ten months in the year the English climate is the best in the world, and that for the other two months there was no other climate that came within a hundred miles of it. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has made out any case for this Amendment, and I trust the House will not accept it.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Clauses 2 and 3 added to the Bill.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Preparation and filling up of Schedule.)
  (1) Schedules shall be prepared by or under the direction of the Local Government Board for the purpose of being filled up by or on behalf of the several occupiers of dwelling-houses with the following particulars, and no others, namely, particulars as to—

  (a) the name, sex, age, profession or occupation, condition as to marriage, relation to head of family, birthplace, and (in the case of a person born abroad) nationality, of every living person who abode in every house on the night of the Census day; and

  (b) whether any person who so abode was blind, deaf, dumb, imbecile or lunatic; and

  (c) in the case of any person who so abode being married, the duration of marriage, and the number of children born of the marriage; and

  (d) the number of rooms inhabited; and

  244

  (e) in the case of Wales or the county of Monmouth, whether any person who so abode (being of three years of age or upwards) speaks English only or Welsh only, or both English and Welsh.

  (2) Every enumerator shall in the course of the week ending on the Saturday next before the Census day leave at every dwelling-house within his enumeration district one or more of these schedules for the occupier thereof or of any part thereof, and on every such schedule shall be plainly expressed that it is to be filled up by the occupier for whom it is left, and that the enumerator will collect all such schedules within his district on the Monday then next following.
  (3) Every occupier for whom any such schedule has been so left shall fill up or cause to be filled up the schedule, to the best of his knowledge and belief, so far as relates to all persons dwelling in the house, tenement, or apartment occupied by him, and shall sign his name thereto, and shall deliver the schedule so filled up and signed to the enumerator when required so to do.
  (4) In this Section the expression "dwelling-house" shall include every building and tenement of which the whole or any part is used for the purpose of human habitation, and where a dwelling- house is let or sublet in different tenements or apartments and occupied distinctly by different persons or families a separate schedule shall be left with or for and shall be filled up by the occupier of each such distinct tenement or apartment.
  (5) For the purposes of this Section, a person who is travelling or at work on the night of the Census day, and who returns to a house on the morning of the following day, shall be treated as abiding in that house on the night of the Census day.
  Mr. GOLDMANmoved, in Sub-section (1), in paragraph (a), to insert after the word "occupation" the words "And in the case of every occupied person under eighteen years the amount of his earnings from all sources in the previous year."
  I hope this Amendment will commend itself to the Committee. The question of child, or juvenile labour, is one that appeals to the mind of everyone interested in questions of social reform. We are all agreed that many children are forced into the labour market because they are obliged to provide an increment for their parents who happen to be old, or perhaps the child

  245
  has to provide for a widowed mother. There are occasions when children, either previous to or after the school hours, are obliged to do a certain amount of work. There are also certain cases, and a large number of them, where you find parents depending upon their children's earnings in order to satisfy their own cravings for drink. In cases like this we increase and encourage the intemperance which otherwise might be removed. It is very essential to have statistics to show to what extent the whole question of juvenile labour is enforced in this country at this moment. We have statistics I know from the Census providing for a certain amount of information as regards the employment of people, but I doubt whether the parents in giving the information will include or give the occupation of those children who at present attend school but work either before or after school hours.
  The whole question of juvenile labour is one seriously engaging the attention of the country. The Poor Law Commission, which dealt with this question, said that about the most important problem to their minds to be solved was the question of casual labour, the cause of which they said was the premature manner in which children after they leave school drift into employment not of a permanent character, but of a merely temporary character, which offers no scope for them as men. In other words, that towns and the conditions that exist to-day provide for certain men to be employed, but give no hope for any permanence in that particular employment. And after a time the boy has drifted out into the casual labouring classes, and from there to the unemployable classes.
  Here is a case for statistical information to enable us to deal with that problem when it arrives. At the present moment we have not sufficient information, and the best way to meet that situation is to have statistical information telling not only of the occupation of the child, but what the occupation is worth. The Board of Trade instituted an inquiry with regard to the wages and hours of labour, and I believe such inquiry is taking place at the present moment; but that information will only give us statistics with regard to the better class of labour, and in all probability would not deal with the situation to which I have referred—that is, the position of school children earning money while engaged in their elementary training. It is for these reasons that I wish to propose the Amendment which stands in my name.
  246
  I am not wedded to the wording of it, and I would be perfectly agreeable to accept any change in the wording provided that the principle is adopted in regard to the scope of the information required.
  Mr. BURNS: I trust the hon. Member will not press his Amendment in regard to the amount of earnings from all sources of persons under eighteen years of age. May I point out to him with regard to juvenile labour some information will be supplied from the Schedule to the Census, because the Schedule will ask for the profession or occupation of all persons aged ten years and upwards, which will be answered by the regular head or occupier of the house, or whoever fills his place. It seems to me, so far as the measure of juvenile employment is concerned we will get, so far as occupation goes, the ages, and we will secure statistical figures, with which, I trust, the hon. Member will be content.
  But, then, the hon. Member invites us to say, not only the age at which persons are employed and the trade at which they are employed, from ten to eighteen years of age, but also the amount of their earnings. Those responsible for the Census tell us there will be great difficulty in securing right information, and they advise us not to adopt that course. I think if the information was secured it would not be worth much, because it would be different in all varieties of juvenile labour —for instance, the milk-boy, the newspaper-boy, and the half-timer. It is no good ascertaining whether a boy gets 4s. 6d. after thirteen or fourteen years of; age unless you could follow that up with question in reference to another fact, namely, does he work forty hours, or sixty or seventy hours, for 4s., for three or four or six or seven days; and if you enter upon the very complex question of the total earnings of all children from ten to fourteen years of age, of are asking for statistics from children and young persons which if you were to secure them would be almost worthless for the purposes for which the hon. Gentleman himself requires them.
  Question, "That these words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Mr. JAMES PARKERmoved, in. paragraph (a), after the word "occupation," to insert the words, "whether unemployed or retired, and, if the former, how long during the previous twelve months."

  247
  It is with considerable diffidence that I rise to move this Amendment. Since the Amendment was placed upon the Paper I have had considerable conversation with those who know a good deal about the taking of the Census, and I am informed that the difficulties in adding this item of information to the Census paper are considerably more than some of us anticipate. It will be agreed by every section of the House that it is necessary to have accurate figures with regard to the problem of unemployment. However much we may differ as to the cause of that unemployment, or what the rate is, we have no accurate information as to the question itself, and if by any means it is possible by adding another column to the Census paper to provide that information it would be for the advantage of the community as a whole and of those who are anxious to get facts with regard to this question.
  The trade unions who supply out-of-work pay can give data with regard to particular employments, but those trade unions who do not pay out-of-work benefits have no reliable statistics with respect to the problem of unemplyoment. The distress committees are also able to give us certain information; but both those sources of information and the information we get from the new Labour Exchanges do not give us all the information necessary. The information under a Census could be supplied complete. I notice lower down on the Paper there is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton to provide information as to the number of days of unemployment during the previous week. Objection may be taken to the Amendment I move on the ground that it would be impossible for persons to state how many days they have been out of work during the previous twelve months. That argument, I suggest, could not be employed as to the number of hours a man is out of work the previous week, and I would like to hear from the President of the Local Government Board what are the objections to a column being placed in the Census paper in order to obtain so far as we can reliable statistics as to the measure of unemployment in this country.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: There is an Amendment on the Paper in my name which proposes in paragraph (a) to insert after the word "occupation" the words, "whether unemployed, and, if so. how many days during the previous week."
  248
  I have been in consultation with my hon. Friend, and he will allow me to move my Amendment to his Amendment and will accept it. I shall therefore move the words, "if the former, how long during the previous twelve months," in the hon. Member's Amendment be struck out, and the words, "for how many days during the previous week," be inserted instead thereof.
  The President of the Local Government Board, in introducing the Second Reading of the Census Bill, said, with some pride, that he had received the thanks of the Statistical Society, but he has ignored the recommendations of the Statistical Society that this question of unemployment should be included in the Census form. The Amendment I moved includes the question which the Census committee of the Statistical Society suggested. My objection to the Amendment as moved by the hon. Member (Mr. Parker) is this: Those of us who want these questions asked realise that for good or evil if these statistics are collected they are going to be a tremendous weapon for the gladiators on one side or the other of the Tariff Reform controversy, and, therefore, if we do collect these statistics it is essential we should collect them in that form which would give some security that the conclusion drawn from them will be reliable. With this in mind I confess I look with some suspicion on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Halifax, which would ask a man whether he has been out of work, and, if so, for how long, during the previous twelve months. How can a man remember how long he has been out of work during the previous twelve months? The great majority of those who are out of work consist of what is known as casual labourers—men who do not know when they get up in the morning whether they are going to get a job or not. How could a man in that position calculate the number of hours of work he had the previous year? The Amendment seems to assume that the unemployed have this information.
  I think my hon. Friend cannot have followed the United States Census in which the very questions he proposes have been included ever since 1880. The result of that was that replies were so unsatisfactory that the authorities refused to tabulate them, and in the report of the Census of 1900 the authorities have tabulated them, but they warn, at the same time, all those who read them, that no

  249
  reliance can be placed upon any inference to be drawn from them. Perhaps I may remind hon. Members opposite that the amount of unemployment in the United States is set down at 22 per cent. of the population. With regard to the question suggested by the Statistical Society, it is very similar and almost identical with the question included in the French system. The French Census asks, "If you are out of a situation, for how long have you been out of employment." The question I wish to ask is simpler, and it is, "If you are out of employment, for how long have you been out of work during the last week?" That is a simple question, and the answer to it can be given in simple figures, and in a form which can easily be tabulated. May I say to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Parker) that if we can pursuade the President of the Local Government Board to give the information I am asking for we could deduce very easily the information he is asking for when we have ascertained the amount of unemployment during any one week. Then we could easily find out the amount of unemployment for a longer period. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I know we have no adequate knowledge of the actual amount of unemployment, but if you take the generally accepted opinion of professional statisticians they point out that we have adequate knowledge of the variations of unemployment. The point is that although we do not know the number of men out of employment in June and December, professional statisticians can always agree whether the number of men unemployed in December is doubly or trebly as great as the number unemployed in June. Evidence on this point is forthcoming from a great variety of sources. Take, for example, the Trade Union Returns, which refer to 1,700,000 men, and everyone will agree that you could not, from the evidence given as to the proportion of unemployment amongst them, deduce any valuable results about the whole 11,000,000 of working population. Nevertheless, the ups and downs of employment amongst those 1,700,000 skilled trade unionists is more or less reflected by the ups and downs amongst the unskilled men belonging to the same trades and working in the same districts. The returns of the distress committees and the statistics of pauperism are the material used in certain cases, and they give a fairly accurate idea whether unemployment is going up or down. I think if we could obtain the absolute
  250
  amount of unemployment for any one week in the year we could deduce from it the amount over a period. That is the point I wish to put to the hon. Member for Halifax. By this proposal the non. Member will get his information out of the question I am asking, and it will have this advantage, that my question will give information based upon a fairly sure and certain foundation giving the amount of unemployment for the past week. The information in reply to the question my hon. Friend asks depends largely upon a man's memory over a whole year, but the answer to my question will depend upon a man's memory only for the past week. There can be no harm in asking this simple question. After all the Census is not controlled by this House, but by the Registrar-General, who has an absolutely free hand, whatever questions we may introduce, to refuse to tabulate any information which he thinks is not reliable. If this question does not produce the results that my hon. Friend expects, the Registrar need not tabulate the information. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because the matter is in the Registrar-General's hands as to whether he need tabulate the information collected by the Census. I feel that a beginning must be made. We shall probably make mistakes, but we have to make a beginning, and I hope the President of the Local Government Board will allow us to make a beginning now, because we shall not have another opportunity till the year 1920.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the alteration of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton meets with general approval, we might as well alter the Amendment and be done with it.
  Mr. PARKER: I am willing to accept those words.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the words 'whether unemployed or retired, and, if the former, for how many days during the previous week' be there inserted."
  Mr. VIVIAN: Whatever opinion I may have had concerning this Amendment before the hon. Member for Northampton spoke, I am now quite convinced as to the inadequacy of this proposal, and I do not believe that his recommendation is a wise one at all. In fact, I have never heard a weaker case than the one he has made

  251
  out. The observations of the hon. Member prove to me that what he suggests would be a dangerous change, because he stated we should be able to deduce all sorts or things from his proposal, and he said that statisticians, Tariff Reformers, and Free Traders would have placed in their hands the most unreliable information it was possible to conceive. The Census is to be taken in April, 1911. We are now passing through a booming period. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax proposes that you should be able to reflect back twelve months. May I point out that from April, 1910, to April, 1911, this country will be passing through one of the biggest booms in trade which it has ever known. Take the year 1914, and suppose we are discussing the problem of unemployment when our country is suffering from a serious state of slackness. Am I to understand that this table tabulated by the Registrar-General, concerning the state of unemployment in the greatest boom year, is going to be of the slightest use when tens of thousands of workpeople are starving as the result of slackness in trade? The information will be so used and you will have a wrong opinion created as the result of unreliable statistics. Then there is the difficulty of making quite sure, when we have these figures before us, what they really mean to the individual concerned. I think I have shown that they will be absolutely unreliable in the long run, and they will be quite unreliable in 1914, and will cease to be of any use from 1911 either to Tariff Reformers, Free Traders, or statisticians. If the Statistical Society expect to deduce anything reliable from such figures, I am afraid I shall doubt their authority on statistics from this time onwards. These Census papers are distributed on the Saturday and collected on the Monday. Are we to understand that Census papers filled up in a docker's house or by a casual labourer or a sempstress who will probably fill them up without realising what the answers are intended to convey—are answers given like that to be tabulated, and are we actually to base social legislation in this House on information obtained from individuals under such circumstances? I suggest that for these reasons the information will be absolutely unreliable and useless six months after they are tabulated, and it will be dangerous to use them. I hope my hon. Friend will not
  252
  attempt to push any further his demand for figures which will be absolutely unreliable.
  Sir HOWELL DAVIES: I am sure we should all be glad to obtain reliable information on this Question, but the arguments in favour of this Amendment have not convinced me that the information asked for would be of any real value. If you take the ordinary casual labourers, such as dock labourers, they may have been unemployed for weeks, and they may have had good employment for a considerable time. They may have been employed one week and out of employment again the following week. We might have a large number of persons in some particular districts out of employment by reason of a short shut down. There would be nothing in the Census papers that would suggest that many of these persons would perhaps the following week go back to employment. I should be very glad indeed if the President of the Local Government Board could devise some form of question that would give us some fairly accurate idea as to unemployment, but I am quite sure that any suggestion such as either of those contained in the Amendments would be entirely misleading and absolutely worthless.
  Mr. REES: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will let this matter severely alone. There was something in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. James Parker), but he withdrew in favour of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith), which really hardly required the criticisms which had been passed upon it. I have had some experience of Indian Census Returns. 1 remember complaining to one of the enumerators that there was a mistake in his figures, and he said:—
  "Surely your honour may add noughts at discretion."
  I am bound to say I think that enumerator and the hon. Member for Northampton might very well work in couples. The suggestion that because a man stated he was out of work a certain number of days in the week you might deduce from that fact that he probably would be out of work a certain number of months in the year is one of the most extraordinary arguments ever advanced for the consideration of a serious Assembly. The hon. Member then suggested that on this doubtful quantity you should proceed to erect some glorious structure of statistics for the purpose of bowling over Protection or Free Trade or

  253
  some other economic system. Having seen something of the filling up of these columns of statistics, I would urge the right hon. Gentleman not to add any columns at all. The object of the Census is to ascertain certain general economic facts regarding the people, and the more columns that are added the more you intrude into the individual affairs of people. That is a most regrettable circumstance. There is rather a tendency to extract from people information upon which action is to be taken in their names. I think that is perfectly unjustifiable. The hon. Member for Halifax entirely ignored the fact that the trade unions are only a fraction of the population, a fact that vitiates all comparisons made between unemployment here and in other countries; but to adopt the lion. Member's suggestion would only make confusion more confounded, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will equally ignore the hon. Member for Halifax and the hon. Member for Northampton, and stick to his own form without any additional columns whatever.
  Mr. WALSH: The remarks of the last speaker have more than ever convinced me of the necessity of this Amendment. He stated that the returns furnished by the trade unions apply only to a fraction of the population. That is perfectly true, and now because we ask for returns to be supplied for the whole population that is equally wrong. It is because we admit that both the conclusions drawn from the returns furnished by the trade unions and the method of furnishing them are wrong, and because we are desirous of getting more accurate data, that this Amendment has been put down. We are labouring under a difficulty, I admit, in the fact that the Amendment only asks for the returns to be based on one week. We must at once admit that a week is not sufficiently comprehensive. Our present data are not only insufficient, but they are egregiously wrong. Must, therefore, no attempt be made to supply better data at all? It is said false conclusions will be drawn by Tariff Reformers, but I do not see why we should introduce this matter, like King Charles' head, every time unemployment is discussed.
  Unemployment is a deadly fact, and this House and the country ought to set themselves to find out what are the real facts in connection with that great problem, and I think the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) was per-
  254
  fectly justified in saying that a beginning ought to be made. After all, April is probably the most stable month for employment. You have not quite left the impetus given by the winter months, and you have not entered upon the depression caused in most trades by the advent of summer. You are really in the most stable month of the year for employment. I lay that down as a general proposition; it does not, of course, hold good in all cases, but it does hold good for the greater number of the working people of the country, and, if we could get returns based upon the first week in April, I believe they would be of great value to sociologists and statisticians. I think there ought to be an attempt made. There is no question as to the cost. We are not seeking a mere multiplication of columns; we are seeking greater information with regard to the most deadly fact in our social condition today, and surely this House ought not to treat it as a matter between parties and Tariff Reformers and Free Traders. Free Traders have nothing to fear from the publication of the truth, and I think the actual condition of trade in the first week of April would give far more reliable data than we have at present. Take the case of the miners. The Trade Union Returns of unemployment which appear monthly do not include more than one-third of the miners, and the whole question as to trades disputes is left out. They simply refer to ordinary unemployment. A false impression is thus created. If the Returns were based upon the condition of the whole of the people of the country, we should get more accurate information, and I certainly think the Amendment is entitled to more courteous treatment than it seems to be accorded.
  Mr. BURNS: The Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, and the Registrars-General of Scotland and of England and Wales have, as was their duty, given very serious attention to the Amendment, and everything that it implies. We are going to ask the House not to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. James Parker), and, after the discussion that has taken place, I must ask the House not to accept the last Amendment, because from many points of view it is less reliable than the lengthier period put forward by the hon. Member for Halifax. It seems to me we had better deal with this, not from the point of view of either Free Trade or Tariff Reform, but from the point of view of

  255
  taking an enumeration of the people of this country, with a number of salient and essential facts based upon past experience for giving a correct numbering of the people. Nothing induces me to emphasise that fact more than the speech made by the hon. Member for the Ince Division of Lancashire (Mr. Walsh). He said April, in his judgment, was the most stable month of the year. I have taken the trouble in a Blue Book issued by the Local Government Board a year ago, and called "Public Health and Social Conditions," to gather together a number of facts relating to pauperism and to unemployment as registered in the Returns from Labour Bureaux and distress committees, and if the hon. Member for the Ince Division will look at the book it will prove to him that instead of April, which for many reasons we have determined to fix for the numbering of the people, being the most stable month, it is the least reliable from all points of view. That is not only true of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, but I have taken the trouble to look at the chart with regard to England and Wales, Scotland, the United States, and other countries, and in all the countries to which we are asked to go for examples, April is one of the very worst months of the year for pauperism, which, after all, fairly accurately reflects the distress arising from unemployment. You will find, looking at the table, that, whereas on 28th or 29th March or 1st April the curve is represented by twenty-four per 1,000, in July it is represented by twenty-two. That means that midsummer day in England and Wales, Scotland, certainly in the United States and in Canada, is probably the best day on which you could get a fair measure of the unemployment that prevails. I agree with the hon. Member that unemployment is a deadly fact, but that fact ought to be ascertained by methods that are deadly true. I know no more unreliable method than that suggested by the hon. Member for Halifax, unless it be the remedy suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith).
  7.0 P.M.
  I say that because we have one or two precedents to guide us. I find that France and Germany, countries which have been quoted as examples of the argument, point the other way, because we find that the German and French Censuses, which were intended to ascertain the number
  256
  of out-of-works on Census day, showed a remarkable divergence in the results. For instance, in Berlin the percentage of unemployment on the general Census return was 13 per cent. in excess of that represented on the more exact special unemployed Census. In Hamburg there was a difference of 15 per cent.; and in Stuttgart, a small place, where one might have expected more reliable information, the difference between the general Census and the special Census was 31 per cent. Looking at the table of unemployment in the "Labour Gazette," looking at the Metropolitan Pauperism Chart, and at the New York Labour Bureau returns, I must say the more I see of this subject the more I am convinced that this proposal would not secure us reliable figures. On the contrary, I think they would be most unreliable, and they could be used neither in support of Free Trade arguments nor in favour of Tariff Reform.
  I come to the other objections to the Amendments which have been put down. In my opinion the Census should be limited to simple and direct questions and answers. May I put this point to the hon. Members for the Ince Division and for one of the Divisions of Glasgow? The out-of-work returns have different meanings. Suppose a docker or a stevedore were called on to answer the question. A docker will sometimes work sixty, seventy, or eighty hours in three and a half days, and then, following on that exceptional labour, he will very properly rest for two or three days. Suppose the Census paper were delivered to him on the second day of his rest. Is he to be put down as an out-of-work? Take, again, the case of the lighterman. He may have had ten or twelve months' fairly regular work, but he may be temporarily unemployed by reason of a fog in the river or of an accident to some vessel at the entrance to the river. If during the brief period of unemployment the Census return is asked for is he to be put down as one of the unemployed? If we are to have these returns of the out-of-works, ought we not also to have a return of the reason for the unemployment?, especially when it is due not to the lack of employment or to the action of the employer, but to what the sea lawyer would call "an act of God." The facts should be known before the country is asked to form an opinion.
  In America, where this thing has been attempted, it has proved a failure from every point of view, because at the time

  257
  when 22 per cent. of the people in America were registered as unemployed, in 1900, at that very same moment certain newspapers in this country were telling us that there were hardly any unemployed in America at all. It is, therefore, pretty obvious that information obtained in this way in a general Census paper would be hardly worth the trouble of securing. The facts would not be worth having. In fact, in 1886, in London when there was exceptional distress, a special census was taken by trained enumerators in four typical districts in the Metropolis, and, notwithstanding that the enumerators were skilled, statisticians quarrelled with the character and accuracy of the statistics they supplied. When we realise that in this country the statistics with regard to the Census are filled in by the heads of families and occupiers, and not by skilled enumerators, we shall see how unreliable it would be to accept the Amendments before the House. I ask the House to believe that a Census of unemployment taken under the circumstances suggested in the Amendment would not be worth having; it would be costly, and it would do more harm than good.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (l), paragraph (a), after the words "profession or occupation," to insert the words "religious profession."
  I venture to impress upon the Committee very strongly that there is no reason whatever why this information should not be obtained. I have taken the words of my Amendment from the Irish Census Act, which has been in existence for many years, and from the Irish Census Bill, which we shall be asked to pass very shortly after the proceedings on this Bill have been concluded. There is no sort of reason why the practice in regard to this matter in different parts of the United Kingdom should not be assimilated. The question is easily and satisfactorily answered in Ireland, and it should be answered with equal ease and satisfaction in England, Wales, and Scotland. In Ireland there has not been the slightest difficulty in getting this information. The bulk of the population fill in the column, and the fact that a very small section fail to do so has not caused any difficulty whatsoever. We have been frequently told in this House that in the Colonies a similar column to the one I am suggesting should be inserted in the Census paper has always
  258
  been filled up cheerfully. Why should that not apply equally to England, Wales, and Scotland. The information will certainly be very interesting. It would be of interest to know, for instance, to what extent Roman Catholicism has grown in England, in the same way as we can ascertain it in Ireland. It would be also exceedingly useful to have such information in connection with the proposals which we may be called upon to discuss for the Disestablishment of the Church of England and Wales. It would be highly desirable in connection with the Debates on the Bill for the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church, to have some figures, approximately accurate, as to the number of members of the Church of England in Wales, and it would be equally interesting to know the number of members of various Nonconformist bodies throughout England. I honestly tell the Committee I cannot understand what is the exact objection to this proposal. I do not think the Roman Catholics would object to it; at any rate, they do not appear to do so in Ireland, where the information is freely given. I do not think that the members of the Church of England would have the slightest objection to stating their religious profession, whilst people who have no religious profession at all would surely have no difficulty in mentioning that fact. I may say I am perfectly prepared, at a later stage, to move an Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Denbigh Borough, to the effect that there shall be no penalty attaching to the refusal to give this information or to the failure to fill up that particular form. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] I do not see the reason for that laugh. I should have thought such an Amendment would be perfectly fair. It ought not to be an offence for people to refuse to give the information. I have always protested against the creation of so many criminal offences. I am afraid that hon. Gentlemen opposite during the last Parliament created more criminal offences than were formerly to be found on the Statute Book. At all events, I am perfectly prepared, when the proper time arrives, to move this Amendment. I believe that this information should not be demanded under threat or a penalty of criminal punishment. This information would be exceedingly useful, and I therefore venture to press most strongly upon the Committee the desirability of supporting this very reasonable Amendment.
  Mr. WILLIAM JONES: This question has been brought before the House on many occasions during the last forty or fifty years, and on each occasion the proposal has been rejected. With regard to the question of the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, I think that we in this House have already strong arguments in its favour, because, since 1868, there has been an overwhelming majority of the Welsh representatives in favour of Disestablishment. I object to this proposal as a Liberal and as a Nonconformist. I believe that the State has no right to ask such a question, and there are hosts of people in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland who conscientiously believe that the Government has no right to ask them to make any declaration of religious belief. In consequence many would be forced to withhold the information, and the result would be a very serious defect in the statistics. The returns, in fact, would be worthless. Again, a great number of people hold an undefined position with regard to religion, and that would make it difficult for them to render a return. It must also be remembered that a return might be furnished by occupiers on behalf of others which would be in many cases utterly worthless, and we know very well, both in Wales and in England, from recent statistics, that persons of indefinite church connections generally return themselves —I will not say what their motive is, but no doubt some of them want to appear very respectable and genteel—they generally return themselves as members of the Church of England. That is so, and it will appear to be the case if hon. Members opposite will listen to the statistics which I can give them, though I do not think they will like them. Take the returns made in the registers of prisons in England and Wales on 28th March, 1906, and in the prisons of Great Britain. At that period there were eleven criminals who called themselves Salvationists, fifty-three Congregationalists, 132 Baptists, 496 Methodists, 1,503 Presbyterians, 5,378 Roman Catholics, and 16,233 Anglicans. How do my hon. Friends like that 1 Let me take the specific figures that I have with regard to Wales. It appears that there are 106 Roman Catholic criminals in the prisons in Wales, eighty-seven Nonconformists, and 369 Anglicans.
  Whatever may be the value of statistics with regard to Wales in reference to Nonconformity on the one side and Church of England on the other, there is not a single
  260
  bishop or any churchman in Wales who will dare assert that the Nonconformists are not in a majority. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] No, not one; but it appears from that interruption that there is one hon. Gentleman who says that the Church of England in Wales is in a majority. He is the only one I have heard say that, and no bishop or Episcopalian will ever assert that it is so, and if the hon. Member reads the evidence given before the Church Commission he will, I think, alter his views. Say that the Church of England number a quarter of the population, or that they are even one-third, it is certain that they are in a minority, and is it fair to say that 369 Anglicans are criminals, as against eighty-seven Nonconformists, or that the criminals are as four to one in Wales as between the Church and Nonconformity. That is not fair, I think, to either persuasion. I do not think I need reiterate the arguments I have previously used. I took part in this Debate ten years ago, and I remember very well the party opposite were in power, and I remember the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) moved for a similar return, and he was opposed by his own leaders, and the Amendment was negatived without any Division. He did not go into the Lobby in favour of it, and for the last thirty years, whether Conservative or Liberal Governments have been in power, a similar Amendment to this has been defeated, in some instances, by an overwhelming majority. There is no reason for this proposal, and whenever, under Lord Palmerston, Mr. Gladstone, and Lord Salisbury, it has been brought before the House, the Government invariably went against making this invidious distinction because they acted upon the bedrock principle that the State has no right to stigmatise any man or to put a man in a false position. There may be plenty of people who have the right to say they are Anglicans or Nonconformists, but there are thousands, if not millions, of indifferentists, and they do not want to be put on one side or the other, or in either category. We are, therefore, put in this invidious position that, whatever you do, you will not get a Census worth returning and, therefore, I am opposed to this proposal.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not wish to detain the House long upon this occasion, as I spoke upon this question on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I do not want to recapitulate in any detail the

  261
  arguments which I used then in favour of introducing a religious Census, not merely in Wales, but in Great Britain. I deplore the fact that this should be looked upon as a Welsh question, and in regard to that aspect of the matter we shall, I hope, shortly be satisfied with reliable figures furnished by the Welsh Church Commission; and I deplore the fact that that Commission has been so long in producing its Report. I wish to say in regard to the general question and the general proposition that it is of immense importance for anybody who wishes to make a thoroughly scientific study of a modern community that he should have some religious Census of that community. I think that has been recognised in many countries, both in Europe and America and in countries where there has been no Inquisition. In the Debate upon the Second Beading an hon. Member said that the reason apparently why it was right to have a religious Census in Ireland but it was wrong to have one in England and Wales was because there had been an Inquisition in Ireland and no Inquisition in Great Britain; but I lay my case in the same way exactly as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He has laid it on the general case that it is wrong for the State to inquire into a man's religion. That is his case. I personally do not see why it is wrong for the State to ask him that. Why, if it is not wrong to ask him his age and other particulars, is it wrong to ask him his religious profession? I fail to understand why, especially if we insert the clause which is included in the Irish Act making it voluntary and subjecting a person to no penalties if he refuses to make this return? Why should that be called tyranny?
  In answer to those hon. Members who say that a large number of people would avail themselves of that section and not make any return at all, let me point out what has happened in Ireland. In that country you have over 98 per cent. of the population invariably each time the Census comes round making a return, and I would be the last to say that either in England or Wales there are more people indifferent to religion than there are in Ireland. I consider that the line taken up with regard to England and Wales that there are a number of in differents is not well founded, because you will find no part of these dominions where religion has a greater hold upon the population and where the people are more religious than
  262
  in the Principality of Wales. An hon. Member, in answer to a speech I made on this point on the Second Reading Debate, said that in the church near him five, six or seven people went to the church and it was nearly empty, but when the official Census was made it was crowded. I should like him to go to North Wales, and especially to Wrexham. Let him go to the parish church at Wrexham on a Sunday, and unless he goes twenty minutes before the service begins he will not get in, for he will find the place crammed. They are building three new churches there now, and yet hon. Members are always holding up the Church in Wales as if it was a dwindling minority, and as if the Censuses which they produce were the right ones. Hon. Members very often produce statistics from which we suffer, and that causes me, as a Welshman, to ask for an official Return. One hon. Member gave as an example in his speech the diocese of St. Asaph, where he said the church was in an absurd minority, and that it only provided seating accommodation for 20 per cent. of the population. I want to know where he got his figures from? Were they drawn from the Congregational Year Book or from a work which differs very largely from that, the Free Church Year Book? But these are not church figures or accurate figures. We say that the seating accommodation is very much over 20 per cent. of the population.
  How far, however, does that argument as to seating accommodation as between different denominations carry you—how far is it a sufficient basis to argue upon? The seating accommodation is nothing, and in regard to that I might point out that in this House there is not seating accommodation for all the Members. Is it expected that in Wales every child over the age of three is to go to church at the same time? We say we make ample accommodation for those who wish to attend, but this is rather going away from the question we have before us, though I am merely producing these facts in answer to the wild, reckless and loose statistical information that we have from unofficial sources. Therefore, I ask the Government to give us an official Census not merely for Wales, but for the whole country. This is wanted not merely for religious and controversial purposes, but for academic and sociological purposes as well. I also say it is wanted for controversial purposes apart

  263
  from the disestablishment and disestablishment of the Church. There is the entire question of education in regard to which it is of the utmost importance that we should have this information. At the last election the candidate who opposed me said he was in favour of a special clause for Roman Catholics; but why are they selected out for special treatment, and why should not the same sort of treatment be extended to the Church of England? I think it is of the utmost importance that we should have some Census to show whether those denominations who are in favour of undenominational education are in excess, as regards numbers, of those of the Church of England, Roman Catholics, Jews, and others who are in favour of denominational education. There are a great many questions of that sort in regard to which information of this kind would be useful, but I do not want to weary the Committee. I would finally express a hope, however, that the era of unofficial statistics with regard to religious profession, not merely in Wales but in England, will be ended, and that we shall have the addition of this column in the Census of Great Britain as it is in Ireland and as it is in most other countries. I therefore hope the Government will consent to have a census of the religious denominations throughout the country.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The Government, following the precedents that were set in the years 1890 and 1900 by Unionist Governments, have decided not to accept an Amendment of the character which has been proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He commenced his speech by asking why the provisions of the Census Bill for Ireland were not adopted with regard to this particular Bill. The circumstances of Ireland in regard to the Census, as in regard to a good many other matters, differ very widely and very materially from those of England, and I think it is desirable that this House should recognise those differences. Everybody in Ireland has a religion—everybody in Ireland at any rate professes a religion — and the line of demarcation between the different sects in Ireland is very clearly and very sharply marked. In Ireland a man is either a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. But looking at the matter from the point of view of the number of sects in this country, can we pre-
  264
  tend for the moment that the divisions here are so few or so simple as they are in Ireland? We know perfectly well that the sects run into hundreds in this country. If statistics for this purpose are obtained through the medium of the Census it will be necessary to tabulate every one of those sects and the trouble and expense of doing it would be enormous. We could not refuse to tabulate even the very smallest of them. The difficulty in the way of the Registrar-General would be very largely increased if we were to adopt the religious Census.
  But there is another reason why we should decline to accept the Amendment. We have been hoping to pass this Bill as a practically non-controversial measure, but from the nature of the speeches which have already been made we can easily gather that if the Amendment were accepted the Bill would become one of a most fiercely controversial nature, and not only so, but the administration of the Bill hereafter would give an enormous amount of trouble to the Census authorities, and we should find that sectarian contention would by no means end with the proceedings in this House. The object of the Government in matters of this kind is to obtain accurate information. If the Amendment were accepted the information would be inaccurate and misleading, and in that I am supported by the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil). Ten years ago he moved an Amendment of this kind in the very best possible spirit and in a speech of great moderation, but he made this confession as to the object of the Amendment and as to the accuracy of a religious Census. He said:—
  "A religious Census was not asked for for the purpose-of estimating the religious force of the various denominations in the country. Such statistics would necessarily be inaccurate and misleading. The Census was desired for the specific purpose of meeting the numerical argument against Disestablishment."
  It is not the object of the Local Government Board to obtain inaccurate and misleading information. We want the information that we obtain to be of an accurate and reliable character, and we believe that those who wish to obtain information as to the strength of the various denominations in this country can obtain it through such means as the Welsh Church Commission and from the various churches of the country. I am glad to believe that their statistical methods are constantly improving, and that we shall be able to-obtain very much better information in that way than we could if we had to obtain

  265
  it by means of a religious Census. The Census Committee of 1890 took specific evidence upon this point from the Church Defence Society. They had every opportunity of hearing the case, but they came to the conclusion that they could make no recommendation whatever as to the adoption of a religious Census. That is the judgment of an impartial Committee. I hope the Committee will bear another consideration in mind. Every column that we add to the Schedule will add to the difficulty of carrying out the Census. That is one of the differences between England and Ireland. In Ireland the enumerator does the work of filling up the Schedules. In this country it is the householder who does the work. No fewer than 7,000,000 Schedules have to be filled up by 7,000,000 different persons. The Committee will see at once the unwisdom and the inexpediency of adding a single unnecessary column to the Schedule. I trust the Committee will treat this Bill as far as possible as non-controversial, and will refrain from introducing this element of acute controversy. I believe they will act wisely and well by rejecting the Amendment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The hon. Member who has just sat down referred to the precedents of previous Governments. I think 'he used one argument which appeals to every Government, and which no doubt was the reason why the Unionist Government did not adopt a previous Schedule of this kind—the argument, I mean, that it would make the Bill of a controversial character. That is an argument which it is very natural that the Government should pay attention to, but it cannot weigh against the considerations which have already been brought forward by my hon. Friends. The statistical discussion on the relative strength of Church and Nonconformity in. this country has now been going on for a great number of years. In respect of Wales it has lately received new life, and will in future receive increased stimulus by the proceeding and by the Report of the Church Commission. It is impossible to go on for ever with amateur statistics in this fashion. The hon. Member talks as though we could get rid of the statistical argument altogether. If we could there would be much to be said for doing so, but we cannot. He deprecates misleading statistics, but the really misleading statistics are with us now. We have abundance of statistics, all more or less unsound. I do not say they are dis-
  266
  honestly put forward, but they are put forward by people who have not the means, and certainly have not the organisation, to make a complete statistical estimate for the religious professions either of Wales or the whole of Great Britain. Accordingly our minds are constantly perplexed by conflicting statements, by different statistical calculations, the results of which lead to quite different conclusions. The hon. Member (Mr. W. Jones) said, "No one would say the Church of England was in a majority in Wales." I do not think any prudent person would say that any particular denomination had any particular proportion of the Welsh people. The estimates are conflicting, and the evidence which points this way and that is exceedingly difficult to understand and to tabulate. Why not have this additional piece of light on the problem?
  He quotes me as saying that a statistical estimate made by the Census would be no guide to the true religious force of the different religious bodies. Of course it would not be. We are not suggesting a rehearsal of the Day of Judgment but a religious Census. No one can tell what n the true religious and spiritual force of a body even by processes much more complicated than the counting of heads. What we want to know is what people call themselves. We do not pretend to search the secrets of human hearts. We say simply, here is a great controversy in the first place, and also subordinate discussions of a less controversial character, about what is the true proportion of the citizens of this country who say that they are adherents of the Church of England, the Methodist body, and the like. Why not use the organisation of the State to ask the simple question, "What do you belong to?" I quite agree that if people have conscientious objections they should be respected, and that is contemplated. My hon. Friends have Amendments which would save the conscientious objector. He would make no return, and would suffer nothing. But the great majority of the population would return their convictions. Then the hon. Member (Mr. W. Jones) says, "We know what happens in prisons—the vast majority of the people return themselves as Members of the Church of England. Do you really say that all these people in prison thoroughly and conscientiously adhere to the Church of England and so return themselves, and would there not be a similar body of population outside who would be Atheists, and

  267
  would put down their names as Church of England, wanting a better title?" In the first place the difficulty would not be so great out of the prison as it would inside. Ix, is reasonable to suppose that the standard of religious conviction is lower in prison than it is out of it. But for controversial purposes it is not an answer at all. Supposing we were going to settle what was to be the service in the chapel of the prison, we should certainly be entitled to say "If 16,000 people in the prisons are Anglicans, and a much smaller proportion Atheists they might not be very good Anglicans, but they are at any rate entitled to choose one religion rather than another like anybody else, and we will have the chapel services accordingly."
  If a person has a preference in favour of a particular form of belief, however unreal it may be, it counts for something when you are counting one man against another for the purpose of seeing which is the religion most acceptable to the majority of the population, and the worthless man is as much entitled to his opinion as anyone else. The burglar is as much entitled to have his Anglican collects as the murderer is to have his extempore prayer. When you are counting one man against another it really matters what they prefer. I quite agree that it is not a conclusive argument on the question of the Establishment, but it is useful when we want to know how many people adhere to one religion and how many to another. Ask them. They may have only a slight preference, but at any rate it is good enough for this purpose, and it is reasonable to say that if all these people put themselves down as Church of England we do not want to upset the ancient relations of the Church and State. They are at any rate not keen Liberationists. If it be true that there is a great body of population— I do not know whether it is true or not— which, not caring particularly, nevertheless would put themselves down Church of England rather than Methodist or Congregationalist, that is a perfectly sound, and, in its way, a valuable argument in favour of maintaining the established relation between Church and State. These people are citizens—they have the rights of citizens—you do not propose that anyone who has not a high standard of religious life should be disfranchised; they are entitled to choose. Their opinion is as good as that of anyone else. It is as
  268
  good as the most saintly man's for the purpose of choosing which religion he wishes to be recognised by the State. I think that argument misses the point.
  Then, finally, we have what is the great difficulty in the hon. Member's way in resisting the Amendment—the example of Ireland. Here you have a religious Census actually in being. All this talk about conscientious belief is laid aside. The inquisitorial question is asked. Why it it asked? What is the history of it? The question was asked in Ireland because it helped forward the cause of Disestablishment. You refuse to ask it in England because you know it would throw back the cause of Disestablishment. It is only another illustration of the essential illiberality of Liberalism. The ordinary Radical Member of Parliament has no sincere devotion to any body of principles whatever. He rejects principles if it suits the controversial purpose of the moment. It suited the advocates of Disestablishment to have a religious Census in Ireland, and so they had it. It suits them to resist it in England and Wales, and so they resist it. It is sheer party self-will—precisely the same thing as we had in the constitutional controversy. The Radical party wants to have its own way whatever principles help it to have its own way. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did not the Conservative Government do it?"] Because the Government could not spare the time to carry it through. This Session is unusually favourable for carrying it. There is really no argument against this proposal. We say, and we are entitled to say, that the advocates of Disestablishment shrink from the test of a religious Census. Let us have an end of imitation statistics and amateur guesses as to who is strong and who is weak in Wales and in England. We propose to go to the country for the information, and you are afraid of it. That is the plain statement of the case. You dare not face the enumeration which we desire. I put this question to any impartial person: What would be the impression on a jury's mind of one who would not go into the witness-box? I say, and we are entitled to say, that, so far as the statistical argument goes, we may claim judgment by default, and we have a right-to appeal to the unquestionable truth that those who will not face an enumeration are probably conscious of being in a minority.
  Mr. VERNEY: I desire to say a few words strongly against the contention which the Noble Lord has put forward.

  269
  In the first place, I think he will not deny that if you take one denomination alone the most important from many points of view is the Church of England. Any member of the Church of England knows perfectly well that it has an entirely different meaning to different people. You have the churchman, who says that he is a a Church of England man, though he may mean something very different from his neighbour, who also claims to be a Church of England man. The whole standpoint may be entirely different as regards political matters. There are a vast number in the Church of England who would go in for Disestablishment, and who are thoroughly loyal to the Church of England. What, then, becomes of the Noble Lord's argument that the people of the Church of England want to retain the political connection? That is absolutely unfounded. He cannot get up and say that all loyal members of the Church of England are in favour of the Establishment. I think many of his own friends would strongly argued against that, and would stand up and say I that you may be a thoroughly loyal member of the Church of England, and yet go in strongly for the liberation policy. Those of us who know many of the clergy of the Church of England know how very difficult the education question becomes the moment you test it by that. There are many parents who would prefer that their children should attend certain dissenting schools rather than schools taught by teachers belonging to the Church of England. By degrees we hope that these lines of demarcation are being obliterated for all denominations. Many of us strongly protest against emphasising these marks and lines of division by any religious Census. Another matter was referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). He proposes to put in the words "religious profession." He ought to insert "religious denomination." What is "religious profession"'? It is the true faith of the Christian. What would the value of that be, according to the hon. and;learned Member's amendment? Why, it would mean nothing.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The reason I selected these words was that they occur in the Government's Census Bill for Ireland.
  Mr. VERNEY: I quite understood that was so; but, as was well said by the hon. Member who spoke for the Government on this subject, that might do well enough in
  270
  Ireland, though it would be of very little use in England, because the number of sects in England is largely greater than the number of sects and great divisions which occur in Ireland. I consider that the words "religious profession" embrace all forms of the Christian faith, but that would not satisfy the hon. and learned Member a bit. On the contrary, his whole speech was devoted to a defence of getting information regarding not the religious profession, but the religious denomination of the people. That I strongly object to, and I think many not only on this side, but also on the other side of the House do not want to have a religious Census in that sense put forward as an inquisition by the Government. There is another reason for objecting to this Amendment. There are a vast number of people—certainly in Wales, and I know even in England—who belong to more than one religious denomination in this sense—they very often go to chapel in the morning and to church in the evening, and some of these are among the most religious part of the whole population. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will admit that these people are extremely religious, and yet if you ask, "Are you Churchmen or Nonconformists?" they would have very great difficulty in answering the question. I know places where people attend the Church of England and yet constantly attend Dissenting places of worship. I know people who have taken part in the choir in the Church of England in the morning and in the choir of the chapel in the afternoon. I believe that the statistics which would be obtained in the way proposed would be very inaccurate. I cannot help thinking that from many points of view what is called a religious Census would give results which would be very misleading, inaccurate, and utterly useless for the purpose for which they are desired on the other side.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: In the course of the Debate hon. Members opposite have shown a certain amount of sectarian feeling. It is to my mind a very lamentable thing, for I desire to get rid of religious controversy. In our Colonies and in all other countries a religious census can be got, and yet when it is proposed to take a religious Census in England the spirit of sectarian controversy seems to arise at once. I deprecate that in every possible way. I think the sectarian spirit is far too rife. It is a great mistake to have a contest between denominations arising out

  271
  of the jealousy of one towards another. All Christian-minded people ought to rejoice in every expression and variety of religious opinion in England or elsewhere. If you approach the question from that point of view what possible harm is there really in a Census of this kind? I will come by-and-by to the practical difficulties, but I would ask here if it is possible to have a religious Census in all other countries, why it is said that it will stigmatise the people of England if they put down in the Census returns the religious profession to which they belong? I think every man should be proud of his religious profession. It is not a subject of debate. It is not a subject which you should keep in the background, and there ought to be no sectarian feeling in a business proposition of this kind. I think it is a mistake in considering this subject to discuss the possible uses to which the information may be applied. If you start from that point of view and say that some controversialists may use the information in an inapplicable manner there ought not to be a Census at all.
  The issue is an entirely different one. Is this a sort of information which can be appropriately demanded, and which ought to be obtained in order to ascertain properly the religious profession of the people of England at the present time? I think the answer to that is undoubtedly in the affirmative. It is just as important in England as in all other countries that we should know what the religious profession of the people is. The hon. Member for Carmarthen made a suggestion recently, and it has been repeated more than once to-day, that the statistics would be naccurate, because you would get a larger number returned as belonging to the Anglican Church than in truth there is. I do not believe you would obtain a result of that kind. The hon. Member the other day took an entirely wrong view of what constitutes a member of the Established Church. He seemed to think that anybody, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, or Romanist, was a member of the Established Anglican Church. That is not so at all. What is true is this: If you have an Established Church all citizens have certain rights as regards that Church, and particularly the parishioners in a parish. But it is absolutely a misuse of language and a misunderstanding to say that because you have an Established Church all citizens should justly call themselves members of that Church at the present time.
  272
  I wonder the hon. Member made a mistake of that kind, because it shows he does not appreciate what constitutes a member of the Anglican or Established Church, and does not appreciate what is wanted by our demand for a Census of the religious profession of the people.
  8.0 P.M.
  One other word before I come to the question of the difficulty of reliability. I wish in a certain way to dissociate myself from what the Noble Lord said as regards the use which information of this kind might be put to, because that is another point altogether. We want the information, and it ought to be obtained, it is information which is obtained in all other civilised countries, I believe, except our own, and it is the greatest satire on our country for hon. Members opposite to say that the sectarian spirit here is so rife that we cannot ask for information of this kind without asking for information of an inquisitorial character. I should hope myself, if this information were given, the ordinary sectarian spirit might be extremely modified. Why should not information of this kind be given, and when it is given, why should not Anglicans respect Presbyterians, Baptists, or Congregationalists, as the case might be? The more information we have the more we get to understand the position we take up in regard to this religious question. I believe the greater the progress of tolerance the greater the absence of this unfortunate sectarian spirit; and I hope that we may co-operate, not in the way of religious antagonism, but in promoting from our different points of view the true religious spirit throughout the whole country.
  On the other point that has been referred to what are the unusual difficulties? There are no more difficulties as regards the columns dealing with religious professions than as regards the columns dealing with any other information given in the Census. There is no particular difficulty in tabulation. I am referring now to what was said by the hon. Member the Under-Secretary for the Local Government Board. Even if there was a difficulty in tabulation, what has that really to do with the Census if you were asking for information which in the opinion of this House ought to be obtained? It is a minor point altogether. The difficulty of tabulation is one of those minor difficulties of administration which really have no importance, if information

  273
  of this kind is to be obtained in the interests of our general statistical equipment. There is one other question as regards reliability. Why should there be any more unreliability in statistics in reference to religious profession than in statistics of any other kind? I have yet to learn that the ordinary Englishman— I know him more intimately perhaps, than the ordinary Welshman—has any fear in stating what his religious profession is, and I have yet to learn that each man, as regards his own sect or denomination, has not a proper pride in that sect or denomination whether it happens to be Anglican, Romanist or Nonconformist; and when it is said that a man is stigmatised because you are asking him to state what his religious profession is, what more unfortunate word could be used? Are you stigmatising because you call him a Nonconformist or a Baptist? You apply to him for information which in my opinion it ought to be a matter of pride for him to give, showing that he is a religious man attached to a religious denomination. I hope that whatever is the fate of this Amendment, at least the House will appreciate that from the Anglican point of view we look on it as a matter of pride, and not as a stigma, that if a man calls himself either an Anglican or a Nonconformist, he will admit it. From my point of view, in the present day when irreligion is rife, any man who gets up and states without hesitation the denomination or religious profession to which he belongs, commands the admiration of all men who desire that in the aggregate we may continue a religious and God-fearing people.
  Mr. BURNS: My hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down made one observation to which for the moment I should like to reply. He regarded it as a reproach to English people that there was not a special column to find out the religious profession or religious denomination of people in the Schedule of the Census. I take an entirely different view from that. I think it is a compliment to the good sense and religious toleration of the English people that they have not asked for this, and I think we may judge from the Division that is likely to take place that they will not insist upon a special column for the religious profession of the persons enumerated in the Census. Another argument is that advanced by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. I had not intended to say a word
  274
  upon this subject, because I have sought refuge, and I might almost say sanctuary, in the speech made by the Noble Lord ten years ago on this particular point when with a frankness which did him credit he said more candidly than he did to-day that he did not want this so much for the purpose of finding out either the religious faith or the religious denomination of the people, but that he wanted it with the object of meeting a certain argument, namely, the numerical argument, against the Establishment. That is our case. Apart from the sectarian and denominational, and from the Noble Lord's point of view, there has not been much argument advanced in support of this Amendment. Though the Noble Lord went further and said the statistics of the Church, or of Nonconformity, demanded what he would term official professional statistics, yet he has not given either professional or official statistics in the sense that he understands both in contra-distinction to what he described as the mere amateur statistics that are now supplied. What he is proposing is that the occupier of every household should put down for the moment what he conceives to be, or in many cases sincerely believes to be, his religious profession or denomination; but this is determined not as the Noble Lord admits by what the person who fills up the paper feels, but by what he calls himself. But that is one of the most difficult questions which sentiment, passion and deep-seated emotion very often really influence a man to decide.
  Then I put another question to the Noble Lord. We have an enormous number of people in this country who pass through prisons and reformatories, and other institutions, such as workhouses, asylums, and schools of all kinds, where the determination for the purpose of enumeration rests not with the individuals as with the institution. It cannot possibly rest with them, but rests with the head of the institution who is called upon to answer fifteen or sixteen purely secular questions on which he has no incentive whatever to give any but the exact facts from the point of view of the statistics. The Noble Lord dealt with the question of the prisons. May I ask him to bear in mind the mere number of persons involved. I was surprised the other day in looking up the judicial statistics for the United Kingdom to find this extraordinary fact that we are a most litigious

  275
  race. The hon. and learned Member who has just spoken (Sir A. Cripps) I am sure will confirm me as to the figures. Over a million people were last year engaged on the civil side of law. On the purely criminal side there were nearly the same number. That is, there were nearly a million persons who were summoned, prosecuted, fined or imprisoned. Let us put aside the civil statistics altogether, and deal with the million who come within the purview o£ the criminal statistics, and see how a religious denomination is determined by the four or five hundred thousand who go for a long or short period into our reformatories or criminal institutions. The Noble Lord has not been to prison, but I can assure him I have. I was obliged to him for saying that religious fervour was not unknown in prisons and in gaols. In fact, there is the greater reason why there-should be more of it there than anywhere else, because it is more needed. Stone walls do a prison make, and iron bars a cage, whether a man has any religious profession or not. Now look at this. What are the reasons that induce scorers of thousands of people to give to the Noble Lord's own faith a certain amount of statistical support by saying they are Anglicans? There are many reasons.
  I can remember an occasion when I was about to be asked with Mr. Cunning-hame-Graham—the House remembers the incident—by an official, what our religious belief was. Before we could reply a man who had been there before ventured to say to us what we should do. He said, "Church of England, governor." Before I could ask why, he said, "Three services on Sunday, and excellent hymns." The Noble Lord ought to follow that up. That simple fact of three services on Sunday with excellent hymns practically determines for those who have been in prison several times what their religious faith will be. Silence is the rule in prison, and if the Noble Lord were to go to church in a prison and hear a thousand prisoners singing hymns, he would hear the best hymn-singing he has ever heard in his life. But why is it so sincere? Why is it so well done? Why is it so loud? Because those who know how to do it use the singing as an opportunity for conveying messages to each other, which they could not do if there were fifteen Methodists, twenty-two Roman Catholics, and only three Presbyterians, and a warder watching every movement. I can assure the
  276
  Noble Lord that when "Lead, Kindly Light" is being sung in Pentonville Prison there are many four ounce loaves of bread passed from one prisoner who does not want it to one who he thinks wants it more, and that is why ninety per cent. of these people say they are Church of England. The Noble Lord would say, "What has that to do with the view outside?" Why as to the view outside, when the Census paper is being considered in Bermondsey or Rotherithe, or any place where these sacerdotalists of prison mostly congregate, this fact clouds them and they say Church of England. They have been in the habit of doing it, and they continue to say outside what they say inside. When you have from three to four thousand people who are tempted by the ministrations of kindly parsons into a regular habit which they have got into by visits to these places it interferes with accurate statistical information to an extent that you can hardly conceive. But let us take a man who has not been to prison. Let us take the Noble Lord, if I may to a Cot tars' Saturday night Census, say a shoe maker in Northampton. He and his wife sit down to it. It is a very difficult thing to fill up some of these Census papers, and takes two or three hours. He says, "What shall I put down for religions," and the wife says. "Tom, Church of England to please the children." It does not
  And, it being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PEIVATE BUSINESS.

    MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL (by Order).
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. MORTON: I do not know whether I shall be in order in raising the question of third-class sleepers on the Third Reading of this Bill?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I can put the hon. Member out of his misery at once by informing him that he will not be in order on this Bill. There is nothing about "third-class sleepers" in this Bill.
    Mr. MORTON: Shall I be in order in asking the President of the Board of Trade to take an opportunity on some of these Bills to see that there is no preference given to one class over another?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That has no reference to this Bill, and the hon. Member should put down a question.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I beg to call attention to the fact that there are not forty Members present.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is too late. A count cannot be moved after 8.15 p.m.

    BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order).
    Bill, as amended, considered.

    CLAUSE 42.—(As to Supply of Water for Other than Domestic Purposes.)
    In cases of schools manufactories dyers printers bleachers brewers innkeepers livery stable keepers alehouse keepers and other persons requiring a supply of water for other purposes than his or their own families consumption or persons requiring a supply of water for baths ponds or closets or for washing carriages or motor cars or for cows and horses or for the purposes of any trade or business whatsoever such supply may be furnished by the Corporation either by meter or otherwise in accordance with the scale of charges made by the Corporation under Section 39 of the Act of 1897 and for the time being in force. Provided always that in the case of stables or premises in which horses carriages or motor cars are kept and which are attached to and occupied with and rated along with any private dwelling-house the water rate shall be assessed upon the annual rack rent or value of the private dwelling-house including such stables or premises and no additional charge shall be made under the provisions of Section 39 of the Act of 1897 for water supplied to such stables or premises unless a hose pipe or other similar apparatus be used in which case the Corporation may make such additional charge there for as may be prescribed by the scale of charges there for.
    Mr. BIRD: I beg to move to leave out the words "or for washing carriages or motor cars" ["requiring a supply of water for baths, ponds, or closets, or for washing carriages or motor cars"].
    278
    This Amendment is intended to remove a very serious new departure which the Corporation of Bradford is taking by means of this particular Clause. The corporation are endeavouring to depart from the practice which has prevailed throughout the country for a large number of years—that the washing of carriages shall be deemed to be a domestic purpose. Therefore, if this Clause be passed as set down in the Bill, the effect will be to impose on owners of carriages a charge that has not previously existed. The Bradford Corporation has to-day issued a notice, which has been circulated among Members of the House generally, in which they state the case which they have for the Clause as it now appears in the Bill. Among other things which the Corporation recite, they say:—
    "We have the usual obligations and powers common to most, if not all. bodies supplying water under Parliamentary powers."
    They say:—
    "We have the obligation to supply water for domestic purposes upon the basis of a rate on the annual value of the premises supplied, and have the power to supply water for purposes other than domestic upon the basis of a charge for water supplied."
    The Corporation admit that they have an obligation to supply water for domestic purposes, and it has been ruled in the Superior Courts that the washing of carriages is a domestic purpose. Some time ago the Corporation of Bradford thought that by means of some by-laws which they had passed they would have the right to impose a new charge upon carriage owners in Bradford for water supplied for carriage-washing purposes, and they issued demand notes to the owners of motor-cars demanding Is. per horse-power per year as an extra charge for the supply of water for washing motor cars, which may justly be deemed carriages. The Bradford Automobile Club, in regard to this new imposition, took counsel's opinion on the subject, and the Corporation were then informed that the owners of motor ears objected to pay. The Corporation were asked to state a case so that the matter might be tried in the courts and the question settled. The Corporation decided that it was not wise to fight the question, and they withdrew the demand. They now seek by means of this Clause to obtain the powers which they endeavoured to do by means of by-laws which they could not sustain. The principle is a very- serious one to be admitted by this House, that the Corporation shall be allowed to depart from the usual practice which exists throughout the country

    279
    and impose a charge for washing cars, although it has been ruled by the court that it is a purely domestic use. In the Clause which they seek to insert in the Bill they go on to say, provided a hosepipe is not used for washing the carriage, then no extra charge will be made. The washing of a carriage or a motor car with buckets of water belongs to the prehistoric period, and nobody outside a lunatic asylum in the present day would desire to use such an archaic method. From the corporation's own point of view it would involve infinitely more waste of water than the use of a hose-pipe. The result would be that the chauffeur would turn on the water, and when the bucket was full he would slip it from underneath the tap, throw the water leisurely over the car, and leave the tap running all the time. That method would be infinitely more wasteful of the water than use of a hose-pipe, which would enable the cleaner to direct the flow of water on to the exact part of the carriage it was intended to clean. In the interests of the Corporation of Bradford itself I contend that the method they allow of washing carriages without extra charge would be a very wasteful one, and would result in a far larger loss to the rates than if the hosepipe were used in the ordinary manner. I represent a large body of carriage and motor car owners, who feel that, in regard to the new charge sought to be imposed, ii is necessary, if the interests of motor car owners are to be protected, that a serious protest should be made against this Clause. If once the Bradford Corporation are allowed to get this Clause into this Bill, it will be immediately imitated and followed by all the local authorities who supply water. For these reasons I beg to move.
    Mr. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to second the Amendment. I have been at some pains to look into this matter, and I think it is quite clear that if these powers were sought by a private trading company they would be rejected, and the Government would be the first to move their rejection. This Bill comes before us at the hands of a Corporation, and they are seeking to establish a new principle, which hitherto Parliament has refused to sanction. They are seeking the power to treat that which is really a domestic purpose as not being a domestic purpose, and the Bill, if it were passed in its present form, does not attempt to lay down any schedule under which they are to levy their charges. As
    280
    my hon. Friend stated, the Bradford Corporation did seek illegally, two years ago, to levy a charge, and it was in consequence of resistance offered to them in Bradford, as a result of counsel's opinion being taken, that they eventually desisted from endeavouring to enforce that charge. The charge that they are now seeking to make is in the case of any owner of a carriage or motor car, that the use of water for the purpose of cleaning the vehicle shall not be a domestic purpose. I have here the particulars of the case which came before the present Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Darling, and Mr. Justice Lawrance, and known as the Harrogate Corporation v. McKay. In that case the Harrogate Corporation sought to charge a medical man with a special rate for water used in the cleaning of his carriage, upon the ground that that was being used for professional purposes, and therefore not domestic purposes. The Lord Chief Justice, in his judgment, quoted the case which had been previously laid down—a case against the Chesterfield Water Company—in which it was clearly held that washing a carriage with water was the use of water for domestic purposes. The Lord Chief Justice went on to say:—
    "Everyone knew of the decision in the case to which I have referred, and it is merely to consider how tin-limit was imposed by the Water Clauses Act of 1863. Section 2 of the Water Clauses Act, 1863 is as follows: 'The supply of water for domestic purposes shall not include the supply of water for cattle or for horses or for washing carriages where such horses or carriages are kept for sale or hire or by a common carrier or for the supply of any trade.' It seems, if it had been intended to alter the effect of the previous decision now suggested, it would have been done by the insertion of such words 'or where a carriage is used for the purpose of a professional man.' The suggestion that this is a supply of water for trade and business is not arguable. i am clearly of opinion that the justices came to the right conclusion."
    The other judges emphasised that judgment and held clearly that which we know is the law now, that the use of water for the cleansing of a carriage or of a car is a domestic purpose. Clause 42 of this Bill seeks to alter that state of the law, and to clothe this corporation with power to treat as a business purpose that which hitherto has been treated as a domestic purpose. The injustice of it is that the tenant may be paying a rate based upon his annual value, and that annual value may include the stable yard or garage, and under 'this Clause the corporation would be entitled to mulct the tenant with a rate based upon the annual value and also with the additional rate for purely domestic purposes in addition to the rates already sanctioned by Act of Parliament.

    281
    It is not merely the question of the owner of a motor car. I can quite conceive that many Members of the House may say that if a man can afford to keep a motor car it does not matter what extra taxation you charge him. There are some Members who take that view. If you give sanction by means of an Act of this kind to the creation of a new charge which Parliament has hitherto steadfastly refused to sanction, not only do you open the door to every other body, whether it be a corporation, public body, or private company owning a water works, to make this charge, but other charges of a similar character and for other purposes may, by the precedent created now, be allowed to creep in. I am sorry to add to the burdens of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board after the heavy work he has already had to do, and to that which we may yet have to do, and I know he has been in the House for many hours to answer this point. The point is a serious one. The Amendment of my hon. Friend will merely mean that that which is the law at present will continue to be the law, and there will be the obligation on the water company or the corporation to treat the use of water by the owner of a carriage or a car as water used for domestic purposes, if the stable or garage be part of the premises belonging to and occupied by the owner and in respect of which he is assessed for water rate.
    Mr. CHARLES NICHOLSON: I am sorry that it should have been thought necessary to bring up this question at this stage. I think that it is essentially a point which ought to have been raised by those interested in the question in Bradford before the Bill was deposited. So far as I have been able to ascertain, it was not referred to, and no objection was raised at the ratepayers' meeting held in pursuance of the Borough Funds Act. Apparently, after the Bill was deposited, those who are now opposing it applied to the Court of Referees for a locus standi, but after hearing the arguments this was refused. The question of that refusal does not arise now, but the effect of that decision was to prevent the opponents of the Bill on this point from appearing before the Local Legislation Committee and arguing their case, which is now brought up in the House.
    Mr. H. S. FOSTER: I am told that the locus standi of the Bradford Automobile Club was objected to by the Bradford Corporation, and that when the question of a
    282
    locus standi was being argued before the Court of Referees it was definitely stated by Mr. Balfour Browne, on behalf of the Bradford Corporation, that the Clause was not intended to effect a charge for water used by motorists in connection with their motor cars. Thereupon the Automobile Club's locus standi was disallowed.
    Mr. C. NICHOLSON: All I know is that the Court of Referees disallowed the locus standi.
    Mr. H. S. FOSTER: In consequence of that statement, which has not been adhered to.
    Mr. C. NICHOLSON: The Clause, as drawn, does not impose a second charge on the owners of motor cars. As I understand it two points are raised—first, whether the Corporation are entitled to charge for water supplied for the washing of motor cars at all, and also whether they are to be entitled to charge for water supplied for the washing of private motor cars which are not kept in a garage attached to and occupied with the house of the owner so as to come under the domestic use rate; and, secondly, whether the Corporation are entitled to charge for the use of a hose-pipe whether the car is kept in a garage attached to the house or not. The cause of the trouble arises from the difficulty which has been experienced in defining the expression "domestic use" as applied to water. The hon. Member for Lowestoft has spoken of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1863. I would refer him to the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, in Section 35 of which it is laid down that "the undertakers shall provide and keep in the pipes to be laid down by them a supply of pure and wholesome water sufficient for the domestic use of all the inhabitants of the town or district within the limits of the special Act who as hereafter provided shall be entitled to demand a supply and shall be willing to pay water rate for the same." Unfortunately no definition of the words "domestic use" was given in the Act. But the Corporation of Bradford have obtained power in their Acts of 1854 and 1897 to supply water for purposes outside domestic use at a rate to be agreed upon by the parties themselves. I will not trouble the House by quoting the clauses, but they include such things as the washing of carriages kept for hire, the water supplied for cows, and various items of that kind. Naturally these earlier Acts did not refer to motor cars, as they were

    283
    not then invented, but both. Acts expressly exclude from the domestic list carriages kept for hire. In those days owners of private carriages always, or practically always, kept them within the curtilage which was rated for the supply of water for domestic uses, and as the stable in which they were kept added to the rateable value the owner paid for the water used in washing. The custom has now apparently grown up for many owners of private motor cars to keep them in buildings apart from the houses they occupy and which are not dwelling houses. The evidence given by the borough engineer was to this effect:—
    "The only power we have got by Statute is a power to levy rates on dwelling-houses, which houses take water—that is to say, we have no power to rate any other houses except dwelling-houses."
    It is therefore obvious that a man who puts up his motor car in a lock-up garage which is not a dwelling house escapes altogether from payment for water used for cleaning his car, or, if the house is used as a stable, with rooms over it, it is not rated for other purposes on a scale commensurate with the amount of water used; therefore it is necessary that some other arrangement should be made, such as a supply by meter or otherwise, according to a scale to be laid down by the Corporation; and this is all the Corporation are asked for. That scale will not apply to cases where the car is kept on premises which are attached to and occupied with a private dwelling house, for under the Clause in the Bill they will come under the domestic use charge.
    Mr. H. S. FOSTER: If a hose is used there is still a charge made.
    Mr. C. NICHOLSON: With regard to the question of the hose-pipe, on the one hand it is contended that the use of a hosepipe is economical, and that the use of a bucket involves a great waste of water; while, on the other hand, it is argued that the bucket is the more economical and the hose-pipe the more wasteful. I leave that to the judgment of the House. So far as my experience goes, it is practically unanimously agreed that the use of a hosepipe for cleaning cars is decidedly wasteful. But the Corporation of Bradford maintain that the use of a hose-pipe produces a great waste of water, and they wish to make a charge where it is used. The Committee which considered the Bill came to the conclusion that the Corporation were right and that this charge should be allowed.
    284
    Besides this, there are many oases in which a charge is made for the use of a hose-pipe. Such a charge is levied when a hose-pipe is used for garden purposes, for the washing of windows, for the scouring of passages, and so forth. We were also informed in the Committee that permission to make this charge has been given to a large number of towns, including Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, and many others; and there seems to be no reason why the Corporation of Bradford should not be allowed to make a charge in this instance. The whole question was most carefully considered by the Committee. The Clause as it originally stood was largely altered before it reached its present form, and the Committee were certainly under the impression that they had made considerable concessions to owners of motor cars m the Clause as it now stands. The Committee were quite aware of the difficulties and complexities of the various water charges, but they unanimously decided that the Clause as it now stands was a fair settlement of the question, and I hope the House will confirm their decision.
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  PORT OF LOXDON (REGISTRATION OF CRAFT).

    PROVISIONAL OHDER BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. MORTON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
    This Bill is of somewhat the same nature as the measure discussed last evening. Therefore, I shall not repeat, more than I can help, the arguments used on that occasion. I would, however, ask the representative of the Board of Trade to answer the question then put, namely, why we have not the accounts of the Port

    285
    of London Authority for the year ending 31st March, 1910? Without those accounts it is really impossible properly to consider the proposed Provisional Order. What amount are these fees expected to produce? I have had estimates given me varying from £12,000 to £40,000 per annum. Whatever the amount, it will be a charge upon the traders who use the Port of London. The fees seem to me. rather heavy, although I understand that as they are maximum rates they may not be fully charged. The annual charge for a steam tug is to be £6; for a steam barge, £2; for a canal barge, £l; and so on down to Is. for registering the address of a permanent hirer of any one craft. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman what is the present income of the Port of London 1 There are somewhat similar fees, I think, being charged now, and I should like to know if he can tell us what they amount to. I should also like to know what is the estimated amount of money that this Bill will produce, and to what purpose the money so raised is to be devoted?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise in this Bill. It is a question of craft.
    Mr. MORTON: Very well, I am only asking what is the money to be raised by this particular Bill before us to-night, and what is it to be used for. Of course, after what occurred last night, and the long discussion, it is not at all necessary for me to occupy much time now or even to move the Resolution of which I gave notice. I do not want to trouble the House, but I do trust the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade will be able to give the House the information I have asked for. It is in the interests of trade, and we have a right to think of the traders on the river, and see that they are not overcharged, and that the money raised is spent for some useful purpose.
    Mr. PERCY ILLINGWORTH (Lord of the Treasury): The first point of my hon. Friend was, I think, why accounts are not submitted to this House by the Port Authority? I think I may tell the hon. Gentleman, without going into details as to the Section under which this Provisional Order is framed, that these actual charges, which are in operation at an present moment under the Port of London Act, 1908, have only been in operation since 1st April this year. It is, therefore, impossible, of course, that any accounts should be presented.
    Mr. MORTON: There was no charge previous to this at all?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am referring merely to matters which are concerned with this Provisional Order and the maximum rate for registration which may be charged. Under the fees which are now in actual operation, and which I shall presently refer to, the estimated income of the Port of London Authority from the sources mentioned in the Provisional Order is rather over £11,000. The Provisional Order refers to the maximum rate which may be charged. The Board of Trade held an inquiry in January last, in which the charges which were proposed by the Port Authority were considerably reduced. The consequence of this reduction is that at the present time the actual rate for barges is 6d. per ton, steam barges.£2 (in addition to the 6d. per ton); steam tugs, £5; canal barges, 10s.; and canal boats, 5s. That revenue will be used for the purposes for which the Port of London Authority has been constituted. That Authority has no shareholder to satisfy. It has been constituted with the sole and simple object of increasing the trade of the Port of London, for increasing the facilities of shipping, and attracting trade generally to the port. While I quite agree that in order to carry out these very desirable benefits which are to be conferred a revenue is necessary, it does not at all follow that it need be excessive. Besides the fees that are scheduled, not only as to the rates, but as to the registration of craft, are closely scrutinised by the interests concerned.
    Mr. MORTON: What are the facilities which are going to be offered by the Authority on account of these fees?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise upon this Bill. That arose upon the original Act.
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: It is perfectly obvious that if the Port of London is going to benefit by an Act which was passed in 1908, that the barges also will benefit by the increased trade which it is hoped will be attracted to the port. I can calm any fear which the hon. Member may have entertained by telling him that any increase in the actual rates which are at present in operation can only be done under by-laws of the Port Authority, which have to be confirmed by a Board of Trade Provisional Order, and that only after full consideration and hearing all objections which may be advanced.
    Mr. MORTON: May I ask my hon. Friend if it is proposed to send this Bill to the same Committee as that to which the Bill passed last night has been committed?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: That does not rest with me. I take it that the ordinary procedure of the House will be followed.
    Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  Postponed proceedings on proposed Amendment to Clause 4—Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), after the word "occupation" to insert the words "religious profession."
  Debate resumed.
  Mr. BURNS: When the Chairman interrupted my observations, which will be very brief, I was in the act of replying to the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). I gave one or two illustrations of the causes and conditions that operated in inducing men outside prisons and similar institutions to sign what was their religious profession or their religious denomination, and I said that that return was not made from spiritual or religious motives, but rather from material and secular considerations. I do not intend to develop that argument, as at the moment the House seems rather to share my views—that statistics secured outside the prison in such a way are not reliable data on which to base any legislation, or any other work arising from a Census. The other point I submit is that the Government believes that for reasons which have been advanced, the religious provision in the Census is undesirable. No one seems to ask for it. I appeal to the House at once, if I may say so respectfully, not to accept the Amendment, but to proceed to a Division.
  Mr. JOHN P. BOLAND: During the course of the discussion reference has been
  288
  made to Ireland, and an attempt was made to try and establish an analogous case between Ireland and England. There is a great distinction between England and Ireland as regards the taking of this Census, though in Ireland it is not purely a religious matter. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University suggested that it was first instituted in Ireland in order to carry out the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland, which took place thirty or forty years ago. If there was anything in that argument, that it was instituted for a specific purpose, then one would expect that it would have been dropped. In Ireland the Census is very exhaustive; 98 per cent. of the people declare their religion, and the great majority of the people belong to the Roman Catholic Church, which is a dogmatic religion. In addition to that it may be said, roughly, that, as far as political opinion goes, the Catholics are Nationalists, and the great majority of the Protestants, with some honourable exceptions, belong to the other creed and politics, so that practically by taking the religious Census in Ireland you also get the political opinion of the people. That is one reason probably why no specific case was made for removing the religious Census. The religious Census in Ireland is a very good rough indication of the political opinion of the country. I think if the same method were brought to England a very different state of affairs would arise, and it would be a very unsatisfactory method in England, because I do feel convinced of this, that probably it would be used for controversial purposes—for example, as regards English educational matters—and it would be absolutely impossible to judge relatively of the strength of the Protestant religion and its component parts in this country in the same way that we can in Ireland owing to the position of affairs. Therefore, as regards this matter, I propose to support the Government, and I expect that my colleagues will join me.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I only wish to intervene because certain figures I gave a fortnight ago have been challenged. I said that in the diocese of St. David's there was seating accommodation provided by the churches for only 20 per cent. of the population. As these figures have been challenged, I wish to say that I adhere to them. The figures are these: There are half a million of people in the diocese, and the parish churches provide accommo-

  289
  dation for only 100,000, which is 20 per cent. of the population. Take the neighbouring diocese, with the population of over one million, you get seating accommodation provided for only 20 per cent.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (c)—" in the case of any person who so abode being married, the duration of marriage, and the number of children born of the marriage, and"
  Question put, "That the words 'religious profession' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 135.

  Division No. 76.]

  AYES.

  [9.0 p.m.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Barnston, Harry

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Forster, Henry William

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bird, Alfred

  Fester, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Sykes, Alan John

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Llewellyn, Venables

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Colefax, H. A.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Craig. Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Rawlinson and Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Alden, Percy

  Hindle, Frederick George

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rees, John David

  Armitage, Robert

  Hodper, A. G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Barnes, George N.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Beale, William Phipson

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Shackleton, David James

  Boland, John Pius

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Snowden, Philip

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Lambert, George

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Byles, William Pollard

  Leach, Charles

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sutherland, John E.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sutton, John E.

  Clough, William

  Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dawes, James Arthur

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Verney, Frederick William

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Walsh, Stephen

  Elverston, Harold

  Middlebrook, William

  Walters, John Tudor

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Millar, J. D.

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mooney, John J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Munro, Robert

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Muspratt, M.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wiles, Thomas

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Ogden, Fred

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Pearce, William

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Hancock, John George

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wing, Thomas Henry

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Radford, George Heynes

  Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Henderson, A.

  I move the omission of these words in order that some explanation may be given as to why this Sub-section has been inserted. On the last Amendment we heard a desire expressed not to add anything to the impertinent inquisition into private affairs

  291
  of family life. My reason for moving the omission of this Sub-section is to ascertain from the Government why they wish to add this new provision, for which I am not aware there is any precedent. I do not think such a proposal ought to be passed in silence without some explanation.
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. and learned Member has asked for reasons why the Government have put this new question in the Census Schedule. On the Second Reading of the Bill I gave the general reasons why we thought this question should be included. It has been suspected by some, and I gather by the hon. and learned Member himself, that this question might be considered by some to be inquisitorial. I can assure the hon. Member it has not been put down with that intention, and I do not think it will be so regarded. It might be, if the question is applied to first or second marriages, and not to the existing marriage, to which the question is alone going to be confined. The reason for this question is that nearly all the countries of the world are confronted with a very remarkable diminution of the birth-rate, and concurrently with that in this and other countries there is not a similar diminution of the marriage rate. On the contrary, the marriage rate is either diminishing very slowly, or in some cases it is almost stationary, whilst at the same time the birth-rate is dropping very remarkably. All the doctors and others interested in this, not for inquisitorial or improper reasons, think that if the number of children issuing, not from previous, but existing marriages were tabulated in answer to a question in the Schedule, a lot of interesting information would be secured, and certain very proper views might be deduced there from, and this would give publicists, medical officers of health, and others some sidelights on a question which is engaging the attention of all communities, namely, the fertility of marriage. In France, the United States, New South Wales and the Australian Commonwealth they have already done this, and the experience gained there from induced the Registrar-General to ask for similar information. It may interest Scotch Members to know that a similar thing was done in Scotland in 1851, but it was not done in the Census Schedule. It was done in the registration of birth certificates for
  292
  Scotland and in this way the only accurate data we have in the United Kingdom were secured by Dr. Matthews Duncan. I think everybody agrees that the fertility statistics secured in 1855 in Scotland were of great use to the statistician and the medical officers of that particular day. I can assure the hon. Member who has Moved this Amendment and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London who has got a similar Amendment on the Paper, that the Registrar-General will so word this question in the Schedule as not to be inquisitorial. The information will not be used for any improper and certainly not for any illegal or indiscreet purposes. All we want is to secure that in all communities where this is occurring an opportunity of getting data by means of which we can arrive at certain broad facts with regard to the fertility of marriage. I was told the other day—and this is a very significant social fact—of one great professional occupation in which married women are employed almost as extensively as married men, and it was ascertained that the average number in the family from which those married women and their husbands came was from five to six, whilst the average number of their own families was only one as against five or six in the families from which they came before they were married. That shows an interesting sidelight upon women's labour and the relationship of the number of the children in the family where both wife and husband are employed as compared with what it is and was in this particular occupation before both husband and wife were engaged in the same occupation. Other instances could be given to justify the Government in thinking that valuable information could be secured in this way. This information will also throw light on infant mortality, and furnish some information with regard to the increment of feeble-minded children and other interesting facts which I can assure the House the Registrar-General will secure in the most respectful and proper way.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman told us he was opposed to this Amendment, in the first place, because, if it is not carried, a certain amount of very desirable and interesting information will be given to the country; and, secondly, because an interesting state of affairs has arisen in this country and other countries by the decrease in the birth rate. I always understood that marriages and births were registered, and, if that is so,

  293
  the information which the right hon. Gentleman desires can already be obtained by application to the Registrars of births and marriages. If I am correct, that does away with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. Now we come to his second argument that it will give in formation with regard to the decrease in the birth rate, which is to be found more or less in all the civilised countries of the world. When he gets the information, what is he going to do with it? What on earth can he do when he has got the in formation 1 That is a practical question, and I want to know how the right hon. Gentleman will answer it. No one can prevent the decrease going on. The right hon. Gentleman can no more prevent it than either my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) or I can. You are going to compel all these people to fill up all sorts of forms they do not understand, and the result will be absolutely nothing done. Apparently, there are a great many Members opposite who put great faith in forms, but I think the more forms you have to fill up the more inaccurate is the information you get. The Bill re quires any person to say the duration of the marriage, and the number of children born of the marriage. In both cases it is singular. Supposing a man had been married twice
  Mr. BURNS: I met that point in anticipation by saying it would not apply to marriage No. 1, 2, or 3, but to the marriage existing at the time the Census was taken.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think there are many who have been married four times, but there are a good many people who have been married twice, and people have only to give this information with regard to one marriage. Therefore the information the right hon. Gentleman desires as to how many children are born of different marriages will not be obtained. There may be four or five children born of the first marriage and none of the second marriage, and the children born of the first marriage will not appear in the return. What is the use of getting to know how long people are married? Earlier in the evening the right hon. Gentleman based his objection to an Amendment I moved upon the fact that his Bill was according to precedent and that what was done in 1900 ought to be repeated, but this was not in the Bill of 1900, and it seems to me it is not going to afford any useful
  294
  information to anybody. I think all classes ought to be treated the same, but it is to the poorer classes that these objections will especially apply. To rich men it is not much trouble to put down the date of their marriage, but poorer people do not understand the filling up of forms, and, if you are going to complicate these forms by all sorts of additional requirements, you will be adding a great burden to the classes which hon. Gentlemen opposite are supposed particularly to represent, though personally I do not think they do. Am I to understand the right hon. Gentleman desires to get rid of the Report stage altogether, and that he is not going to accept any Amendment at all?
  Mr. BURNS: Oh, no. We shall argue them on their merits.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The only argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that he was going to get certain information, and I have shown that he has already got that information. Does not the Registrar of Births take the number of births every year?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: We cannot get the information we desire from the Registrar of Births.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Why not? The number of births are given every year, and you have only to multiply them by ten. Everyone knows also how many marriages have taken place in the last ten years. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will press his Amendment.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Might I really ask for some further consideration from the Government? We have heard a great deal about the inquisition which would result from a religious Census. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think, after that argument, he is justified in adding this column to the Census paper? A man would be less scrupulous in returning his religious opinions correctly than he would the exact number of children of a marriage or his Income Tax. Again, which would a woman readily return—her age, her religious belief, or the details of her married life and the number of children she may have had in any particular marriage? Do you think that these are questions less likely to be inquisitorial? I submit it to the sense of the House the Government is not treating this question fairly. I could give instances where illegitimate children are living with the

  295
  father and mother, and are believed by everybody connected with the family to be legitimate. They are children born before marriage, and there are children born during marriage. Is a return in that case to be made truly or falsely? I say you are asking a most delicate question when you are asking a married woman how many of her children are legitimate and how many are illegitimate. I appeal to the hon. Member who spoke about impertinent intrusions. I remember that on one occasion when he was dealing with this question he referred to the polygamous Plains of Utah and the monogamous Mountains of Montgomeryshire May I ask if it is a less impertinent intrusion into the private affairs of a family when you are invited to reply to questions of this nature?
  Mr. REES: I am not answering for the Government on this occasion.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I fail to see why, if it is an impertinent intrusion into the mysteries of the monogamous mountains of Montgomeryshire it is not a far more impertinent intrusion into the secrets of private life. I ask the Government to be consistent. If they have no desire to ask impertinent questions then they should not go into this matter. They can get the material facts from the Registrar, and it is really unnecessary to insert this column.
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member assumes that the new question to be put into the Census Schedule is whether a child or children happen to be illegitimate or not. There is no such question going to be put in the Schedule. It is not necessary, because the question of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child or children is returned every year by the Registrar-General in his Annual Report from declarations that are made, not in the general Census at periods of ten years, but in the register of births, which is based upon the statements of the parent shortly after the birth. If this House sanctions the question, as I believe it will, the gist of it will be as to the number of children born of the existing marriage, and the number still living, and there will not be a word about legitimacy or illegitimacy.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: But may I point out that among the questions you propose to put will be one to women living alone as to whether or not they are divorced, and that is a pretty delicate question to put. But
  296
  the second and far more inquisitorial question is the one that asks how many children are born of the marriage, and I would put it that where two children are born before the marriage and four children are born afterwards, are the six children to be returned as of the marriage when as a matter of fact only four are born of the marriage? I suggest that that is a very distasteful question to put to a woman.
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member, with the skill and ingenuity of the profession to which he belongs, has quite reversed the argument he originally put forward, and I would repeat that the sole object of the question which we ask the House to sanction is to get at the fertility of married couples in various social positions and occupations, and at various ages, and to-ascertain the cause of the heavy child mortality. ["Oh!"] The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London will pardon me if I object to his interruption. Since I have occupied my present position I have courteously listened to arguments advanced, and I must ask the hon. Baronet to listen to me for one moment while I state the reasons why we feel we must get this information. In the Royal borough of Kensington—a very select population generally speaking—you have an infant mortality among the general population of from 70 to 100 per 1,000 of children born but in one section of the same parish the infant mortality goes up to 250, 300, and 400 per 1,000, and in one year it actually rose to 503 per 1,000 of children. That applies to only 4,000 of the population. It is exceedingly important in these days, when we are talking about the necessity of dealing with feeble-minded children and of protecting feeble-minded girls from the perils and temptations to which they are subjected—it is, I say, exceedingly important that we should have information which will enable us to tap the reasons why it is in the Royal precincts of Kensington the infant mortality, which in one part is as low as 70 per 1,000, rises to 400 or 500 per 1,000 in another part. It is important also we should know why, when in a certain part of my own Constituency the infant mortality is 60 or 70 per 1,000, in some other portion of the country, where working women are employed to a greater extent than in my own district, the infant mortality rises to as high a figure as 280 per 1,000. While we have so many lunatics and feeble-minded people to look after in this country it is important that when we are providing palliatives we

  297
  should see that they are real palliatives. We do not want information which does not touch the root of the evil. We want, by means of the respectful questions that we have put in the new column, to bring some light, and gather some data, of the way in which we can stop this streak of idiocy and lunacy and prevent this infant mortality which is recorded in some of the Midland and Northern districts, and which is a reproach to everybody concerned. If that information will enable us to do this, it is within the competence of my Department to ask the House to allow us to seek for it, with a view to our joining other countries in stopping this kind of thing. It is a very serious necessity to have to spend some £300 to £400 per day and from £l to 30s. a week individually, on these people when, by well-directed information, such as we expect to obtain, we can reduce infant mortality, and find out some of the root causes which are providing some of our towns and cities with a dependent population that we ought to have taken steps to get rid of years ago.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has accused me—and I do not complain of it—of having drawn a false issue across the floor of the House. I will not retort, though I might ask him what his remarks about weak-minded people have to do with the point I was putting to him—that when you have children living in a household, and when you ask the mother how many of them are born of the marriage or to the marriage, whether you are not asking her how many of these children are illegitimate and how many are legitimate? That is the point that I have made, and I have never gone away from it, and it is the right hon. Gentleman himself who has gone away from it. He has given an interesting discourse as to the number of imbeciles, and whether we should have 150,000 lunatics in England at the present time. I really do not know, but for the purpose of ascertaining that, what is the use of asking these questions as to whether a woman is living apart from her husband or not, or whether she is divorced or not? What possible bearing can that have upon lunacy? What I wish to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman is this—if the Government are genuine in their expression of opinion as to the undesirability of putting questions to people about the religious persuasion they belong to how can they justify these far more impertinent questions which are put into this Clause? And it must be remembered these ques-
  298
  tions are put in for the first time without there being any precedent for them in Ireland, the Colonies, or in any civilised country. It is for these reasons I ask the Committee to decide against a Sub-section of such a sweeping character—a Sub-section which asks useless questions, and goes further than any Census ever went before.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman made an interesting speech a minute or two ago, drawing attention to a matter of the very gravest social importance—the high rate of infant mortality in some districts; but I did not quite follow his argument, for I do not understand how he connected the high rate of infant mortality with the questions which are propounded in this Sub-section.
  Mr. BURNS: The Noble Lord will pardon me for saying that I briefly stated to the House that from the questions in the new column which we insert we hope to glean particulars which will enable us to gather a lot of information on the social position of the parents, the occupation of the father, the occupation of the mother, and from facts similar to that to ascertain the extent to which this infant mortality is due to the employment of the mother, and several interesting facts which bear upon infant mortality and upon feeble-minded children indirectly. We hope to obtain information as to the strain to which the mother and father may be subjected in consequence of their occupation instead of what I believe to be the ideal rule being followed, in which a father does the work and not the mother, by which the money to keep the family is earned.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman says it is founded on some information in his possession, but still I do not see why a particular married couple are to be asked "How long has your marriage lasted, and how many children have you." You do not, as I understand it, go into the physical history of the father and mother, and require them to say—indeed, it would be inquisitorial—what is their family history, the diseases from which their parents suffered, and all the rest of it—information which really lies at the root, so far as the parents are concerned, of infant mortality. Of course, a very large part of the infant mortality has no concern with the circumstances of the parents of the children, but with the sanitary circumstances of the district to which the questions will not be directed at all.

  299
  No doubt, it is conceivable, and, perhaps, that is what the right hon. Gentleman means, that he can bring together all the different information that he gets in different ways. But the labour of doing that would be quite inconceivable, I should have thought, because you will in the case of each particular family have first to bring together the information you get in these statistics; then you come to the general information that you have about these people, and the causes of death in respect of their infants; and you trace the connection between the two sets of statistics, and that in the case of every family in the country. The right hon. Gentleman's resources in regard to statistics may be very great, but I should have thought that it was quite impossible to bring together the circumstances of the child's death and the circumstances of the duration of the marriage and the occupation of the father and mother. I cannot believe that that is a statistical possibility. Then, apart from the point which my hon. and learned Friend raised, that these questions are very delicate and inquisitorial, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Clause needs redrafting, because, as it at present stands I do not think the Schedule that he read out would be applicable. The Clause says, "In the case of any person who so abode being married," but a widow is not married any longer, and neither is a divorced person, and therefore, as it stands, the Clause would not apply to widows or divorced persons, and it is evident that for the purpose of inquiry into the character of the children you must go into the question of widowers and "widows and divorced persons, and you would want to make the Clause run, "in the case of any person who so abode being or having been married," or else the Clause will not cover it.
  Mr. BURNS: The Noble Lord forgets that the Schedule will be adapted to the Bill as drafted. In France and Germany similar questions have been asked without any difficulty, and a great deal of interesting information, not at all inquisitorial, has been secured with great advantage to the community.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, though I think he exaggerates the statistical possibilities. The point I am at present upon he has not dealt with. It is obvious that for the purpose of the inquiry he contem-
  300
  plates you must go into the case of widows, widowers, and divorced persons, and it is equally evident that the Clause as drafted does not include these people. I think the Law Officers will agree that the expression "being married" is not sufficiently wide. You ought to say "being, or having been married," if you want to do what he wishes to do, otherwise the Clause breaks down altogether and the inquiry would be partial and insufficient. The words at present are "in the case of any person who so abode being married." That does not include the case of a person being a widow or a widower.
  Mr. BURNS: We do not wish to ascertain about the widower. What we want to ascertain is the facts with regard to the man and woman and the children of the existing marriage.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman read out that Schedule, which, I think, included widows, c and certainly included divorced persons? What conceivable difference is there for the purpose of this Census between a divorced person and a widow or widower?
  Mr. BURNS: The facts we wish to secure relate to a married man and his wife and the children of the existing marriage. The facts with regard to the widow and the widower we do not on this occasion wish to secure at all. Sufficient for the day is the goodness thereof. We confine ourselves to the wife and husband, and in this case we have taken the advice of Samuel Weller, sen., and we say, "Beware of widows."
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the point. The widows and widowers are often persons who have had children who are living with the father or mother. Are you going to leave them out of your inquiry altogether? See how statistically capricious your result will be. The mere accident that the father or mother has died strikes one family out of your returns. The right hon. Gentleman admits that it is grotesque.
  Mr. BURNS: No, I do not.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It evidently is grotesque. You strike out a whole family, which is as interesting for the purpose of the inquiry as any other family, through the mere circumstance that the father or the mother is dead. For the purpose of the inquiry, on which the right hon. Gentleman dilated as to the high rate of infant

  301
  mortality, the whole thing breaks down absolutely. It is manifest that the whole inquiry would become vitiated if you cut out of it all the families in which by quite an irrelevent chance the father or mother is dead. It destroys the whole statistical value of the inquiry. It is incomplete. What reason has the right hon. Gentleman for refusing the words "being or having been married"? I believe he is merely actuated by the Ministerially infantile desire to avoid a Report stage, and having improvised an elaborate argument about infant mortality, which is utterly unreal, he refuses to act up to his own eloquence and put in words which would make his argument a reality because we should have a Report stage. I call that legislating on the principles of "Alice in Wonderland."
  Dr. ADDISON: I rise to support this Sub-section and to reply to a few criticisms raised by the Noble Lord. He seems to be under the impression that in regard to infant mortality an inquiry on these lines is statistically impossible. Many inquiries on these lines have been carried out, and it is a subject of great regret that it is not possible to extend their inquiries, as they will be able to do when the returns here called for are made. By, for example, ascertaining the occupation of the families it is quite easily possible to classify the rate of infant mortality according to the occupation of the parents, and a very great deal of light is thrown upon the causes of infant mortality through such a classification. There is nothing inherently difficult in it, let alone impossible. So far as delicacy is concerned, I think the time has arrived when we might abandon matters of this kind in regard to questions which vitally concern the national well-being. It is exceedingly important, surely, that when we lose 120,000 infants every year, we should be possessed of the fullest possible information on all matters relating to this grievous waste of life! Why, with this disastrous fact before us, the Noble Lord should want to cut out this inquiry, which is absolutely essential to any sound reasoning on the subject, I entirely fail to see. We know, for example, in the case of the Potteries, and some districts in Lancashire, and in some cities—Birmingham, for instance—that the rates of infant mortality vary exceedingly according to the housing conditions, the occupations of the mothers, and many other matters which
  302
  will be brought out and rendered distinguishable by returns of this kind. They are absolutely essential to arrive at a proper conclusion as to the influence of the different facts on the incidents of infant mortality. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will not give way in any particular to the protests of the Noble Lord. As to the number of children, I do not think any fair-minded citizen would resent being asked in the public interest how many children he had. I fail to see where it is unduly inquisitorial to ask how long you have been married, and questions of that character. It seems to me that if the Census is to be a Census, these are essential facts in it.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Why leave out widows?
  Dr. ADDISON: I have no objection myself to the inclusion of widows. I was only replying to the criticism of the Noble Lord that it was unduly inquisitorial. This inquisition is thoroughly justified by the facts of the case. It is an inquisition which should have been made years ago, and if it had been made we should not have the grievous waste of life in regard to children that we are afflicted with at present. So far as the inclusion of widows and widowers is concerned, it would only relate to a small percentage of families, and families living with the father and mother are presumably living under the best possible conditions. If we find, as we shall find, as the result of these inquiries, that even under these the most satisfactory conditions for a family, under certain conditions of occupation or habitation you get a gross waste of infant life, we shall know then, a fortiori, that when one parent is taken away the conditions in all probability will be worse.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Does not the hon. Member see that where the insanitary conditions, or whatever they are, are so strong that they kill not only the children, but one of the parents—
  Dr. ADDISON: Certainly that is so, but the Noble Lord seems to say that because you have not statistics upon every imaginary detail, therefore what statistics you have are of no value. It does not follow in the least. Our statistics, in so far as they deal with families and widows and widowers, will be incomplete. It does not in any way take away from the value of

  303
  the statistics which we do have, and therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be able to get the information which is desired.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have no wish to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman. All I did was to ask my hon. Friend what the right hon. Gentleman had said. I am always delighted to listen to everything he says. In this case I think he has let the cat out of the bag. The right hon. Gentleman read from a paper, and, having done so, he seems to be desirous of retreating from what he said. He says that this Sub-clause which my hon. and learned Friend has moved to leave out is going to do a great deal more than anyone in the House ever thought it would do. It is a small Clause, but it provides for information being obtained with respect to "the duration of marriage, and the number of children born of the marriage." The right hon. Gentleman read out that the Schedule is not only going to deal with the duration of marriage and the number of children, but also with divorced persons and their ages. My Noble Friend (Lord H, Cecil) suggests an Amendment which would make the Clause worse than it Is. He proposes to put in widows. The right hon. Gentleman says, "I do not want widows or widowers." How about fertility and ages if he leaves out widows and widowers? What is the use of these statistics if half of the facts which ought to be collected are not collected in order to arrive at right statistics? Earlier in the evening, with the natural desire I had to facilitate business, I did not move an Amendment which was on the Paper requiring that the drafts of forms and instructions should be laid on the Table of the House for thirty days.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: That was because you were going for your dinner.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Not at all. The hon. Gentleman is quite inaccurate. The Amendment was called about six o'clock, and I did not leave until long past seven. I did not move the Amendment because I had some little lingering faith in the right hon. Gentleman, but it has been dissipated by the unwilling admissions he has just made. This is a very important matter, because whether hon. Members are in favour of the Amendment or not, we now know that a large number of things are going to be included in the
  304
  Census which are not mentioned in the Bill. Before the Committee agree to pass to pass the Bill we ought to get an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that he is not going to put in the Orders which are to be issued anything which the House of Comons has not authorised. Let me put this case: A person has been married for five years and has six children; four of them are legitimate, and two illegitimate. The Return shows that that person has been married five years and has four children. The right hon. Gentleman says there will be no inquisitorial questions, but I refer him to Clause 11, which says:—
  "Every enumerator shall make a statutory declaration to the effect that the returns furnished by him in pursuance of this Act, or the instructions issued there-under, have been truly and faithfully taken, and that to the best of his knowledge they are correct so far as may be known, and such declaration may be made before a superintendent registrar or registrar, who for that purpose shall have power to take such statutory declaration as if he were an officer by law authorised to administer an oath."
  The enumerator knows that this particular person has six children, and he is bound to go to him and say, "You have made a false declaration," and this unfortunate person has to say that the other two children are illegitimate. What are you going to gain by that? You are going to ask statistics in regard to lunatics, and it appears to me that you are going to increase the number of lunatics by the worry of all these inquisitorial questions. My hon. and learned Friend has done a great service to the country by moving this Amendment. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will see that they are now in an impossible position, and that they cannot allow this to go through after what the right hon. Gentleman has said. If he will accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend he will be doing a great service to the country and earning still greater reputation because every strong man must occasionally admit that he is wrong.
  Mr. REES: I confess that the speech of the hon. Member opposite has thrown doubt in my mind as to what I had previously imagined to be clear. I thought this was an Amendment to omit paragraph (c). The hon. Member in his speech said that if paragraph (c) is omitted, and this information is not got, the State will be deprived of information which it requires

  305
  regarding children—information which, I have no doubt, he rightly believes is very necessary. So far as I understand, paragraph (a) makes it necessary to give particulars of "the name, sex, age, profession, or occupation, condition as to marriage, relation to head of family, birthplace, and (in the case of a person born abroad) nationality, of every living person who abode in every house on the night of the Census day." Every living person includes children, and that elusive person, the widow. I do not understand the hon. Member's point. If this information is required by paragraph (a), why is it necessary in paragraph (c)? [An HON. MEMBER: "The husband may be dead."] If he is dead he cannot be living, and the Census only requires information regarding the living.
  I believe that would be all the information that the State requires. If that is so I should greatly prefer the paragraph to be worded in this way and for this reason. The hon. Member very properly was anxious that we should not allow questions of delicacy to deter us from asking for any necessary information. To that I subscribe; but I submit that we should be careful not to ask any question which savour of indelicacy, and I really do think that to ask the duration of the marriage and follow that by asking the number of children born of the marriage does really open up a vista of past life which is really hardly necessary, and in some cases would be rather painful to the families concerned to deal with. So far as I can make out, paragraph (c) really repeats what is provided by paragraph (a), but if it could be amended in the way suggested by me, so as to omit the words "born of the marriage," I submit that it would not be open to the criticism to which it is open now.
  Mr. BURNS: I listened to the speeches made by the hon. Member for the City of London and other speakers stating that this would involve a very costly and tedious investigation. I can assure them that the additional information sought in the column will not cost more than £2,000 or £3,000. This information has been sought and secured by five or six other countries with beneficial results to everybody. The Royal Statistical Society, who have given this matter special attention, asked that the Schedule and the questions should be framed in a particular way, while the Society of Medical Officers of Health attach great importance to it. A serious
  306
  point was made by the hon. Baronet of the question of age. Everybody knows, and the Noble Lord, who I believe for some time occupied a house in the East End of London, knows, that certain disadvantages ensue from what are known as boy-and-girl marriages, in which "cither the husband or wife, or both, are often very young, with results that are disastrous to the children of those marriages and ultimately to the community. It is exceedingly likely that if we could get information on those marriages a great deal of good could be done. The hon. Member mentioned also the question of illegitimacy. I may point out to the House that the proportion of illegitimate children in this country is not so large as is assumed by a number of speakers. I may say that the illegitimate birth-rate in this country is slowly dropping down. It is less than 4 per cent. of the total births. While we have from thirty-six to forty per thousand of our total births illegitimate, some of the European countries go as high as 250 to 300 per thousand. Therefore, even if you were to allow for any slight error that might accrue from so low a percentage as 4 per cent., there still would be a great balance of advantage from the remaining 96 per cent. of the legitimate births; and when I assure the Noble Lord that both widows and widowers are only 8 per cent., while the husbands and wives of existing marriages are estimated to be 92 percent., he will see that we have a very large margin from which we can draw conclusions. The Noble Lord seemed to be particularly anxious about widows. I can assure the Noble Lord they are a very worthy class, but for this particular purpose, in the opinion of the Statistical Society and the medical officers of health and the Registrar-General, we are likely to get from the 92 per cent. sufficient to draw the general conclusions we wish. The hon. Baronet was under the impression that the enumerator, who is sworn to secrecy and to decency in the carrying out of his duties, is going to put certain questions in a way which he considers this Bill sanctions. I can assure the House that the enumerator will not be allowed and is not required to put the indelicate question that was suggested he would be asked to put. What he is asked to put down is the children issuing from the existing marriage in the house at the time he calls. There is to be no question with regard to legitimacy or illegitimacy. No improper question of that kind is to be put. It does seem to me that no

  307
  serious argument has been adduced why we should vary the new Schedule, that has been tried successfully everywhere else and with which we seek now to make an experiment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman, I think, does not even now appreciate how weak his case is in refusing to insert the words "having been" in the Section under discussion. He says that only 8 per cent. of the marriages are not available for the purpose of drawing conclusions, but these will in all probability include the most important cases. Take, for instance, the single disease, tuberculosis. It will be commonly found in cases where the children suffer on any great scale, and many of them die, that one or other of the parents also died of the disease. If all those cases will be left out of this particular return he is going to compile statistics leaving out the extreme cases which he ought to have in, and which he wishes to trace. That can be remedied by putting in the words "having been." On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman should lay on the Table of the House the Schedule from which he has quoted, so that we may be able to see what he proposes. It is a State Paper, and every State Paper quoted by a Minister should be laid on the Table.
  Mr. BURNS: I have quoted from two or three draft Schedules the kind of question we are going to put in the Schedule, but it has not been finally decided.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman quoted from a draft official Paper, and we are entitled to have it according to the Rules of the House. The Rule has been enforced that Ministers shall lay upon the Table any official document that they quote. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted from an official document; and we are entitled to see the whole of that document. Before the Bill goes to its next stage we are entitled to know whether it really does correspond with the intentions of the Government. I press the point, and I am entitled to press it. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give me an assurance that he is going to lay it on the Table I shall move to report Progress.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: The question of the Irish Census is to come on later, and we are deeply anxious that the points now in dispute should be cleared up. The President of the Local Government Board
  308
  said his intention was in regard to paragraph (c) that the enumerator should only set forth those children found in the house at the time he calls there, without any reference to legitimacy or illegitimacy. May I point out that the wording of the paragraph makes that quite impossible—"(c) in the case of any person who so abode being married, the duration of marriage, and the number of children born of the marriage." It is quite conceivable that there may be twelve children born of the marriage, and six of them may be living abroad, or in other parts of the Empire. Under this provision it will be necessary to specify all the children living in the House when the next Census is taken. The effect of the paragraph is diametrically opposite to that which the President has himself stated to be in his mind. I hope, therefore, that the President of the Local Government Board will see his way to keep an open mind on this subject, and that he will be able to bring this long discussion to an end by answering the House that between this and Report he will consider the Amendment. [An HON. MEMBEB,: "There are no Amendments."] There will be no Report stage if there are no Amendments, but there is another place where Amendments can be made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Even without having recourse to the other place, my hon. Friend the Member for Kerry has an Amendment on the Paper which will enable the matter to be raised again. I hope the President of the Local Government Board will give us an undertaking that this matter is not closed and that he retains an open mind upon it.
  Sir W. ANSON: I desire to refer to the point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. We have to judge whether the drafting carries out the purpose of the Clause, and under the circumstances we are entitled to have the Paper laid on the Table in accordance with the Rule of the House.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: If the right hon. Gentleman does not give us an assurance I shall be obliged to move to report Progress. The right hon. Gentleman, in not laying the Paper on the Table, is breaking the well-known Rule of the House. It is a perfectly well-established thing that when an official document is quoted it has to be laid on the Table. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to refuse. This Rule of Parliament is as definite as any other Rule. He has only to ask anyone

  309
  informed in these matters to. be told so. Sooner or later we are entitled to have the Paper.
  Mr. BURNS: I have heard the Noble Lord making a similar speech about other documents and I am not particularly impressed when he applies that speech to me. Last year I myself quoted a document, the actual official document, and not the purport of it as I did to-night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire asked that the official document should be laid on the Table and I complied with his request. What I did to-night was not what I did then. To-night I only quoted from a possible draft of what might be needed when the Bill was carried to carry out the effect of the Bill. I can assure the Noble Lord I am not desirous either of flouting the House or doing anything which is unusual or irregular. If I had done what he attributes to me it would have been my duty, as in the previous case, to lay the Paper on the Table. He will find from the ruling of Mr. Speaker when a draft is only referred to you are not bound to lay that draft on the Table, but that you are compelled, and properly compelled, when you go definitely into an official document to lay it on the Table.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman's memory misleads him. What he did was not merely to give an outline, but he made it the basis of his argument. The Rule is evidently founded on a very reasonable consideration that if Ministers use official information for the purpose of convincing the House, as a basis of argument that information should be laid fully before the House in order that the House may have its own opportunity of judging whether the argument is well founded or not.
  Mr. MOONEY: On a point of Order. What is the question we are discussing? Is it the Rules of Procedure?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I am making a Motion to report Progress in order that Mr. Speaker might be brought back.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is this not a point of Order for you, Mr. Chairman, to decide, and not Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker has repeatedly ruled that he will not be a court of appeal for your decisions. This is a matter which has taken place under your jurisdiction.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know exactly what the Noble Lord means by saying that
  310
  he is moving to report Progress in order to bring back Mr. Speaker. Clearly the effect would be to recall Mr. Speaker. I think it was in that sense he used the words. Of course, in regard to any point of Order in Committee I am the primary authority.
  Mr. MOONEY: I desire to ask you whether the discussion is on the Bill before the House or whether there is a very definite question whether the President of the Local Government Board is bound to lay a document on the Table?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: If you rule it is improper to put the question now—
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord, as I understand it, is going to move to report Progress because he is dissatisfied with the refusal to place this document on the Table of the House. I think under those circumstances the remarks of the Noble Lord are in order.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I need not assure you I had not the slightest intention of disrespect to your authority. The Rule is stated in the Manual of Proceedings in the Public Business:—
  "If a Minister of the Crown quotes in the House a despatch or other State Paper which has not been presented to the House, he ought to lay it on the Table."
  The right hon. Gentleman did quote. In Sir Erskine May's book the Rule is given as follows:—
  "Another Rule or principle of Debate may be here added. A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other State Paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the Table. This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevents counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. This principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested; and when the objection has been made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in. It has also been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public service."
  That is perfectly clear and definite. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a document for the purpose of founding an argument upon it. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."]
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I desire to know whether you, Sir, have been called upon to rule whether the right hon. Gentleman has or has not quoted from a document which would come under the Rule laid down by Sir Erskine May?
  The CHAIRMAN: That question has not been put to me.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Then may I respectfully put to you, as a point of order, whether the President of the Local Government Board has transgressed the Rule?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a question for the right hon. Gentleman himself to answer. The Rule as laid down by Sir Erskine May is perfectly clear, and there have been numerous rulings upon it. There is one in 1904 by Mr. Speaker: "The rule is that a Minister who quotes from a document may be called upon to lay the Paper before the House; but that is subject to his statement that it is contrary to the public interest so to do. He must take the responsibility for such a statement, and may act upon it." I have no means of knowing whether the right hon. Gentleman quoted from a document or gave the purport of it. I rely upon him to tell me what were the facts in regard to that. If he did quote from a document, and if it is not contrary to the public interest to lay the document upon the Table, he ought so to lay it.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Is the Noble Lord justified in going on with his argument without a decision on your part as to whether or not the right hon. Gentleman has quoted from a document which ought to be laid upon the Table?
  Sir W. ANSON: I understand that you, Sir, have distinctly ruled that if the right hon. Gentleman has founded an argument upon a document in his hand, which document is about to become an official paper, that document ought to be laid upon the Table, but that it must be left to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether or not he did so quote.
  The CHAIRMAN: There is no question of founding an argument. The question is one of fact, which only the right hon. Gentleman can answer, namely, whether he quoted from a document or not.
  Mr. BURNS: The document from which I quoted is not a State Paper, as interpreted by the Standing Orders and by the quotation which has been made from the "OFFICIAL REPORT." I read out from a draft paper which may or may not be the final draft of questions to be submitted to people when the Census is taken; but I did not quote it literally or textually. I gave the purport or the kind of questions that might be adopted if the Bill left the House in its present form. It is clearly in the recollection of the House that I did not do what I did last year when I quoted from a document. On that occasion I did not give the purport only, as I have done to-night, but I gave the ipsissima verba, and I was compelled, in justice to the
  312
  House, to lay the document on the Table. To-night I did not make a quotation, as the Noble Lord suggests. I gave no more than the purport or an outline of what might be done in certain contingencies. Therefore, within the Rule, I am not called upon to do what the Noble Lord asks.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I ask for your ruling, Sir, on the point I have raised.
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon Gentleman began by saying that he had quoted from a document, and then he went on to say that he had not quoted from a document, but had given the substance of what the document contained. The whole point of Order rests upon the question as to whether or not he quoted the ipsissima verba. If the former, he ought to lay the document upon the Table; if the latter, there is no necessity for it.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: In any case I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has certainly pursued a course of action which is unsuitable for the continued discussion of this Bill in the spirit in which we began. The right hon. Gentleman was meeting an argument, and he took a paper in his hand. He read several headings from that paper, and said, "This is a short Schedule we are now issuing." That was a quotation from a document in his possession as a Minister of the Crown. It seems to me a perfectly plain case that the right hon. Gentleman quoted from a document. I quite agree with you, Mr. Emmott, that it is for the right hon. Gentleman to decide whether he quoted or not. If he did not do so I do not think he is treating hon. Members on this side of the House fairly. If he did quote he ought to lay the document on the Table. In any case we are entitled to press this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman has, in fact, since dinner conducted the discussion of this Bill in a manner not calculated to advance its progress and not in a conciliatory way. The right hon. Gentleman snapped a Division at nine o'clock.
  Mr. BURNS: I did not snap a Division. On the contrary, without a single Member of the Opposition being present, and after the private business had been passed, I thought it only fair to the House of Commons to conclude my observations. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), with that vigilance which is characteristic of him. happened to turn up after I had concluded and when an hon. Gentleman the Member

  313
  for one of the Welsh constituencies was speaking. By general assent we went to a Division, and the only Member of the Opposition who was present, the Member for the City of London, alone challenged it. If the Noble Lord thinks that I snapped a Division, and therefore conducted the Debate improperly, and did not treat the House of Commons properly, he does not know anything about it, and is drawing upon his imagination for the facts. Mr. Emmott, I know the House of Commons better than the Noble Lord. It is never advisable to quarrel with the House of Commons even when the House of Commons is inclined to be undisciplined and fractious. Noblesse oblige is the best reply to the Noble Lord. In this case I am going to practise what he has conspicuously not shown in his last observations. Although in my own judgment I am not compelled, either by the Standing Orders or the quotations from the OFFICIAL REPORT to do what the Noble Lord desires. [An HON. MEMBEK: "Oh."] Yes, magnanimity always pays. Although I am not compelled to comply with the Noble Lord's request, as it is obvious that there is a desire on the part of some Members of this House that the whole of what I did not quote should be submitted to the House, I am prepared to submit to the House the whole of that portion of the paper from which I quoted—not the whole of it, I will submit the whole of that part. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Oh."] I did not quote the whole of it. I am prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the whole of that section of new questions to which we want an answer—even that portion which I did not even read—the purport of it. I desire to be more generous than the Noble Lord. I will give not only full measure, but full measure and running over.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I am obliged that the right hon. Gentleman has acceded to my request. I can only regret that the
  right hon. Gentleman did not do it sooner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Of course, under the circumstances I will not continue the Motion to report Progress, but I think we ought to divide upon the Amendment under discussion.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I thoroughly appreciate the courtesy with which the right hon. Gentleman always treats the House, and if I said anything rather nasty about the Division I quite acquit the right hon. Gentleman. It was owing to the very faulty way the indicator worked that we did not know that the Debate on the Amendment was not going on all the time. The right hon. Gentleman said magnanimity is always the best. He used the document as an argument against me in answer to the questions I put him about the inquisitorial character of the questions that were to be put. He read several parts regarding divorced persons and children born before marriage, and so forth. The analogy about producing the document is that of the Law Courts. As the right hon. Gentleman is going to meet us so fairly, I would ask him to put the whole document in.
  Mr. BURNS: I assure the hon. Gentleman I am going to give the House the whole of the five columns.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman has met us very fairly upon this matter, and I desire to express my gratitude. I did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman did what was improper or un-Parliamentary. I think be did what was hostile to the Opposition, but, of course, it was their business to be there.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 61.

  Division No. 77.]

  AYES.

  [10.40 p.m.

  Abraham, William

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Elverston, Harold

  Armitage, Robert

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fenwick, Charles

  Barnes, George N.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Barton, William

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Beale, William Phipson

  Clough, William

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Glover, Thomas

  Boland, John Pius

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Middlebrook, William

  Sherwell, Arthur James '

  Gulland, John William

  Millar, James Duncan

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Mooney, John J.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hancock, John George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen, W.)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sutherland, John E.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Munro, Robert

  Sutton, John E.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Muspratt, Max

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ogden, Fred

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hindie, Frederick George

  Pearce, William

  Verney, Frederick William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Wadsworth, John

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Philipps, Sir 0. C. (Pembroke)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hooper, Arthur George

  Pointer, Joseph

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hudson, Walter

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Lambert, George

  Rees, John David

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, Jonn M. (Tyneside)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wing, Thomas

  M'Callum, John M.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Shackleton, David James

  of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  Marks, George Croydon

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Barnston, Harry

  Gretton, John

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Staveley-Hill, H.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Llewelyn, Major Venables

  Sykes, Alan John

  Bird, Alfred

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Cave, George

  Morrison, Captain James A.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Colefax, Henry Arthur

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Rawlinson and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Sir F. BANBURYmoved in Sub-section 1, paragraph (c), to leave out the words "the duration of marriage and".
  The effect of it will be that we shall be able to take the number of children, but we shall not ask the duration of marriage. It will leave the question of illegitimacy alone. I do not intend to press the Amendment, but I would like to move it for form's sake in order to obtain a reply. It would not do away with the statistics the right hon. Gentleman requires as to the number of children, but it would allow a person who happens to have a child before marriage to return that child without saying it is born illegitimate.
  Mr. BURNS: I can assure the hon. Baronet we attach great importance to the appearance in the Clause of the words "duration of marriage," and I appeal to him not to press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. FELLmoved, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), after the word "marriage" ["the duration of marriage"], to insert the words "or marriages."
  I thought this Amendment would be considered merely a drafting Amendment, but, after the discussion that has taken place, I see it goes to the very root of the matter, and that, so far from separate

  317
  marriages have been left out accidentally, they have been purposely left out. If you are to inquire into this matter at all the inquiry should be thorough and complete, and vital points should not be omitted. There is the case of a widow with children who has married again, and the case of a widower with children who has married again, and possibly married a widow. These cases would materially affect the question of the fertility of marriages, and the particulars of them should be supplied. You would derive a totally wrong conclusion if you omitted a previous marriage by which the wife or the husband might have had children. I think that would be obviated by putting in "or marriages" and "marriages respectively" in the next line.
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: This point has been most carefully considered. The object of confining the inquiries to existing marriages is to keep the information
  as exact as possible. The information will have to be carefully handled, and our reason for limiting the inquiries is simply to lessen the errors of calculation.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR(seated and wearing his hat): I desire to know, Sir, whether, when the Division was first challenged, you did not declare that a certain declaration had been made—that is to say, that you declared that the "Noes" have it?
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not declare that. I did not declare that the "Noes" had it, but I said in the usual form, "I think the Noes have it," but the Committee did not accept my view at that time, and I saw reason to allow the division.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 145.

  Division No. 78.]

  AYES.

  [10.55 P.m.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Colefax, Henry Arthur

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barnston, Harry

  Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Bird, Alfred

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Sykes, Alan John

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Bull, Sir William James

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Cave, George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Morrison, Captain James A.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Younger and Mr. Fell

  NOES.

  Abraham, William

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gulland, John William

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Armitage, Robert

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hancock, John George

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Barnes, George N.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barton, William

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Beale, William Phipson

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Elverston, Harold

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Higham, John Sharp

  Boland, John Pius

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hindle, Frederick George

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Hooper, Arthur George

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Hudson, Walter

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Glover, Thomas

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Clough, William

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pearce, William

  Sutton, John E.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lambert, George

  Phllipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Verney, Frederick William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wadsworth, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rees, J. D.

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Walsh, Stephen

  M Curdy, Charles Albert

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Middlebrook, William

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Watt, Henry A.

  Mooney, John J.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Munro, Robert

  Shackleton, David James

  Wiles, Thomas

  Muspratt, Max

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wing, Thomas

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Summers, James Woolley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master

  Ogden, Fred

  Sutherland, John E.

  of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  And it being Eleven o'clock, the Chairman left the chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).

  DUKE OF YOKK'S SCHOOL (CHAPEL) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [17th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—[Mr. Home]
  Question again put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." Debate resumed.
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): Perhaps by the leave of the House I may ask that they would pass the Second Reading in consequence of the announcement, which most of us have seen in the Press, that the Duke of York's School site has now been purchased by the War Office for the use of the Territorial Force in London. I should not have asked the House to proceed in the absence of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare), the reason for whose absence we all deplore, if it was not that I know that this arrangement meets his view on the matter and the views of those who have expressed opposition to the Bill. I hope the House will allow this stage to pass to-night.
  Mr. CARLILE: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the site of the Duke of York's School, does he refer to the whole of the open space surrounding the school, so that we can understand that none of that is going to be allowed to pass into the hands of the jerry builder?
  Mr. HARCOURT: It is the whole of the eleven acres, more or less. It is the whole thing which is included in what is known as the Duke of York's site which is to be taken over.
  Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a second time.
  Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—[Mr. Harcourt.]

  MILK AND DAIRIES BILL.
  Order for adjourned Debate on Second Reading [14th June] read.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  MASTER of ELIBANKmoved, "That the House do now adjourn."
  Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: I wish to ask the Patronage Secretary, in the event of the Report stage of the Vote on Account going through before eleven o'clock tomorrow, what other Government business, if any, will be taken?
  MASTER of ELIBANK: To-morrow is an allotted day for Supply, and we will riot take any other business.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes after Eleven o'clock.