HC Deb 21 June 1910 vol 18 cc287-319

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 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- 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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- 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. 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. BANBURY

moved 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. FELL

moved, 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 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).