Commons Sitting of 1 July 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Mynyddislwyn Urban District Council Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Carolin's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Dooner's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Ribble Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.

EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION,
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 30th June; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Twelve Orders in Council, dated 13th June, 1913, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 13th June, 1913, regulating the Coinage of the Nyasaland Protectorate [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BRITISH SETTLEMENTS ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 13th June, 1913, making provision for Appeals from the Supreme Court of Gambia to the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone, and from that Court to His Majesty in Council [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COPYRIGHT ACT, 1911.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 13th June, 1913, giving effect to the Accession of the Netherlands on behalf of the Colony of Surinam to the International Copyright Union of Berne [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SEAL FISHERIES (NORTH PACIFIC) ACTS, 1895 AND 1912.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 13th June, 1913, applying Sections 3 and 4 of The Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Act, 1912, to the Dominion of New Zealand [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Report on the Laing Manuscripts preserved in the University of Edinburgh [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (AGRICULTURAL LAND).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 12th June; Mr. Winfrey]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 184.]
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1912. Vol. XLVII., Part III. Prices and Supplies of Corn, Live Stock, and other Agricultural Produce in Great Britain [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Report for 1912–13 on the Administration of the National Insurance Act, Part I. (Health Insurance) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
Copy presented of Fifty-sixth Annual Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, 1912–13 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Copy presented of Supplement to the Forty-second Annual Report of the Local Government Board for 1912–13, in continuation of the Report of the Medical Officer of the Board for 1912–13, containing a Second Report on Infant and Child Mortality by the Medical Officer of the Board [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (SPECIAL PENSIONS).
Copy presented of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1913 of Pensions specially granted under Articles 718 and 1124 of the Pay Warrant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Lymm Urban District Council Bill,
Swanage Urban District Water Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the reduction and re-arrangement of the capital of the Kent Electric Power Company; and for other purposes." [Kent Electric Power [Lords.]
Kent Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. FENWICK reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Keir-Hardie; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hancock.
Mr. FENWICK further reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Education (Scotland) and of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bills: Mr. Vaughan-Davies, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Atherley Jones, Dr. O'Neill, Mr. Brace, Colonel Burn, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Mr. Dixon, Mr. John Edward Gordon, Mr. Orde-Powlett, Major Morrison-Bell, Sir John Spear, Captain Tryon, Viscount Lewisham, and Mr. Butler Lloyd.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  San Thomé.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the twenty-four labourers recruited in Angola for one year for San Thomé, according to Dispatch No. 48 of Mr. Consul Drummond Hay, were repatriated at the termination of their contract?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): Of the twenty-four labourers sent to San Thomé, on 11th November, 1911, in the "Malange," twenty-one were repatriated on 27th November, 1912. The other three do not appear to have returned to the mainland.
  Mr. HARVEYasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the steamship "Portugal" is registered for carrying 500 labourers between Angola and San Thomé; and, if so, whether he will inquire on how many occasions within the last year this vessel has carried such numbers of repatriated labourers back to the mainland?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information on the subject, nor do I consider that any useful purpose would be served by endeavour in to obtain such information.
  Mr. HARVEY: Does not this matter depend on whether or not there really is any means of effectual repatriation?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not think that that is the real point. The real point is that repatriation should proceed at a proper rate. Of course, if there was not sufficient accommodation to enable it to proceed at a proper rate, that would be a thing to be inquired into and be remedied, but the measure of the proper rate is not the capacity of the ship's accommodation, but whether those who are entitled to repatriation are being repatriated.

  Egypt (Delay of Letters).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now made inquiry into the complaint of I. Fisher, of Alexandria, that his letters and papers are retained in the Post Office and handed over to the Russian Consul; whether this has been done with the consent of the Egyptian Government; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter
  Sir E. GREY: From inquiries which I have caused to be made it appears that though Mr. Fisher's correspondence was for a time detained in the Post Office at the request of the Russian Consul at Alexandria, none of Mr. Fisher's letters were at any time handed over to the Russian Consulate, and the correspondence was delivered to Mr. Fisher when he complained. Under the Capitulations Consuls have the right to assistance from the Egyptian Government in investigating cases of crime committed by their nationals, and have thus in their judicial capacity been accustomed in such cases to require the Post Office to remit to them correspondence addressed to their nationals. In this case the Russian Consul asked the Post Office to detain Mr. Fisher's correspondence on the grounds that either Mr. Fisher was a Russian subject, and therefore under his jurisdiction, or that the name was being used as a pseudonym for Adamovitch. In point of fact Mr. Fisher is an Ottoman subject, and the Russian Consul was therefore in this case not the competent judicial authority. The action of the Russian Consul was therefore based on a misapprehension, and he subsequently withdrew his request. It is possible that the Post Office authorities acted with insufficient care in the matter, but Mr. Fisher, at any rate, has withdrawn all complaints against them. To prevent the recurrence of such an incident and to carry out strictly the Capitulatory Law, it has been arranged that in future Consuls shall not address the Post Office officials direct, but send their request through the Egyptian Foreign Office, which is the competent authority to decide on questions of nationality.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the question of opening correspondence be included in that investigation which is going to be made the subject of a Report on the capitulations law?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not think that further investigation is required than that which has already been made in this particular case.

  Consular Reports.
  Mr. BAIRDasked how many Diplomatic or Consular Trade Reports were published in 1912; and how many copies of those Reports were bought by the public?
  Sir E. GREY: I am informed by the Controller of the Stationery Office that
  1642
  206 separate Diplomatic and Consular Trade Reports were published in 1912, and that the average number of copies of each Report bought by the public was 390.

  Criminal Law (India).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received the promised Report by the Government of India as to the desirability of amending the criminal law relating to confessions of guilt so as to prevent the practice of torture by the police; and, if so, whether he will now lay it upon the Table of the House?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): No, Sir.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he stated definitely in this House a short time ago that this Report would be laid during the course of last month, and why has his word to this House not been kept?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I can only tell the House when I expect a certain document from India. As far as my memory serves me, I said on the 17th of June that I expected it within a month of that date.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman quite certain he did not say that he expected it in the course of that month, and would it not be better to give a rather fuller answer than a mere "No, Sir"?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot be quite certain without refreshing my memory when I expected the document to arrive from India. If it does not arrive within a week of the time I said, I am extremely sorry, and must only ask the hon. Member to exercise patience. The hon. Member asked me if I had got the Report and I tell him I have not, which is a perfectly full answer.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is the hon. Member aware that we have been pressing for this Report for some years?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Does the hon. Member expect that we shall have this document in our possession before the discussion on the Indian Budget?
  Mr. MONTAGU: When the question was put down last I communicated with the Government of India and they informed me that this dispatch would probably come home within a month.
  Colonel YATE: When will the Indian Budget be put down?

  Scott (Antarctic) Fund.
  Colonel YATEasked what proportion of the joint annuity of £300 granted to the widow and sister-in-law of the late Dr. Wilson, who perished in the Scott Antarctic Expedition, has been allotted to the widow and what to the sister-in-law; and whether the Secretary of State for India will consider the question of granting the same allowance to each sister of Lieutenant Bowers as has been granted to the sister-in-law of Dr. Wilson?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot answer the first part of the question, for my Department was not concerned with the annuities to Dr. Wilson's dependants. As regards the latter part of the question, I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to his question on 3rd June.
  Colonel YATE: Could the right hon. Gentleman not ascertain from the documents what sum was allotted to the widow and the sister-in-law of Dr. Wilson?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think that it would be more usual for the hon. Member to address his question to the office concerned.
  Colonel YATE: Which is the office concerned?

  Delhi.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he is aware that arrangements were made in 1912 for the reception and judging of competitive designs for New Delhi and that such arrangements were subsequently withdrawn; and whether he can now give an explanation for this change of policy?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No such arrangements as those described by the hon. Member were made. The Government of India at one time thought of inviting competitive designs for a typical secretariat building, but the idea was not pursued owing to the reopening of the question of the site of the new capital, and the subsequent decision to build Government House and adjoining Government offices through selected architects.
  Mr. KINGasked the cost of the temporary buildings recently erected at Delhi in connection with the transfer of the capital from Calcutta; whether the temporary buildings thus erected were designed by the architects permanently employed by the Government of India; and whether more temporary buildings at
  1644
  Delhi are contemplated; and, if so, by whom will they be designed?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The estimated cost of providing temporary buildings at Delhi is £396,700, of which it is expected £110,000 will eventually be recovered. The Secretary of State is not aware that further temporary buildings will be required. No special arrangements were made, so far as is known to him, for the designing of these buildings.
  Mr. KING: The hon. Gentleman has not said anything about the architects employed: were these temporary buildings designed and carried out by the staff of the Government of India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: So far as the Secretary of State is aware no special arrangements were made by the Government for engineers or architects.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the terms of engagement of Messrs. Lutyens and Baker, selected architects for the Government of India, have been finally settled or signed; and whether, if not already signed, such agreement will be delayed till after discussion in this house on the Report of the New Delhi Town Planning Report?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The agreement with the selected architects is in process of settlement. The Secretary of State does not propose to adopt the suggestion made in the last part of the question.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for India (1) whether he will grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset: ["Return of the Reports of the consulting architect to the Government of India on all questions submitted to him since December, 1911, to the present time connected with New Delhi; the consulting architect's introduction to Report on Modern Indian Architecture, recently published in India; and any Reports submitted by Mr. H. V. Lanchester to the Viceroy of India or Secretary of State which have bearing on the building or planning of New Delhi"]; (2) whether the notes or Reports of Mr. H. V. Lanchester on the planning of New Delhi will be published, so that they may be compared with the Report of the Town Planning Committee; and (3) whether he will publish as a White Paper the introduction by Mr. Begg, consulting architect to the Government of India, to the Report on Modern Indian Architecture,

  1645
  recently published in India, so that the views on the building of New Delhi of the official adviser to the Government of India may be more fully known?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Report on Modern Indian Architecture has been placed in the Library of the House, and is procurable from booksellers of Indian publications. The Secretary of State does not consider the introductory chapter by the consulting architect to the Government of India, of sufficient importance to be laid. The other documents mentioned by the hon. Member are not of a form or of a nature for presentation to Parliament.
  Mr. KING: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that by more or less suppressing these documents he is preventing the House and the public from forming any opinion of the policy of the Government of India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: As regards the first document to which my hon. Friend refers, it is already in the Library of the House, and cannot be considered to have been suppressed. In regard to the documents mentioned in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I think if the hon. Member will wait until the issue of the Report which we are going to publish he will then see whether he wants any further information.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for India, whether the opinion of Mr. Begg, consulting architect to the Government of India, recently expressed in an official publication, that the renaissance or classical is the costliest manner of building in India, will be communicated to the selected architects for New Delhi; and whether they will be asked to draw their plans with a view to all possible economy?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Report to which the hon. Member refers has already been communicated to the architects. The necessity for studying economy has already been impressed upon them by the Government of India.
  Mr. KING: Is it likely that the advice will ever be followed?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Economy is always strictly pursued in these matters.

  Madras Military Fund.
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he is aware
  1646
  that in the case of an unmarried daughter of a deceased officer, in receipt of a pension of £40 a year from the Madras Military Fund, who went out to India, this pension under the orders of the Comptroller of Military Accounts was after two years reduced to Rs.350 or £23 6s. 8d. a year on the grounds that, under the orders of the Secretary of State for India, pensioners going out to India were allowed a sterling rate of pension for a period of two years only; and whether the Secretary of State will consider the question of altering this rule and of giving widows and daughters of officers of the Indian Army who may happen to go out and reside in India the benefit of their full pension?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The facts stated in the first part of the question are substantially correct. Under the rules of the fund, framed by the subscribers themselves, pensions drawn in India are payable on the rupee basis. It is solely through a concession of the Secretary of State in Council that pensioners visiting India are allowed for two years the benefit of the high sterling rate of exchange of about 2s. 3½d. per rupee allowed by the fund rules to pensioners residing out of India. The concession has been made at the cost of the Indian taxpayer, and the Secretary of State does not propose to extend its scope.
  Colonel YATE: Is it not the case that this concession is made at the cost of the officers concerned in the fund, and that the Indian taxpayer has nothing to do with it?
  Mr. MONTAGU: One has to arrange with the assistance of the taxpayer.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring this question before the actuaries of the fund to see whether anything can be done, so far as concerns the officers, who themselves subscribe to that fund?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Certainly; I will bring the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion before them, but I think it is not reasonable to expect that the pensions of those who reside for a long time in India should be paid at the same rate as the pensions of people who live out of India.

  Sitapur (Oudh) Case.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary for India, if he will say when the statement of facts in the Sitapur (Oudh) case, sent by Sir Henry Cotton to the

  1647
  Secretary of State on 24th January, was forwarded by him to the Government of India; whether a request was then made for a full Report upon the case; whether the Memorandum sent by the Secretary of State to Sir Henry Cotton on 9th June contained the substance of the only Report that has yet been made by the Government of India on this case; when that Memorandum or Report reached the India Office; whether a despatch asking for further information has now been sent in accordance with the promise given; and when a further Report may be expected?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The statement was sent by the Secretary of State to the Government of India on 29th January, with the request that a Report on the facts should be furnished. The Report was received on the 5th April, and its substance was communicated to Sir Henry Cotton. No other Report has been received. The record of the trial and information as to the delay in preferring an appeal from the acquittal have been telegraphed for; and a dispatch dealing with other aspects of the case will be sent this week.
  Mr. MORRELL: Was any explanation of the facts asked for in the first instance, and when was the Memorandum forwarded to Sir Henry Cotton?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The allegations of fact sent to the Secretary of State by Sir Henry Cotton were forwarded to the Government of India for confirmation.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Why was the Memorandum, which was received on the 5th April by Lord Crewe, not sent to Sir Henry Cotton until two months later, and not until Sir Henry Cotton applied himself?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am afraid the delay in sending the confirmation to Sir John Cotton was owing to an oversight. As soon as Sir Henry Cotton wrote reminding Lord Crewe that he had not received an answer, it was forwarded.
  Mr. MORRELL: Has the dispatch asking for further information actually been sent to India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A telegram has been sent asking for information, and a dispatch suggesting a modification of the rules, in accordance with my promise made last week, will be sent this week.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: As the hon. Gentleman knows that Sir John Hewett is in this country why has he not communicated with him, and why has he not got Sir John Hewett's explanation of the circumstances?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Sir John Hewett, who is in this country, has been communicated with, but as regards the judgment of the Judicial Commissioners and the records of the trial they are not in this country, and until they arrive Sir John Hewett's official explanation will not be forthcoming.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    DEFENCE OF INDIA.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will say what action, if any, has been taken on the proceedings of the Sub-Committee of the Defence Committee which dealt with the defence of India in 1907, and the requirements in this behalf of reinforcements and drafts?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The necessary action has been taken.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary for War if he will state what action the Government proposes to take to attract recruits to the Territorial Force; and what numbers trained, in what manner, and to what extent, the War Office, on the advice of the General Staff, considers necessary for Home defence, in the absence of the Expeditionary Army?
    Colonel SEELY: The matter is receiving the most careful consideration, but it is one which I cannot undertake to deal with within the limits of an answer to a question.
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: In view of the fact that an inquiry by a Departmental Committee has been held into the working of the Territorial Associations, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having a further inquiry as to other steps that may be necessary in order to bring this Territorial Force up to its establishment?
    Colonel SEELY: I shall be very glad to receive any suggestions which my right hon. Friend, or those associated with him, can make, in order to derive advantage from the inquiry to which he has referred.
    Major M'CALMONTasked the Secretary for War whether he can state the total number of horses that would have been required for the London Territorial divisions and mounted brigade for the review on 5th July on Wimbledon Common; whether the completed arrangements included horses available for Regular troops or for other Territorial troops on mobilisation; and, if so, how many?
    Colonel SEELY: About 4,000 horses would have been required. The arrangements for their supply did not include horses in the possession of Regular units.
    Major M'CALMONT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question as to the number of horses available for Territorial units?
    Colonel SEELY: That would involve a very careful and detailed inquiry. If the question is asked as to the number of horses available, I shall be glad to furnish the hon. and gallant Gentleman with the figures.
    Mr. MILDMAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the proposal to increase the allowance to Territorial officers on joining from £20 to £40, he will consider the possibility that a Grant of a similar nature should be made to officers who have served ten years and upwards towards the expenses of renewing uniform and such replacement of the same as is necessitated by the continual changes which have been made?
    Colonel SEELY: It is not practicable to reopen the question of the outfit Grant at the present time, but the hon. Gentleman's suggestion shall be carefully borne in mind.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Reserve mentioned in paragraph 2 of the guide for the use of candidates for commissions in the Territorial Force, 1913, which will, according to that paragraph, support the Territorial Force to the extent of 33 per cent. of its establishment, will be formed from retired Territorials, or from the National Reserve, or from what source; and what are the present numbers of officers and men of this Reserve?
    Colonel SEELY: The Reserve mentioned is the Territorial Force Reserve, which is composed of officers and men who have served in the Territorial Force. The 33 per cent. establishment was fixed to
    1650
    limit the numbers which might ultimately join this Reserve. At present there are only 415 officers and 969 other ranks, but these figures show a gradual increase of numbers.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when this 33 per cent. will be reached?
    Colonel SEELY: No, I am afraid that is a matter of speculation.
    Colonel GREIG: Might not some amelioration be made in the conditions for men joining the Territorial Reserve, so as to enable larger numbers to be taken and which otherwise will be lost altogether?
    Colonel SEELY: I think steps should be taken to increase the Reserve and steps will be taken to that end.

    SOUTHERN COMMAND (PLAIN CLOTHES).
    Mr. ASTORasked if the Secretary for War will state whether his inquiries in regard to the cancellation in the Southern Command of the privilege of wearing plain clothes are completed; and whether it is proposed to reconsider the question?
    Colonel SEELY: The matter has now been inquired into, and it has been decided to remove the restrictions referred to in this question.

    OFFICERS' PAY.
    Captain CLIVEasked the Secretary for War whether his proposals for increasing the pay of officers have yet been settled in detail; and, if so, whether he will at once inform the India Office, so that the question of extending these increases to the Army in India may be considered?
    Colonel SEELY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East, on the 25th ultimo, to which I have nothing at present to add.

    RIFLE CLUBS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has arrived at any decision as to making a grant to rifle clubs of ammunition or money to purchase ammunition for the purpose of practising rifle shooting; and, if so, whether he will state the result of his decision?
    Colonel SEELY: This question forms part of the much wider question as to the whole future position of rifle clubs and

    1651
    associations in relation to the Army, and it is not at present possible to announce a definite decision.
    Mr RUPERT GWYNNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will be able soon to see his way to announce a definite decision?
    Colonel SEELY: I cannot say; but certainly before very long.

    TROOPS IN IRELAND.
    Mr. HORNERasked how many troops are at present stationed at Londonderry, Omagh, Enniskillen, and Belfast, respectively; how many are at other places in Ulster; and what is the total number of troops in Ireland?
    Colonel SEELY: It is not usual to publish the present strength of individual garrisons. The total number of troops in Ireland amounts to about 25,000 officers and men.

    MILITARY MANŒUVRES.
    Mr. HORNERasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is contemplated to hold military manœuvres in Ulster next year; and, if so, can he state the month when they are likely to be held, the places where they are likely to be held, and approximately the number and classes of troops which will take part in them?
    Colonel SEELY: There is no intention of holding any military manœuvres in Ulster next year, other than the ordinary annual training of the units stationed in that part of Ireland.
    Mr. HORNERask the Secretary for War if he is aware that the police have been recently making inquiries from farmers in county Tyrone and elsewhere in Ulster as to whether they will supply or lend horses to the military authorities next year for manœuvres in Ulster; on whose instructions are the police acting; and what is the nature of the instructions?
    Colonel SEELY: Nothing is known at the War Office of the inquiries referred to.

  AIRCRAFT.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS (ACCIDENTS).
    Captain FABERasked if the Secretary of State for War whether he has now seen the Report of the public safety and accidents investigation committee of the Royal Aero Club relative to the deaths of
    1652
    Lieutenants Arthur and England; whether the Report concerning the death of the former is that the joint between the new and the old piece of the main spar of the aeroplane had been made in a most improper and unsafe manner, and that the Royal Flying Corps and Royal Aircraft Factory contained no entry of this repair; whether the latter should have had such an entry; whether he still attaches no blame to anybody for the deaths of these officers; and whether, if there is blame, to whom it should be attributed?
    Colonel SEELY: I have seen the report in question. The strictest instructions are laid down for recording repairs effected to Army aeroplanes, but as regards the accident to Lieutenant Arthur, in spite of most careful inquiry, it has been impossible to ascertain by whom the repair was carried out. Blame is undoubtedly attributable to some person unknown; the repair appears to have been made without authority and wilfully concealed by replacing the fabric. Mr. England was not an officer of the Royal Flying Corps and the aeroplane in which he met his death did not belong to the Government.
    Mr. FELL: In view of the very grave facts stated by the War Minister, is the right hon. Gentleman making further inquiries as to whether there was bad material and bad workmanship in this machine, and can he find out?
    Colonel SEELY: There is nothing new in what I have said, and I only repeated what I had told the House before. There is no question of bad material or bad workmanship in the original machine, but some accident occurred which was secretly repaired by an unauthorised person, who has not been discovered. It is possible that such an accident will not occur again, though of course one cannot be sure, but after most careful inquiry I do not think such an accident is likely to occur again.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the accident occurred after the machine came into the hands of the military authorities or before?
    Colonel SEELY: We cannot tell how the accident occurred, though the most careful inquiry has been made; nor do I believe it is possible to find out when this injury was sustained. The guilty party who made the repair has not been discovered, but I do not think that this kind of accident is ever likely to occur again.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: Was the machine a new one or a second-hand one?
    Colonel SEELY: Speaking from recollection, it was a new machine when bought, and a very good one, too. It is impossible to detect their little defects, or it appears to be impossible, when they are repaired and carefully concealed by some guilty person.

    Small Holdings (Scotland).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that Mr. D. M'Donald, Blackhills, Aldearn, Nairn, applied for a small holding 15 months ago; that a Sub-Commissioner called on him in January; that land suitable for a holding was pointed out to him; and that the applicant has heard nothing snore of it; whether the applicant was able to prove his financial suitability for undertaking a holding; whether he is aware that the applicant now threatens, owing to the delay of the Board, to join his sons, who are all prosperously engaged in agricultural pursuits in the Colonies; and whether he will take steps to prevent this applicant from carrying out his threat?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The reply to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative; the applicant was informed on the 12th June that inquiries were proceeding on his behalf, and recently a letter was addressed to the proprietrix, inquiring whether she was prepared to make the land available. The Board of Agriculture are satisfied as to the financial qualifications of the applicant. They understand that he is considering the possibility of joining a son in Canada, if his application fails.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Mr James Paterson, Glen Dyce, Strachan, Banchory, applied for a small holding over a year ago; that this applicant duly filled up the schedule supplied by the Scottish Board of Agriculture and has received no communication from the Board regarding his application; and will he say what steps he proposes to take to meet the wishes of the applicant and what is the specific reason for delay in this case?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware of the facts of this case. The Board of Agriculture for Scotland hope shortly to send a Sub-Commissioner to the North-East of Scotland.

    Argentine (Meat Supply).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister what steps His Majesty's Government is taking to prevent the control of the meat supply from Argentina to this country becoming the monopoly of two or three American firms?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire was informed on 11th June, the matter appears to His Majesty's Government to be primarily one for the consideration of the Government of Argentina. It is not altogether apparent that anything in the nature of a monopoly is contemplated by the American firms in question, and in any case I doubt whether independent action could usefully be taken on this side at the present moment.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that representatives of these firms giving evidence before a Departmental Committee appointed by this House made statements which proved not only to be misleading, but in many respects false, and those statements have been under investigation by the City Corporation?
    Mr. BUXTON: If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice I will look into the matter.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has information to the effect that the American firms which control the Argentine meat trade are preparing to include Australia in their operations; and, if so, what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take to prevent the control of the Colonial supply of meat to this country falling into the hands of a foreign monopoly?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have no information as to the intentions of the firms to which the hon. Member refers.

    St. Kilda.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can give the House any further information regarding the epidemic of influenza in St. Kilda and what is being done to cope with it; and whether he san say when some kind of permanent communication between the island and the mainland is likely to be established?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Medical Officer of the Local Government Board for Scotland, who went to St. Kilda, reports that the epidemic of influenza there is practically over, and that before he left the island he satisfied himself that all the patients were convalescent. As regards the last part of the question, I have no information beyond what I have already given to my hon. Friend, and for further information I would refer him to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.

    Education (Scotland) (Glasgow Electoral Divisions) Bill.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the need for and the non-contentious character of the Education (Scotland) (Glasgow Electoral Divisions) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow; and whether he will give facilities for its passing into law during the present Session?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am giving consideration to the Bill to which my hon. Friend refers and hope to be able to facilitate its passage.

    Dunfermline District Water Order, 1913.
    Mr. MUNROasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the provisions contained in the draft of the Dunfermline District Water Order, 1913, as passed recently in Edinburgh by a Parliamentary Committee, and in particular to the facts that, while the total estimated water supply obtainable under the Order by the district committee of the county council is 5,250,000 gallons per diem, of this total the district committee has come under obligations to sell or offer to other communities and private persons 4,570,000 gallons, leaving only an expected balance of 680,000 gallons for the certain supply of a district in which it is well known that an early and substantial increase of population is certain; whether he has sanctioned the precedent thus to be established, whereby a water supply provided by Parliament for a particular community may be sold in advance for the preferable use of outside communities or persons, with all the risks attendant on such a venture; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have had under consideration the provisions of this draft Order. The figures quoted by the
    1656
    hon. Member are erroneous in respect that the expected balance available for the supply of the district of the promoters should be 1,405,000 gallons per diem instead of 680,000 gallons, as stated in the question, or more than double. The Order was inquired into by Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and after full consideration of the details of the scheme and hearing all parties interested the Commissioners recommended me to issue the Order, with certain modifications, which I propose to do without delay. I would remind my hon. Friend that Section 9 of the Procedure Act contains provisions affording parties who may be dissatisfied with Commissioners' ruling a further opportunity of raising the matter in Parliament, before whom the Order will be laid in a Confirming Bill in due course.
    Mr. MUNRO: Assuming the corrected figures which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted, is it not the case that the Scottish Office has the right and exercises the right of revising these draft Orders if it sees fit, and does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do so in this instance?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As this has been a matter of inquiry by Commissioners, I do not feel justified in revising it.

    Board of Agriculture (Scotland).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that John Buchanan has been evicted by sheriff officers and the Oban police from the farm of Baugh, Tiree, which has been taken by the Board of Agriculture (Scotland); what are the reasons for his eviction; and whether he will state the circumstances in which Mrs. Buchanan, the widow of the late tenant of Baugh, was refused continuance of the tenancy?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Board of Agriculture has no responsibility for the eviction. I am informed that the house, which has been the residence of the doctor in the past, was required by the estate as the residence of the new doctor, the lease having expired.

    Federated Malay States.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether officers now in receipt of pensions for service in the Federated Malay States are entitled to have their pensions

    1657
    paid to them at the rate of 4s., or its equivalent in local currency to the dollar, while living in the United Kingdom or in any country, other than the Netherlands, India, of which the currency is based on a gold standard; whether the Federated Malay States is not now a country in which the currency is based on a gold standard; whether consequently there is now any sufficient reason for paying such pensioners at a reduced rate of about 2s. 4d. a dollar in cases where they decide to hold their pensions in the Malay States; whether an officer who has served in the medical department of the States has made application for the full payment of his pension at the rate of 4s. a dollar, to which he is entitled; and whether that application has been refused by the local Government?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Certain officers who were in receipt of a dollar salary in the Federated Malay States and whose pension was accordingly calculated in dollars are entitled to have their pensions converted into sterling at 4s. to the dollar when residing in gold standard countries. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, pensioners residing in the Federated Malay States naturally receive their dollar pensions in dollars, and no question of exchange arises. The officer has claimed to be paid pension at 4s. to the dollar in the Federated Malay States as well as in the United Kingdom, and this application has been refused. His pension, when paid to him in this country, is converted at the full rate of 4s.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the part of the question which refers to the fact that the Federated Malay States have now a gold standard?
    Mr. HARCOURT: It is a question whether the salary should be calculated by dollars or exchange.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, having regard to the fact that prices have risen considerably in the Federated Malay States, and in consequence of the adoption of a gold standard, some injustice has not been done to this distinguished medical officer by being paid in dollars
    Mr. HARCOURT: I will consider that.

    British East Africa (Masai Chiefs).
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will publish in a White Paper
    1658
    or circulate with the Votes the text of the judgment of the Chief Justice of the High Court of British East Africa, in which the decision is given that the Court has no power to try the action brought by certain Masai chiefs to contest the legality of their transfer from the Northern Reserve; and whether he can state if an appeal has yet been lodged against the judgment?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir, when I have received the text of the judgment. So far as I am aware, no appeal has been lodged against the judgment.

    Fiscal Policy (United Kingdom).
    57. Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if during the current year any Government of the Dominions Overseas has made representations to the Imperial Government suggesting any alteration in the fiscal policy of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why a number of official representatives of the Overseas Dominions attended a demonstration on 24th May, at the Queen's Hall, organised by the Imperial Mission, well known to be an adjunct of the Tariff Reform League?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not know anything about the Imperial Mission. I am quite sure representatives of the Oversea Dominions would resent very much being drawn into anything in the nature of a political demonstration.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Imperial Mission has nothing whatever to do with the Tariff Reform League?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not know what the Imperial Mission has to do with.
    Mr. OUTHWAITErose——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice. This has nothing whatever to do with the question on the Paper.

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools.
    58. Mr RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that on the 4th June the acting chief inspector of reformatory and industrial school had never heard of a boy whose education on

    1659
    his admission to a reformatory was sufficiently advanced to admit of his being placed in Standard VII., he is aware that in 1912, out of about fifty boys entering the Kingswood, Bristol, reformatory, nine were placed in Standard VII. and three in Standard VI.; and whether he will consider the desirability, by administrative or legislative means, of seeing that higher education than is provided by these standards should be given to such boys?
    Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury, for Mr. McKenna): I find on inquiry that in 1912 nine boys were placed in Standard VII. on admission to the Kings-wood Reformatory School, but in seven of these cases it was afterwards found that the boys were unfit for that standard. The whole question of educational provisions in these schools is now under consideration in connection with the Report of the Departmental Committee.
    Mr. BOOTH: Will there be any opportunity given to the House to discuss the Report?
    Mr. GULLAND: The hon. Member had better ask that when the Report appears.
    Mr. BOOTH: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Report will be presented?
    Mr. KING: Is it, not the fact that the Report came out two or three weeks ago?

    Religions Census (Prisons).
    Mr. HAY MORGANasked the Home Secretary whether a religious census has recently been taken of the inmates of His Majesty's prisons; and, if so, whether he will grant a Return of this census on the lines of the White Paper issued in 1906?
    Mr. GULLAND: If my hon. Friend will put down an unstarred question, I shall be glad to give the results of a recent census.
    Mr. KING: Can we have that information before the Third Reading of the Established Church (Wales) Bill?

    Sir Victor Horsley.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked the Home Secretary the result of his communication to the Royal College of Surgeons as to the charges made by Sir Victor Horsley with reference to the treatment of Miss Lilian Lenton while in prison; and if he will submit the terms of his communication and reply thereto, in order to afford the House an opportunity
    1660
    of drawing its conclusions with regard to the serious allegations made and the grounds on which he addressed his complaint to the College of Surgeons?
    Mr. GULLAND: If the hon. Member will move for the correspondence, I shall be glad to lay it on the Table of the House.

    "Hunger-Striking" in Gaol.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can give the present number of persons of either sex who, as a protest against terms of imprisonment to which they have been sentenced for offences other than those in connection with the demand for the enfranchisement of the female sex, have refused and are refusing to take nourishment; and whether, in the case of such persons, accurate observation is being taken of the result to their bodily health of such abstinence, and any loss of weight or other physical symptoms recorded for the future guidance of the prison medical authorities?
    Mr. GULLAND: I mentioned three such cases in my reply on the 24th of June to the question of the hon. Member for the Dulwich Division. These are the only cases that have been brought to the notice of the Prison Commissioners, and it is believed that there are no others; but it is not possible to say so definitely without circularising all the prisons. Careful observation is kept and recorded by the medical officers.

    Hull Post Office.
    Sir MARK SYKESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, although the Hull sorting staff has been increased several times for week-day work, the increase has not been made to apply to the sorting staff for the Sunday night mail; and whether, seeing that the duties of the Sunday sorters have grown considerably heavier since their numbers were last decided upon, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The question of increasing the staff on duty in the Hull sorting office on Sunday evenings has been considered, but the inspections of the duty which have been made by the responsible officers indicate that there is no necessity for such increase.

    Wireless Telegraphy.
    Sir HENRY NORMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give particulars of the wireless station to be erected in the Orkney Islands; who is erecting the buildings and supplying the plant; and what will be the power and nature of the wireless equipment?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I have been asked to reply to this question. Neither the Admiralty nor the Post Office are erecting a wireless station in the Orkneys. The misconception probably arises from the fact that the Admiralty are erecting a new visual signal station in these islands.
    Sir H. NORMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will explain why all progress in the Imperial chain of wireless stations has been prevented by the non-ratification of the agreement between the Post Office and Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company; whether he is aware that Commissions have selected the sites and secured options upon the land, in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee; whether he has any official reports showing that this country has been deprived of advantages in wave-length and priority; and, if so, will he say what country has secured the advantages we are alleged to have lost; will he explain why no step which will be now taken can nut us back into the position which has been lost; and what was the nature of the advantageous position which this country cannot recover?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend is, I presume, criticising the reference I made, when introducing the Navy Estimates, to the grave loss suffered by Admiralty interests owing to the delay in ratifying the Marconi Agreement. It is, I believe, true that the Post Office and the Indian and South African Governments have taken whatever steps are necessary to secure the sites provisionally, so as to be ready for work to commence as soon as the scheme is definitely approved, but it would be idle to argue that no time has been lost. The advantage of being first in the field in a scheme of world-wide communication is, I think, sufficiently obvious, even apart from the special consideration that an already existing organisation of wireless wavelengths would be recognised as having a right to be free from interference by subsequent organisation. It is a matter of common knowledge that several foreign
    1662
    countries are projecting extensive schemes. I do not think it would be in the public interest to discuss the precise stage which each has reached and the exact nature of the effect each might have on the British scheme. I must emphatically repeat that the Admiralty, on naval grounds, and with no sort of regard for private interests of any kind, is earnestly desirous that some efficient system of world-wide wireless communication under British control should be established as soon as possible; and, with all deference to the interest shown by the House in other aspects of the question, I am afraid that this national aspect has been somewhat overlooked.
    Sir H. NORMAN: Am I to infer from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that advantages may be lost in the future rather than that they have been lost up to the present?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said that I do not think it would be in the public interest to discuss the precise stage which the schemes of foreign countries have reached and the exact nature of the effect each might have on the British system. Therefore, I cannot deal profitably at the present time with the question raised by my hon. Friend as to the possible irrevocable character of the injury. But injury has certainly been done; the question is in what way it can best be repaired.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the agreement itself it is laid down that these installations are not to be installed until twelve months after the date upon which the Postmaster-General shall notify the company that the buildings have been erected? Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the buildings have not been erected?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension. The twelve months is not the minimum but the maximum time.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not laid down in paragraph 4 of the agreement?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That the stations shall be completed within twelve months.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: After the date.
    Other hon. Members rose——
    Mr. SPEAKER: This seems to be more suitable for the Committee.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. DELANYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now prepared to accede to the request of the inhabitants of Durrow, Queen's County, to have the telephone system extended to that town, seeing that the requisite guarantees are forthcoming?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension, as the support hitherto obtained is not sufficient to warrant the extension of the telephone system to Durrow. I will write to the hon. Member stating the precise conditions on which the scheme can be proceeded with.
    Mr. ASTORasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that an application was made in March last for the installation of a telephone at 13, Grosvenor Place; that on 28th April an agreement for an exchange line and internal extension was accepted on behalf of the Postmaster-General, and will he explain why no instrument has yet been installed; and why, on the applicant calling at the General Post Office, it was stated that no promise can be given that an instrument will be installed this year or within any specified time?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The first application was received on the 5th of April, but the agreement was not signed until the 20th of April, in consequence of the subscriber's absence abroad. The reason for the delay in providing the service was a temporary shortage of wires in existing cables and of exchange accommodation. A new cable has been laid, and the service was provided from the Regent Exchange, on the 28th June. I have been unable to verify any statement made at the Post Office to the effect that no promise could be given to instal the instrument this year. But having regard to possible wayleave and other difficulties in installing a telephone service, it is frequently necessary to inform subscribers that no definite date can be given for the completion of an installation.
    Earl WINTERTON: In view of the constant complaints of delay in setting up telephones after the agreements have been signed, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire why there was a shortage of cables?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am afraid there has been a shortage of cable and
    1664
    also of exchange accommodation in a large number of districts taken over from the National Telephone Company.
    Earl WINTERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it a satisfactory state of affairs that it should take two months to install a telephone?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; I should like to see the period very much diminished. As a matter of fact, telephones are now being installed in a comparatively short time as a rule. There are exceptional cases, especially where wayleave difficulties arise.
    Earl WINTERTON: The worst telephone system in the world!

  ROYAL NAVY.

    PETTY OFFICERS AND SEAMEN (DAMAGED CERTIFICATES).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is competent for commanders to issue damaged certificates to petty officers and seamen on leaving; whether the men have any appeal to a higher authority against such action; and if any inquiry is provided for under the Regulations before such certificates are issued?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I do not understand what is meant by "damaged certificates." If the phrase has reference to the practice of cutting off the corner of the certificate in cases in which a man is discharged with a bad character or with disgrace, this is authorised by Article 818, clause 11, of the King's Regulations. If the phrase has reference to the possibility of endorsements becoming illegible, the Regulations provide for an annual inspection of the certificates of all men serving on board His Majesty's ships, and if in the course of this examination any entries are found to be illegible, steps are taken to have the particulars verified and reinserted, while damaged certificates are replaced by copies.
    Mr. F. HALL: In regard to the certificates which are cut off to a certain extent, will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In Article 817, clause 9, it is provided that after each annual assessment, the characters recorded are to be read to the men at general muster. This would afford an opportunity

    1665
    to any man who felt himself aggrieved to lodge complaint. Article 8 (a) provides for an appeal.

    CANTEEN (CROMARTY).
    Mr. MUNROasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has decided, in view of impending developments at Cromarty, to establish a naval canteen there; and, if 30, whether he will state the conditions under which it is proposed to conduct the canteen, and the object to which its profits will be applied?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is the intention to establish a canteen at Cromarty for the benefit of men of the Home Fleets visiting Cromarty Firth, generally on the lines of that established at Lamlash. With regard to the points referred to by my hon Friend in the latter part of the question, the whole matter is still in the early stages of consideration, and it would be premature at present to make any definite statement.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the Admiralty use their influence to extend to the people of Scotland the scheme of disinterested management which apparently they wish for the sailors?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is outside the province of the Admiralty.

    ANTIQUARIAN DISCOVERIES (CROMARTY).
    72. Mr. MUNROasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that both Cromarty Hill, South Sutor, and Nigg Hill, North Sutor, on which operations are being conducted under the auspices of the Admiralty, are of great interest to antiquarians; whether he will give instructions that any objects of antiquarian interest which may be found in the course of the projected operations will be carefully preserved; whether he is aware that in Inverness there are skilled archaeologists and a society termed the Inverness Scientific Society and Field Club; and whether he can arrange for notifying the club of any discovery of the kind indicated, with a view to the preservation intact of any antiquarian objects of interest which may be found?
    Mr. G. LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): I was not aware that the sites acquired by the Admiralty at Cromarty were of great interest to antiquarians. Should any discoveries be made action shall be taken to preserve records. I will consider the question of notifying the society referred to should occasion arise.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say since when and why these operations have been taken away from the Army and are being carried out by the Admiralty?
    Mr. LAMBERT: That does not arise out of the question, but the point was raised on the Navy Estimates and a satisfactory answer given.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the plain question of fact—why the matter is being carried out by the Admiralty now?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: When the Vote concerned comes up for discussion I shall probably have to make a statement on the subject.

    ROYAL MARINES (OFFICERS' PAY).
    Mr. HICKS BEACHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the rates of pay of junior officers in the Royal Marines are to be raised in order to bring them into conformity with the increases announced for Army and Navy officers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter will receive consideration in due course when the details of the Army scheme have been settled.

    OIL FUEL
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister whether Vote 8 for the Navy may be taken at an early date, in order that the First Lord of the Admiralty may make his promised statement upon the provision of future supplies of oil fuel for the Navy?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I will bear the Noble Lord's suggestion in mind, and I hope to be able to meet his wishes.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he would not give us this week either that or the main Vote of the Army?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Not this week.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if members of approved societies have any, and, if so, what remedy when sickness benefit is withheld from them; if a society accepts an insured person on receiving evidence that he is duly employed, is it justified in withholding sickness or other benefit after he has made

    1667
    the requisite number of contributions and to expel him from the society; and, if so, whether the man is entitled to the return of his contributions in order that he may become a Post Office contributor?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Section 67 of the Act provides that any member of an approved society who is dissatisfied with a decision of the society terminating his membership has a right to appeal, first to the tribunal appointed under the rules of the society for the settlement of disputes, and then, subject to the regulations made under the Act, to the Commissioners. I am not sure whether the hon. Member has a particular case in mind. If he has, I shall be glad to make inquiry if he so desires
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask whether in the case referred to in this question the insured person is entitled to have a refund of his contributions, or, on the other hand, whether he will he accepted as a Post Office contributor; and further I may add I have a special case for the right hon. Gentleman to deal with?
    Mr. MASTER MAN: After investigation the man will receive all that he is entitled to.
    Mr. F. HALL: Supposing, for instance, the man made an application to be admitted as a member of a society would he have his contributions refunded?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: He can always leave the society at transfer value, and either join another society when that transfer value will be placed to his credit, or become a deposit contributor.
    Mr. F. HALL: Would the right hon. Gentleman——
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have an interview with the Minister in the Lobby.

    HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS MEDICAL SERVICE.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury when the Bill dealing with the special Highlands and Islands medical service Grant (£42,000 per annum) will be introduced; and whether he is aware that the Scottish Members are anxious that he should adhere to the promise made when the deputation of Scottish Members waited upon him some weeks back as to the authority to administer the Grant?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope that it will be possible to introduce the Bill at a very early date. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affimative. The proposals contained in the Bill will be framed on that basis.
    Mr. WATT: In order to obtain facilities for the passage of this Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Government the necessity of throwing overboard the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill?

    Colour-Blindness.
    Lord HUGH CECILasked the President of the Board of Trade whether by the directions of the Board a lantern test has recently been substituted for a wool test in respect to colour-blindness; whether nearly 50 per cent. of cases of colour-blindness detected by the lantern test passed the wool test; whether the defects of the wool test were pointed out nearly twenty-five years ago by Dr. Edridge Green; and why the Board of Trade have so long preferred the advice of those who, advocated the wool test?
    Mr. BUXTON: On 1st April last a lantern test was introduced and certain modifications were made in the wool test previously used for examining candidates. Of the failures in the first two months in which the new tests have been in force about 50 per cent. passed the modified wool test, but deficiency was detected by the lantern. The Holmgren wool test has been adversely criticised by Dr. Edridge Green for many years. In adopting the test in 1894 the Board of Trade acted on the advice of a very strong committee of the Royal Society, presided over by Lord Rayleigh. The lantern test was adopted on the recommendation of a Committee which I appointed in l910 to consider whether any alterations in the sight tests were required.

    Steamship "Corsican" (Death of Stevedore).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to an inquest held at Stratford on the body of a stevedore who was working on board the steamship "Corsican" at the Victoria Dock, and in consequence of a defective hatch was fatally injured by a fall down the ship's hold; if he is aware that the coroner

    1669
    agreed that, on the evidence presented, several hatches were short; that the jury returned a verdict of "Accidental death owing to a defective hatch"; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. GULLAND: The Home Secretary has received a report on this case, and the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend in the question. There is no provision in the Act or Regulations which makes the use of defective hatch covers an offence, and, as new covers have now been provided, there is no further action to be taken as regards the present case. The Home Secretary is causing inquiries to be made in regard to the other vessels of the line.

    Irish Language and Literature (Bibliography).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether lie is now in a position to state when the bibliography of Irish Language and Literature will be published, and at what price it will be sold to the public?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): Owing to an unforeseen delay as regards a special paper for this work, the printing-off has been retarded. It is hoped, however, that the book will be issued about the end of August next. The Department are informed that His Majesty's Statonery Office have not yet fixed the price at which the work will be sold.
    Mr. BOLAND: Is the delay due to the difficulty in providing Irish-made paper; if so, what was the reason for delay?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am not able to give any further information.
    Mr. BOLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether, as a matter of fact, Irish-made paper is going to be used in this book?

    Irish Land Commission.
    Mr. BRADYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recently published evidence before the Royal Commission on the Civil Service by Mr. Commissioner Bailey, of the Irish Land Commission, in which he stated that there are a number of temporary or non-established clerks now employed in
    1670
    that office doing good work, and who have been employed in the service of the State for many years, but have no pension rights, and that the Treasury have no more than one occasion when applied to by the Commissioners refused to sanction pensions to these officials; and what steps the Government is prepared to take to remove the grievance of these officials?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): My attention has been called to Mr. Commissioner Bailey's evidence. The question of the position of the various classes of officers in the un-established Civil Service is a large one, and any recommendations which the Royal Commission may make on the subject will require very careful consideration. The case of the Land Commission can hardly be dealt with apart from the rest of the Civil Service.

    Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
    Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary how many evicted tenants were dealt with in 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912, and the total; how many still remain to be dealt with; will he state the number of inspectors who had any part in dealing with the aforesaid tenants; and whether the same inspectors are still working or under salary; and, if so, what duties are they employed at?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Up to the 31st May, 3,273 persons have been reinstated as evicted tenants or representatives of evicted tenants in their former holdings or provided with other holdings, and 297 are provisionally noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land as acquired by the Estates Commissioners. The quarterly returns presented to Parliament under Section 3 of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, give detailed particulars of the evicted tenants or their representatives who have been reinstated or provided with other holdings. The work in connection with the reinstatement of evicted tenants is part of the general work of the inspection staff of the Estates Commissioners, and they carry out the duties assigned to them by the Commissioners.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether application has been made by the sub-tenants on the Grattan-Bellew estate, Queen's County, for permission to purchase their holdings;

    1671
    whether the middlemen on the estate have consented to the request of their subtenants to be permitted to purchase; and, if not, can he say what course the Commissioners propose adopting?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received a communication on behalf of the sub-tenants on the estate of Sir Henry Grattan-Bellew, Queen's County, of the nature referred to in the question. This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants under the Land Purchase Acts, and has been inspected, and the Commissioners are in communication with the vendor in regard to the cases of the sub-tenants and other matters. The Commissioners are not at present in a position to make any statements regarding the matters referred to in the latter part of the question.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in his evidence before the Committee on Irish Finance the Commissioner of Valuation stated that Griffith's valuation of agricultural land was considerably below the statutory value; whether he is aware that judicial rents and land purchase annuities have been fixed in many cases below Griffith's valuation; and whether, in using Griffith's valuation, a judicial rent or a land purchase annuity as a basis from which to deduce the full capital value of land an under-estimation of from 20 to 30 per cent. will be arrived at?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Griffith's valuation is, generally speaking, considerably below the statutory value of agricultural land. This statutory value includes not only the rent but the occupier's interest. Both of these would be taken into account when arriving at the full capital value.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: On what authority does the right hon. Gentleman make that statement?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could not answer that, but I think it is the usual authority.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Does it agree with Sir John Barton's evidence before the Committee on Irish Finance?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could not answer that without notice.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is it Sir John Barton's opinion he has given in his answer?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot say. I can only say that the information I have received is through the usual authorities, but I think it would be very unusual to specify a particular official.

    Secondary Education (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when he expects to introduce his Bill dealing with secondary education in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's question on this subject on 11th June.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: If the right hon. Gentleman were satisfied that a Bill dealing with the preparatory grade alone would be received by the House unanimously, would he then introduce it?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am most anxious to make some reform in the system of intermediate education, and I wish we had more time available for this important question, but unless there is agreement at the present stage of the Session it is impossible for me to proceed with it.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: If the right hon. Gentleman could be assured of unanimity if he introduced a Bill to deal with the preparatory grade alone, would he then introduce that Bill?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not quite sure that in that case I should have the support of the Intermediate Education Commissioners, whom I am also very anxious to carry with me.
    Mr. BARRIE: Is the assurance the right hon. Gentleman requires that there should be agreement with the Intermediate Education Commissioners rather than with the Members that represent Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is quite true that that does affect me. At the same time it is a technical matter. The Intermediate Education Commissioners have to carry out the working of the thing, and I should be very sorry, unless I could not help it, to disregard their well-instructed opinion.
    Mr. BARRIE: Will the £40,000 Grant for secondary education be lost to Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That has nothing to do with it.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is yet in a position to say that the Grant of £40,000 for secondary education in Ireland is being voted; whether a large number of public and representative bodies in Ireland have expressed themselves strongly in favour of his proposal and not one against; and, if so, on what grounds does he justify his delay in making the Grant available?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not at present in a position to state definitely that the Grant referred to will be voted. I am about to publish the correspondence I have had on this subject with the Catholic Head Masters' Association, and I still hope that the Grant may be made available.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: When may we expect the correspondence?
    Mr. BIRRELL: In a few days.

    Africa and South America (Labour Conditions).
    F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any steps have been taken, or are proposed to be taken, to schedule those industrial areas in Africa and South America where the conditions of labour are known to be unsatisfactory and where British capital is invested, or where companies are located which are wholly or partly under British management, with a view to the prevention of the state of affairs which has been found to have existed in Putumayo?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The whole question of the steps to be taken in this matter is being considered by His Majesty's Government.

    Agricultural Land (Finance Act, 1909–10).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will state the methods adopted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to ascertain the value of land for agricultural purposes under Section 26 (1) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and, in particular, whether they take into consideration in arriving at such value charges and outgoings, whether fixed or temporary, and also rates and taxes?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The value of land for agricultural purposes under Section 26 (1) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, is the market value of the fee simple of the land for such purposes,
    1674
    including any value attributable to the use for agriculture of buildings and other structures. Rates and taxes, and other outgoings, in respect of the property as well as fixed charges, are taken into consideration in arriving at such value. Temporary charges such as mortgages are nor taken into consideration.
    Mr. NEWMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman does the method adopted include personal inspection in every case?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hardly like to answer that without notice, but I hardly think so.
    Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that a revaluation of the agricultural and other undeveloped land of the country has to be made in the year 1914 and a valuation made on the occasion of each transfer of land or of any interest in land on death, sale, or lease over fourteen years, the cost of the Valuation Department, after the completion of the original valuation provided for by the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, will be materially reduced from its present annual cost of £680,000; and, if so, by what amount?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The cost of the Land Valuation Office will be very materially reduced after the completion of the original valuation, though it is not possible at present to specify the amount of the reduction.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could not possibly at this stage.
    Mr. F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the valuation will be completed
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already given that information to the House, but I cannot recall it just at the moment.

    Herbert's Trustees v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of Herbert's Trustees versus The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, generally known as the minus values case, recently decided in favour of the Crown by the House of Lords, having regard to the importance of the case, to the difficulty in

    1675
    interpreting the Statute, and to the fact that it was carried to the House of Lords by the Crown after a unanimous decision of the Scottish Valuation Court in favour of the appellant, the Treasury will pay the appellant's costs?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that do not see my way to accede to the hon. Baronet's suggestion.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the unanimous decision of the Valuation Court in Scotland, consisting of three judges, was against the Crown, subject, of course, to the appeal to the House of Lords, owing to the ambiguity of the Act, and does he not think that this expenditure ought to be defrayed by the Crown?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Crown are simply following the usual practice. I think it would be a very serious thing if in every case in which the Crown won the costs should be paid by the Crown owing to the ambiguity of the law.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the adjournment to-night.

    Land Values (Ireland).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has read the evidence given by the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland to the Committee on Irish Finance; and whether he will explain how the Valuation Office in Dublin have sufficient information available to enable them to serve on owners of rural hereditaments, without issue of Form IV. or without personal inspection, provisional valuations setting out the four separate land values as prescribed in Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In about 90 per cent. of the cases where a valuation of hereditaments in rural districts may have to be made for Finance Act purposes the information required as to how property is held, fixed charges on it, etc., can be obtained from the Irish Land Commission In the remaining cases there is no great difficulty in getting it from other sources without serving Form IV. on the tenants.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer specify the other sources? Would he say what are they?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not sure at the moment what the other sources are.

    Undeveloped Land Duty.
    Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to claim Undeveloped Land Duty from a purchaser, who has purchased land bonâ fide for building purposes and commences development immediately on completion of the purchase, for that part of a financial year which has elapsed before the development commences?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If not paid by the vendor prior to the sale, the duty would be payable by the purchaser, who presumably takes account of the liability in negotiating the purchase price.

    Revenue Bill.
    Mr. HICKS BEACHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to introduce the Revenue Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Darlington on Thursday last.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to take the Committee stage of the Finance Bill until he takes the Second Reading of the Revenue Bill, as the discussion on the one must be affected by the other?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not a question for me. It should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

    Increment Duty.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation exempting all persons not liable to Income Tax from Increment Duty?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is proposed that certain exemptions should be granted, but I cannot make a statement on the subject in answer to a question.
    Mr. CASSEL: Could not the right hon. Gentleman have given us an indication of the change that is going to be made on the Resolution on which the Bill is founded, without reserving the announcement for a by-election?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I made no announcement at any by-election.
    Mr. CASSEL: Was the announcement made at the by-election without any authority?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know what the announcement was, as the statement was not made by me or by anyone on my behalf.

    Land Values Committee.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to publish the Report of the private Land Inquiry Committee; and, if so, when?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to the hon. Member for Enfield on the 26th ultimo.
    Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possible loss to students of scientific research?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think there will be any loss.

    Magistrates and Defendants (Names and Addresses).
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to recent cases in which defendants have been permitted, at the discretion of the magistrate, to conceal their real names and addresses; and if he will introduce legisation to either confer this privilege upon all defendants, irrespective of their social position, or else to withdraw it?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I would refer to the answer which I gave to the Noble Lord on the 19th of last month. The matter is a proper one for the exercise of the magistrate's discretion, and I know of no reason for proposing legislation on the subject.

    Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910.
    Colonel RUTHERFORDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number and names of the compensation authorities in England and Wales who, in the present year, have imposed less than the maximum charges for compensation levy set forth in Schedule 3, Part I., of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, and the proportion of the maximum charge imposed in each case?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not in possession of this information. It will be collected in ordinary course at the end of the year, together with other statistics for the year.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF TIIE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what Supply will be taken on Thursday, and what would be the business for Friday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Thursday the Inland Revenue Vote will be taken, and if the Committee stage of the Plural Voting Bill is not concluded to-morrow, we shall take it again on Friday.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Supposing it is completed, has the right hon. Gentleman decided what business will be taken on Friday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I did not anticipate that.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise us a holiday on Friday, should that business be gone through?

BILL PRESENTED.
therewith." Presented by Mr. GEORGE GREEWOOD; supported by Mr. Ponsonby, Sir William Byles, Mr. Murray Macdonald, and Mr. Morrell; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 9th July, and to be printed. [Bill 229.]
BILL PRESENTED.
  SENTENCE OF DEATH BILL.
  "To enable Courts to abstain from pronouncing sentence of death in capital felonies; and for other purposes connected

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) [MONEY].
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be necessary for payment of principal and interest of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to terminate the Establishment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire, and to make provision in respect of the temporalities thereof, and for other purposes in connection with the matters aforesaid."
Mr. SPEAKERproceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 23rd June, to put forthwith the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 313; Noes, 98.

Division No. 133.]

AYES.

[3.49 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Doris, William

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duffy, William J.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Adamson, William

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

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Addison, Dr. C.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Agnew, Sir George William

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Ainsworth, John Stirilng

Chancellor, Henry George

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Alden, Percy

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Elverston, Sir Harold

Allen, Arthur (Dumbartonshire)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Clancy, John Joseph

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Clough, William

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Falconer, James

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Barnes, G. N.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Ffrench, Peter

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Cotton, William Francis

Field, William

Barton, William

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Fitzgibbon, John

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Crooks, William

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Crumley, Patrick

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Benn, W. W. (T.H'mts, St. George)

Cullinan, John

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Bentham, George Jackson

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Glanville, H. J.

Black, Arthur W.

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Boland, John Pius

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Goldstone, Frank

Booth, Frederick Handel

Dawes, J. A.

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Bowerman, C. W.

Delany, William

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Greig, Col. J. W.

Brace, William

Devlin, Joseph

Griffith, Ellis J.

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Dickinson, W. H.

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Brunner, John F. L.

Dillon, John

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Bryce, J. Annan

Donelan, Captain A.

Hackett, John

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale))

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Richards, Thomas

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Martin, Joseph

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Meagher, Michael

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Menzies, Sir Walter

Robinson, Sidney

Hayden, John Patrick

Millar, James Duncan

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Hayward, Evan

Molloy, Michael

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Hazleton, Richard

Moiteno, Percy Aiport

Roe, Sir Thomas

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Rowlands, James

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rowntree, Arnold

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Henry, Sir Charles

Mooney, John J.

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

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

Morgan, George Hay

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Higham, John Sharp

Morrell, Philip

Scanlan, Thomas

Hinds, John

Morison, Hector

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Hogg, David C.

Muldoon, John

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

Hogge, James Myles

Munro, R.

Sheehy, David

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Murphy, Martin J.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Hudson, Walter

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Hughes, S. L.

Needham, Christopher T.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Neilson, Francis

Snowden, Philip

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

John, Edward Thomas

Nolan, Joseph

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Norman, Sir Henry

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Nuttall, Harry

Sutherland, John E.

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Tennant, Harold John

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thomas, J. H.

Jewett, F. W.

O'Doherty, Philip

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Joyce, Michael

O' Donnell, Thomas

Toulmin, Sir George

Keating, Matthew

O'Dowd, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Kellaway, Frederick George

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Kelly, Edward

O'Malley, William

Verney, Sir Harry

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Wadsworth, John

Kilbride, Denis

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

King, J.

O'Shee, James John

Walters, Sir John Tudor

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Walton, Sir Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Outhwaite, R. L.

Wardle, George J.

Lardner, James C. R.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Leach, Charles

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Watt, Henry Anderson

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Webb, H.

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lundon, Thomas

Pirie, Duncan Vernon

Whitehouse, John Howard

Lyell, Charles Henry

Pointer, Joseph

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Lynch, A. A.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wiles, Thomas

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

McGhee, Richard

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Maclean, Donald

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Pringle, William M. R.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

Radford, G. H.

Wilson. Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Macpherson, James Ian

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Winfrey, Richard

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Wing, Thomas

M'Curdy, C. A.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

Reddy, Michael

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spaiding)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Manfield, Harry

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Rendall, Atheistan

NOES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Campion, W. R.

Baird, John Lawrence

Bigland, Alfred

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

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

Bird, Alfred

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Barnston, Harry

Bull, Sir Wiliam James

Craik, Sir Henry

Barrie, H. T.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Croft, H. P.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Butcher, John George

Denniss, E. R. B.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

1688

1689

Dixon, C. H.

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Duncannon, Viscount

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Spear, Sir John Ward

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Fell, Arthur

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Sonar (Bootle)

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Forster, Henry William

Lewisham, Viscount

Stewart, Gershom

Gilmour, Captain John

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Goldsmith, Frank

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Macmaster, Donald

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Grant, J. A.

M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

Valentia, Viscount

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Mount, William Arthur

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

Newman, John R. P.

Winterton, Earl

Hardy, Rt. Hon, Laurence

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

Harris, Henry Percy

Parkes, Ebenezer b

Worthington-Evans, L.

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

Hills, John Waller

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Yate, Col. C. E.

Hoare, S. J. G.

Ranches, Sir John S.

Younger, Sir George

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Edmund Talbot and Mr. Bridgeman.

as the hon. and learned Member, and I gave him precedence and accepted his Motion. The question therefore is, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 168.

Division No. 138.]

AYES.

[7.20 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.

Lynch, A. A.

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Adamson, William

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

McGhee, Richard

Addison, Dr. C.

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Agnew, Sir George William

Esslemont, George Birnie

MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Falconer, James

Macpherson, James Ian

Alden, Percy

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Field, William

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Fitzgibbon, John

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Meagher, Michael

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Glanville, H. J.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Millar, James Duncan

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Goldstone. Frank

Molloy, Michael

Barton, William

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

Griffith, Ellie Jones

Mooney, John J.

Bentham, George Jackson

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Morgan, George Hay

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Gulland, John William

Morrell, Philip

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Morison, Hector

Black, Arthur W.

Hackett, J.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Boland, John Pius

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Muldoon, John

Booth, Frederick Handel

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

Mundo, R.

Bowerman, C. W.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Cathness-shire)

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Murphy, Martin J.

Brace, William

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Needham, Christopher Thomas

Brady, P. J.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Nolan, Joseph

Brunner, J. F. L.

Hayden, John Patrick

Norman, Sir Henry

Bryce, J. Annan

Hayward, Evan

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hazleton, Richard

Nuttall, Harry

Burke, E. Haviland-

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Doherty, Philip

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

Higham, John Sharp

O'Donnell, Thomas

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hinds, John

O'Dowd, John

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

Hogg, David C.

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Chancellor, H. G.

Hogge, James Myles

O'Malley, William

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Holmes, Daniel Turner

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Horne, C. Slivester (Ipswich)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Clough, William

Hudson, Walter

O'Shee, James John

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

John, Edward Thomas

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Cotton, William Francis

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Crooks, William

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Crumley, Patrick

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Pointer, Joseph

Cullinan, John

Jowett, Frederick William

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Joyce, Michael

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Keating, Matthew

Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Kelly, Edward

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

Dawes, J. A.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pringle, William M. R.

Delany, William

Kilbride, Denis

Radford, G. H.

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

King, J.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Devlin, Joseph

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Dickinson, W. H.

Lardner, James C. R.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Dillon, John

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Reddy, M.

Donelan, Captain A.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Doris, William

Leach, Charles

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Duffy, William J.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Rendall, Athelstan

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Lundon, T.

Richards, Thomas

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Watt, Henry Anderson

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

Robinson, Sidney

Sutherland, J. E.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Sutton, John E.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Tennant, Harold John

Wiles, Thomas

Rowlands, James

Thomas, James Henry

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Rowntree, Arnold

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

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

Toulmin, Sir George

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wing, Thomas

Scanlan, Thomas

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Wood, Rt. Hon. T McKinnon (Glas)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Verney, Sir Harry

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Wadsworth, J.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Sheehy, David

Walton, Sir Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Mr. Webb.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Wardle, George J.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Goldsmith, Frank

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Grant, J. A.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Ashley, W. W.

Greene, W. R.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baird, J. L.

Gretton, John

Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

Perkins, Walter F.

Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Barnes, George N.

Haddock, George Bahr

Pretyman, Ernest George

Barnston, Harry

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Barrie, H. T.

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Randles, Sir John S.

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

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Harris, Henry Percy

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Helmsley, Viscount

Rolleston, Sir John

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Rothschild, Lionel de

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Bigland, Alfred

Hills, John Waller

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bird, A.

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Sanderson, Lancelot

Blair, Reginald

Hoare, S. J. G.

Sandys, G. J.

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Hohler, G. F.

Sassoon, Sir Philip

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Boyton, James

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Snowden, Philip

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Bull, Sir William James

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

Starkey, John Ralph

Campion, W. R.

Hunt, Rowland

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cator, John

Ingleby, Holcombe

Stewart, Gershom

Cautley, H. S.

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Swift, Rigby

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Talbot, Lord E.

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Larmor, Sir J.

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim. S.)

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Lewisham, Viscount

Touche, George Alexander

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Craik, Sir Henry

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cripps, Sir C. A.

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

Dairymple, Viscount

M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Denison-Pender, J. C.

M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Denniss, E. R. B.

M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Magnus, Sir Philip

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Dixon, C. H.

Malcolm, Ian

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

Duke, Henry Edward

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Wolmer, Viscount

Duncannon, Viscount

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Worthington-Evans, L.

Fisher, Rt. Han. W. Hayes

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

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

Fletcher, John Samuel

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Forster, Henry William

Mount, William Arthur

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Newman, John R. P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Butcher and Mr. Fell.

Goldman, C. S.

Nield, Herbert

Main Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 356; Noes, 69.

Division No. 139.]

AYES.

[7.33 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Cripps, Sir C. A.

Hohler, G. F.

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Crumley, Patrick

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cullinan, John

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Addison, Dr. C.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Agnew, Sir George William

Dawes, J. A.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Delany, William

Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Denison-Pender, J. C.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Denniss, E. R. B.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Ashley, W. W.

Devlin, Joseph

Jones J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Baird, J. L.

Dickinson, W. H.

Joyce, Michael

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Keating, Matthew

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Dillon, John

Kelly, Edward

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Doris, William

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Duffy, William J.

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Duke, Henry Edward

Kerry, Earl of

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Kilbride, Denis

Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

Duncannon, Viscount

King, J.

Barnston, Harry

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molten)

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Barton, William

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lardner, James C. R.

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Falconer, James

Larmor, Sir J.

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Ffrench, Peter

Leach, Charles

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Field, William

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Benn, Ion Ramilton (Greenwich)

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Levy, Sir Maurice

Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Lewisham, Viscount

Bentham, George Jackson

Fitzgibbon, John

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Bigland, Alfred

Fletcher, John Samuel

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Bird, A.

Forster, Henry William

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

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Lundon, T.

Blair, Reginald

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Lynch, A. A.

Boland, John Pius

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Lyttelton, Hon J. C. (Droitwich)

Boles, Lieut.-Col, Dennis Fortescue

Gilmour, Captain John

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Gladstone, W. G. C.

McGhee, Richard

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Mackinder, Halford J.

Boyton, James

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Maclean, Donald

Brady, P. J.

Goldman, C. S.

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Macpherson, James Ian

Brunner, John F. L.

Greene, W. R.

M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

Bryce, J. Annan

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

M'Curdy, C. A.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Greig, Colonel J. W.

M'Kean, John

Bull, Sir William James

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Burke, E. Haviland

Griffith, Ellis Jones

M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Butcher, John George

Gulland, John William

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Campion, W. R.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Meagher, Michael

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hackett, J.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Cator, John

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

Cautley, H. S.

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Cave, George

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Millar, James Duncan

Chancellor, H. G.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Molloy, Michael

Clancy, John Joseph

Harris, Henry Percy

Molteno, Percy Alport

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Clough, William

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Mooney, John J.

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Hayden, John Patrick

Morgan, George Hay

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Hazleton, Richard

Morrell, Philip

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Helmsley, Viscount

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Henry, Sir Charles

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

Morison, Hector

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Mount, William Arthur

Cotton, William Francis

Higham, John Sharp

Muldoon, John

Cowan, W. H.

Hills, John Waller

Munro, R.

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Murphy, Martin J.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Hoare, S. J. G.

Needham, Christopher Thomas

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Hogg, David C.

Nelison, Francis

Newman, John R. P.

Richards, Thomas

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Touche, George Alexander

Nolan, Joseph

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Toulmin, Sir George

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Nuttall, Harry

Robinson, Sidney

Tullibardine, Marquess of

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Valentia, Viscount

O'Doherty, Philip

Roe, Sir Thomas

Verney, Sir Harry

O'Donnell, Thomas

Rolleston, Sir John

Wadsworth, J.

O'Dowd, John

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Walton, Sir Joseph

O'Malley, William

Rowlands, James

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Rowntree, Arnold

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clakmannan)

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

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

Wheler, Granville C. H.

O'Shee, James John

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Sanders, Robert Arthur

White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Sanderson, Lancelot

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Sassoon, Sir Philip

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Scanlan, Thomas

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Wiles, Thomas

Perkins, Walter F.

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

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Sheehy, David

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Winfrey, Richard

Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk. E.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wolmer, Viscount

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

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

Radford, G. H.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Starkey, John Ralph

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas)

Randles, Sir John S.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Stewart, Gershom

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

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Sutherland, J. E.

Young, William (Perth, East)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Swift, Rigby

Younger, Sir George

Reddy, M.

Talbot, Lord E.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Tennant, Harold John

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Howard and Mr. Webb.

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Rendall, Atheistan

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

NOES.

Adamson, William

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

Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

Alden, Percy

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Barnes, George N.

Hinds, John

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Barrie, H. T.

Hogge, James Myles

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sandys, G. J.

Black, Arthur W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hudson, Walter

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Bowerman, C. W.

John, Edward Thomas

Snowden, Philip

Brace, William

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Jowett, Frederick William

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld (Cockerm'th)

Sutton, John E.

Crooks, William

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Dairymple, Viscount

M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

Thomas, James Henry

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Malcolm, Ian

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Walsh, Stephen (Lanes, Ince)

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Wardle, George J.

Fell, Arthur

Nield, Herbert

Watt, Henry Anderson

Glanville, H. J.

Ogden, Fred

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Goldsmith, Frank

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

Goldstone, Frank

Outhwaite, R. L.

Wing, Thomas

Grant, J. A.

Pointer, Joseph

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

A. Markham and Mr. W. Thorne.

Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of the Salary and Pension of any additional Lord of Appeal in Ordinary appointed under any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the number and duties of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary,
1756
provided that the sum paid in salaries in any one year to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary appointed under this Act shall in no case exceed twelve thousand pounds."
Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Wednesday).

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) [MONEY].

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, notwithstanding anything in the Order of the House of the 16th day of June, that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first dealing with the Disestablishment and the second with the Disendowment of the Church in Wales."
  4.0 P.M.
  The object of this Instruction is to give the House an opportunity even at this somewhat late hour of registering a separate opinion upon the two questions, distinct as they are, which have hitherto been involved in the one Bill. It is perhaps one of the consequences of the procedure of this House that, however deep one's objections may be to a Bill, to its form and its contents, when it is first introduced, if only it receives sufficient detailed examination, in time one begins to overlook the principal objections which one had to it So perhaps, during the course of the Debates on this Bill, one has got rather into the habit of treating it as if the schemes of Disestablishment and Disendowment necessarily held together and were properly included in the one Bill. As a matter of fact, it has emerged beyond controversy from the Debates which we have had in this House that the questions of Disestablishment and Disendowment can be, and I submit should be, treated entirely separately, the one from the other. After all, the connection of the Church with the State involves no financial burden upon any man, it keeps no man out of his property, and it would
  1690
  be possible to consider, and indeed to pass, a scheme for severing the connection between the Church and the State without even considering the question of Disendowment. I think I speak accurately as the result of what I have heard in the Debates when I say that the alleged grievance, the grievance which hon. Members on the other side of the House feel with reference to Establishment, is one of sentiment, and that the grievance they feel with reference to Endowment is one of finance. If that is so, it is abundantly clear that you can remedy the one grievance without touching the other. You could at any time Disestablish the Church without touching the funds which she enjoys. But there is high authority for the proposition which I am advancing that these two integral parts of this Bill not only can be but should be considered separately in an utterance coming from the Treasury Bench, because I find that on the Second Reading of this Bill, when it was before the House in its earliest stages, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Hobhouse) said:—
  "This Bill deals both with the aspect of Disestablishment and Disendownment, and, as there are different values attached to those questions by hon. Members on that side as well as on this, we are bound to present each case separately, distinguishing the case of Disestablishment from the case of Disendowment."
  If the right hon. Gentleman is still of that opinion, now is his opportunity of putting into practical effect the obiter dictum he laid down at that stage. If it is easy to treat the question of Disestablishment apart from the question of Disendowment, it is obviously equally easy to treat the question of Disendowment apart from the question of Disestablishment. You could perfectly well, if you thought fit, leave the

  1691
  existing connection between the Church and the State and take from the Church, so connected, the funds which she enjoys at the present time. Therefore, it is almost beyond question that those two questions not only could have been, but in the opinion of a great number of thinking men ought to have been, treated separately in this House. I venture to hope that this Motion will receive more sympathetic consideration at the hands of the Government than was accorded to a somewhat similar suggestion made yesterday afternoon, because the essential facts are different from beginning to end. What was the chief objection that was urged then, and which I suppose will be urged now? It will be said that the House has already considered this question and has already registered its vote on it when a somewhat similar Motion came before it some time ago. Yes, but at what stage was that done? The Motion to separate the Bill came forward for consideration after the Second Reading, and before the House had entered on the detailed consideration of the Bill in Committee. The House had approved the general principle involved in the Bill, but it had given no consideration to the details of the schemes, either for Disestablishment or Disendowment, and it is beyond question that as the Debate proceeded and the salient points and the details of the scheme of Disendowment were laid bare, it became daily, indeed hourly, obvious what a sharp distinction there was between the two schemes which the Government had thought fit to include in one and the same Bill.
  I believe I am stating the proposition with absolute accuracy when I say that the discussion which took place in Committee on the Disendowment proposal brought home to a considerable number of hon. Members on that side of the House that, passionately and conscientiously attached as they may be to the scheme of Disestablishment, they are ashamed in their hearts of the Disendowment scheme. I believe that there is a considerable number of Members on that side of the House who would welcome the opportunity—and who would welcome it as the result of the detailed discussions we have had in this House, but which we had not had when this question last came up for determination—of voting, if party exigencies would allow, for once according to their consciences! If it is true, as I think it is, that there is a considerable
  1692
  body of opinion on that side of the House who feel considerably more strongly on the question of Disestablishment than they do on the question of Disendowment. I am bound to admit that there is a section of opinion in the country who, while passionately objecting to a scheme of Disendowment, regard with much less animosity a scheme of Disestablishment, as to which they are still in doubt what the effect upon the Church will be. These differences of opinion do exist; they exist in this House, and they exist in the country, and therefore, not only the House itself, but the country which sends us to this House, should I submit be given the opportunity of considering these two questions apart. There is a further reason why our constituents should be given an opportunity of communicating with us and asking us to register by our votes, separately, given, on these two questions what they feel. At the General Election the question of Disestablishment may have been, in part at any rate, understood by the electors. The scheme is almost involved in the sentence which proclaims it. Disestablishment speaks for itself; Disendowment, for its justice or for its injustice, depends upon the details of the scheme. While Disestablishment may have been put by some of us before our constituents as an issue which they were called upon to determine, no man can stand up, either on that side of the House or on this, and pretend that one single scheme of Disendowment was laid before those who have returned us to represent them in this House. If that is so, surely it is an additional reason why even at this time of day we should be given, on behalf of those constituents, an opportunity of registering a separate vote upon these two vitally and fundamentally separate and distinct questions.
  Lastly, this objection was taken, and I suppose it will be renewed, to an application of this kind. It was said that an Instruction at this time of day was not in accordance with the Parliament Act. I am unable to follow that argument. The Parliament Act could have been framed in such a way as to make the passage through this House of Bills coming under it purely automatic. They could have been presented to this House and have gone through it without any opportunity of consideration or discussion of any sort. The same Bill might have been presented to this House and have been automatically passed through on its way to

  1693
  another House, but that was not the scheme adopted by those who were responsible for that Act. They have chosen to provide that a Bill introduced under the Parliament Act shall pass through all the stages of an ordinary Act of Parliament, and, indeed, so careful were they that the ordinary procedure should be preserved, that you, Mr. Speaker, have even to certify that the Bill has passed through its normal stages before it is returned to the House of Lords. If that is so, how can they object when we adopt the normal and legitimate procedure of this House and ask for an Instruction even at this period of the Bill, in order that now we may consider the questions of Disestablishment and Disendowment apart from one another? It surely is no answer—the answer which I understand was given yesterday by the Government—for the right hon. Gentleman to come down and say, "We have stifled discussion in the Committee stage; you are not to discuss the Bill in that stage at all, and, therefore, you waste your time and ours by bringing forward this Instruction." That is no answer. If we are to give a silent vote, the proceedings under this Parliament Act having reduced our discussions on these Bills to a mere farce—if we are to give a silent vote, at any rate let us be given an opportunity to record a vote on these questions one apart from the other, in the light of the experience we got from the Debates in this House, and in the light and guidance we have obtained from expressions of opinion in the country. If we are to give our vote silently, let us give at any rate an intelligent vote on the separate questions which are indicated in the Motion I have the honour to propose.
  Mr. HOARE: I rise to second this Instruction.
  I am very glad we have again got an opportunity of stating what, I believe, to be an extremely strong case. In my opinion a very strong case was made out six months ago, when we had a Debate of a similar character, and that case has been considerably strengthened by what has since happened. In the first place, we have had the experience of the Debates in Committee, and I shall hope to show that the lesson which must be drawn from the course of those Debates is that the case for dividing the Bill into two is strengthened by what then happened. Only yesterday we had another experience which strengthens our case for dividing the two Bills. The Prime Minister made
  1694
  a speech in opposition to the Instruction which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), dividing the Home Rule Bill into two. What were the grounds the right hon. Gentleman then took? In the first place, he said that if that Instruction were carried with reference to Home Rule, there would still be a gap left which would not be covered at all by the two Bills into which it was proposed to divide the Home Rule Bill. I venture to urge that, if this Instruction is carried, no such contingency can arise. If this Bill is divided into two, in accordance with the Instruction which my hon. Friend has moved, every single detail of it can be dealt with in one or other of the two Bills. Secondly, the Prime Minister urged as a ground for the refusal of the division of the Home Rule Bill the assumption that it was not possible to divide the Home Rule Bill as the ground which was suggested by my hon. Friend. He urged that the arguments which had to be used for either of the two projected Bills were so interdependent that it was impossible to distinguish the one from the other. That does not apply to this Instruction. The issues are quite distinct, and there is no reason why in arguing the case for the one the arguments should be confused with those applicable to the other. The two issues are distinct, and, on that account, it would be much wiser to deal with them by two separate Bills, rather than run the risk of that confusion from which we undoubtedly suffered during the Committee stage of this Bill in consequence of attempting to deal with these two questions in a single measure.
  On the general proposition laid down in the Debate, with practically no opposition, it is quite possible, as admitted by the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), to divide the Bill into two. The hon. Member said:—
  "No one disputes the point that it is practicable to have Disestablishment without Disendowntent."
  That statement was supported by the Home Secretary, who said:—
  "There is no connection between Disestablishment and Disendowment."
  The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in that. We quoted several examples where Disestablishment had taken place without Disendowment and where Disendowment had taken place without Disestablishment. I will not quote those cases again at any length, but let me, in passing, allude to three. In the first place,

  1695
  there was the case of Canada, in which, when the Roman Catholic Church was Disestablished in 1759, she was still left in possession of her Endowments to this extent, that, at the present moment, in the province of Quebec, where the Roman Church is Disestablished, tithes are still collected for the support of its schools and for other work in connection with it. I further quoted the French case, where, in the Napoleonic settlement after the Revolution, the Church was Re-established but was not completely Re-endowed. If a further case is needed from our own experience in modern time, it is sufficient to point to the case of the Scottish Free Church which was endowed with a very large sum by the action of Parliament. Generally speaking, it cannot be questioned that there is no reason whatever for confusing Disestablishment with Disendowment, and in fact there is every reason for treating them separately.
  The Home Secretary went on in the course of the Debate to urge that whatever was true of the distinction between these two issues as a general proposition it did not apply to the case of Wales. I venture to dispute that contention. If we look at the position of the Church in Wales I do not see how we can came to any other conclusion than that there is no connection between Disestablishment and Disendowment. Take the outward and visible features of the Establishment in Wales? What can the Endowments have to do, for instance, with the presence of the four Welsh bishops in the House of Lords? What have they to do with the disqualification of the Welsh clergy to sit in this House? What can they have to do with the coercive jurisdiction of the four Welsh Diocesan Courts? What can they have to do with the power which the Archbishops' Provincial Court still has even as a final Court of Appeal? I think no one who follows the Debate closely can come to any other conclusion than that a totally different set of arguments were used in support of Disestablishment to those which were used in support of Disendowment. I will go even further and say that many of the arguments which were used in support of the one were contradictory when applied to the other. Let me give two examples. The main body of argument which was used in support of Disestablishment was the demand for religious equality. Apply that argument to Disendowment. Surely if you do that it can
  1696
  only lead to one conclusion. If you are to have religious equality in Endowments and if you are to take 14s. in the £ from one denomination, you will take 14s. in the £ from every other denomination. The same must be said as to other arguments used in support of Disendowment. The main backbone of these arguments as urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite was that the nation has a right to resume possession of its national property. Apply that argument to the Establishment. Apply it, for instance, to the Establishment as illustrated by the Clauses with reference to the action of the Established Church in England after the Church in Wales has been Disestablished. The argument is that the nation has a right to its own property. Yet under the Bill as it now stands the Established Church of England is, in future, to be expected to subscribe a sum of from £30,000, to £70,000 a year to the Disestablished Church in Wales. I say it is only necessary to take two cases of that kind to show that the arguments that are used in favour of the one so far from being the same when applied to the other are actually contradictory.
  This surely is also borne out by what has been taking place not only in the House during the course of the previous Debates but also in the country. I do not know what was the case thirty or forty years ago, but it certainly seems as if then, at any rate, Disestablishment and Disendowment meant much the same thing in the minds of most people. Now they mean nothing of the kind. The old Liberationist idea that the Free Church was dependent on the voluntary subscriptions of its living members has been abandoned, formally or informally, by practically every religious denomination in the country, and it is idle to-day to discuss a question of this kind in terms used generations ago which have now become quite obsolete and out of date. We have had many examples during the course of this controversy of individuals, not only members of the English Church but Nonconformists, members of other denominations, who have said that they are in favour of Disestablishment, but are opposed to Disendowment. I believe that that is a feeling which is held to a very great extent by people outside who are not members of the Church of England, and, surely, in view of this general feeling, the existence of which nobody can deny, we have a very strong case for saying that

  1697
  the Bill should be divided into two, and that this body of feeling outside should have a means of finding expression in this House. The fact that it might lead to the technical withdrawal of the Bill under the Parliament Act does not appeal to me. That is not for us to consider at all. We merely have to consider the fact that we have a very strong case which represents a large and growing body of opinion outside, and we demand that this body of opinion should have a hearing in this House. We therefore say that the Bill must be divided into two, and, if it is not divided into two, this body of opinion outside, which is now or may be in favour of Disestablishment and is opposed to Disendowment, will have no means of finding expression. I therefore hope that even at the eleventh hour this Instruction may be carried, so that we may say that this House still in some degree represents public opinion outside.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The words in the Motion, "notwithstanding anything in the Order of the House of the 16th day of June," are not necessary, because this Motion has no relation to the Order which was passed by the House.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I understand that, Sir, and will not move them.
  Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first, dealing with the Disestablishment and the second with the Disendowment of the Church in Wales."
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am sure that neither the hon. and learned Member who moved nor the hon. Member who seconded this Motion would have done so without a very serious purpose. If, therefore, I can show them, as I believe I shall be able to do, that the effect of this Motion could have no possible good result, I trust that neither they nor their hon. Friends will Wish to press it further. This is the same Motion as was moved upon going into Committee upon the same Bill last year. We had at that time a very full discussion. I admit that the fact that it was discussed then does not disentitle hon. Members to have a discussion now. I readily admit, also, that the facts which have came to light and the arguments which were used in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill last year might be very relevant to the arguments now. I
  1698
  think, in fact, that they are relevant, but they are relevant, in my judgment, in this sense, that they show beyond any question of doubt that no practical good of any kind could be effected by accepting the Motion. We have to consider the effect of this Motion from the point of view of the opposite sides of the House. If this Motion were carried, how would it affect our judgment upon the Bill or Bills, and how would it affect the judgment of hon. Members opposite upon the Bill or Bills? We know from the Committee discussion of this Bill that supposing we agreed to divide the Bill into two parts and took a Division separately upon each—we know, from the declarations that have been made from this bench, and by some of my hon. Friends in the House, that upon this side of the House we would not propose a measure for the Disestablishment of the English Church in Wales unless it were accompanied by a measure of Disendowment, and we know also that we would not propose a Bill for the Disendowment of the English Church in Wales unless it were accompanied by a measure of Disestablishment. That has been declared again and again, so that so far as any effective result could be secured upon this side of the House, the mere dividing of the Bill into two parts would merely require that two Divisions should be taken instead of one.
  In the Debate last year which took place upon this Motion, I stated—and if the House will allow me to recall the words I then used, I shall be glad to do so—that there was no necessary connection between Disestablishment and Disendowment. I did not say, as the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) seemed to argue, that there was no necessary connection between the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the English Church in Wales. On the contrary, I asserted, and assert again, that in our opinion the connection is most intimate between Disestablishment and Disendowment of the English Church in Wales, because, as we have argued throughout—it would not be in order to go into the argument and I merely state it—the Endowment of the Church in Wales, at any rate as to a great part of the Endowments, came as a concommitant of Establishment. That is the argument we use. Consequently we, upon this side of the House, cannot separate the conception of the Disestablishment of the English Church in Wales from Disendowment. Upon the other side of the House

  1699
  how does the question stand? Supposing the Motion were accepted, would it in the least affect the views of hon. Members opposite? Not in the slightest. What would be the practical result of dividing the Bill into two parts? Hon. Members opposite have declared by representative spokesmen—I cannot say each individual Member has said it—that even if there were no Disendowment in this Bill, they would vote just as strongly against Disestablishment. That has been stated again and again, and I think I may say that it represents, according to the arguments and statements of the bishops outside the House, the accepted view of the Church of England. If that be so, what is the advantage of dividing the Bill into two parts? Hon. Members opposite would vote against each of the parts, and hon. Members upon this side would vote for each of the parts. We have discussed these two ideas combined in one Bill. Here the hon. Member for the Bassetlaw Division (Mr. Hume-Williams) fell into error. The very proposals for Disendowment which are now in the Bill were before the public in detail. The Bill was introduced in the year 1909.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that at the last election the people of the country had any idea of the quantity that was going to be taken from the Church?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must remind the hon. and learned Member that in 1909 the proposals put forward then by the Government were printed in a Bill, and were open to be studied by every elector in the country. They took from the Church a very much larger proportion of its Endowments than is proposed in the present Bill, consequently I am justified in saying that every detail of the Disendowment effect of this measure was before the electorate in 1910. They had it in the Bill before them. In these circumstances, when the public know the Bill and have always known the Bill, when the House of Commons has debated this Bill at great length as a single Bill, and when no possible practical effect could arise from the acceptance of this Motion, I appeal to hon. Members upon both sides of the House not to occupy further time in discussing a proposal which can have no practical result. I will not go into the points which were raised yesterday, which are equally applicable to-day. If this Motion were
  1700
  carried, no provision is made for it in the Motion to which the House has already agreed. It would be impracticable, it would be useless, and upon these grounds I hope hon. Members will not press it.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has really missed the point as to the object of this Instruction. I am sure he does not mean cynically to tell us, what we so often hear now, that it is absolutely useless to discuss anything in this House or to have a Division, because we know they are going to vote on party lines. I know the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to make that cynical statement, but that is what his speech came to. It really came to this: "Is it any use your talking or dividing, for the Members behind the Government are going to vote for the Bill as a party, and your people are going to vote against it as a party? Why, then, should we spend more time upon it in the House of Commons, and why not go outside and enjoy ourselves?" If that is to be the rule, there will be an end of the House of Commons altogether. It is a dangerous statement to make inside the House. Take the matter one step further. We have to justify the votes we give in the House of Commons. You may justify your voting for this Bill as one whole Bill, but there are hundreds of people in the country who have no objection to Disestablishment, but who have the gravest objection to Disendowment. Hon. Members in this House know that perfectly well. I have the privilege of knowing many religious Nonconformists in England who have the greatest possible objection to the Disendowment scheme of this Bill. There are hon. Members upon the opposite side of the House whom I know, and whose constituents I know, and there are many of those constituents who object most strongly to the Disendowment Clauses of this Bill, although they are in favour of the Disestablishment Clauses. If you divide this Bill into two, there will be an opportunity for people who are in favour of Disestablishment to vote in favour of it, while those who think, as many of their constituents think, that the Disendowment Clauses of this Bill are unjust—I will not use a stronger expression than that, although I am thinking of some at the present moment—would be able to say that they are not prepared to vote for Disendowment and the using of religious funds for other than religious purposes.
  One of the objects of the Motion is to enable us to have a definite vote upon two

  1701
  separate measures. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the Church of England as a whole have said that they would never vote for Disestablishment. I have heard many Liberal Churchmen in this House say that they are in favour of Disestablishment, but they hold very different views about Disendowment. I do not know that I attach very much weight to the views of Liberal Churchmen in this House, but I am not inclined to take the cynical view of the Home Secretary that, whatever their views may be, they will vote for the Bill. At any rate, one is entitled to give them an opportunity of showing that they have different views. I know that certainly in private life they have different views. In private life I heard them say that they have a leaning towards Disestablishment, but I have never come across anybody except Liberal Churchmen in the House of Commons who have the slightest feeling in favour of the Disestablishment of the Church of Wales or of England. There is a definite distinction between these two questions. As to the practical utility of the division, I say that you can deal with matters which are totally distinct into two totally distinct Bills. If we are not allowed to discuss matters in the House of Commons, our use as a talking assembly is coming rapidly to an end. At least we might have an opportunity of taking a Division upon two separate matters. A Division takes but a very short time, but it enables us to go down to the constituencies, and enables us to make a definite statement that we voted in favour, not only of Disestablishment, which is popular certainly among Nonconformists, and is not obnoxious to a certain section of the Church of England, but against Disendowment, which I believe to be an absolutely unjust and unfair proposal, and which I believe is so regarded by the great bulk of the Nonconformists of England, and certainly by the whole of the Churchmen, always excepting Liberal Churchmen in the House of Commons.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The Home Secretary told us that we are entirely wrong in thinking that the Disendowment proposals of this Bill were not before the country at the last election, and that the argument used for dividing the Bill in two parts was not therefore a sound one. It seems to me that he entirely forgot what the traditions of his party are. How on earth can the electors possibly have known that the party which had produced in a
  1702
  comparatively short space of time several utterly conflicting Home Rule Bills for Ireland, whose record on the education question is of producing one Bill after another of an utterly different kind, which contradicted each other in very material details—how could they possibly know that because the Bill had been produced on some previous occasion it would be exactly in the same form when brought into the House of Commons this Session? Of course, that argument is an absolutely fallacious one. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that the argument that the country did not know what Disendowment meant in all its details is absolutely unsound, and constitutes a very real reason why there should be a separate vote given upon it, even though it is obvious to everyone that we cannot have a discussion on it. Again, the right hon. Gentleman says it would be perfectly useless, because the Government have made a declaration that it is impossible for them to separate the two parts of the Bill, but there may be a few independent Gentlemen left on the opposite side. It is not for him to assume that he has entirely done away with all freedom of thought on the opposite side of the House. When we say that sort of thing it is supposed to be a mere declaration of an ignorant Tory, but for the right hon. Gentleman to say that of his party is a challenge to those who may wish to stay outside the general definition of his party which he is prepared to give. The argument that this keeps the Bill within the Parliament Act has been dealt with. That is no affair of ours. If the Government chose so to frame the Parliament Act as to make this very reasonable measure of discrimination impossible, it is not our fault. We should be very glad to accept any alteration which made such a vote possible, but the Government have made their difficulty, and it is not for us to get them out of it.
  But what seems to me a stronger reason than occurred when this similar subject was debated last year, is the further extension of opinion which has taken place, and has been able to take place, since those debates occurred. We now know that this Bill is in its final form. When it was last brought in, the House and the country were full of the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman of the generosity that he was going to show to the Church and the concessions which were possible. We now know what is the limit of the con-

  1703
  cessions. We know what Disendowment in its full detail means. We know this cannot be altered, therefore, we can give a final and complete judgment on the provisions of the Bill. That was impossible when this was last discussed. We had this promise in our minds, and there are many on the other side who hoped, at the last moment, that the right hon. Gentleman might be able to suggest and to promise some really solid concessions which might have altered their opinion; but he was pulled up by his Welsh friends, and was not allowed to go any further. Very likely he may have had an honest desire to be conciliatory and generous. He told us he was going to be, but political circumstances were too great for him. Now the opinion of the country has had an opportunity during this interval of being formed. The country had not the opportunity of voting on it at the last election, and the only criteria we can have now are the evidences of opinion, public and otherwise, which have been shown since the Bill passed through Committee. There is no doubt whatever that the feeling against Disendowment was the strongest feeling on that side, and that is proved by the fact that each occasion on which the Government had to rely very largely on the support of hon. Members below the Gangway, who are so conspicuously absent now, and always are when debates are going on, but whom the right hon. Gentleman always take care to have somewhere handy in the Library or Smoking Room to support them in a particularly difficult corner, was an occasion when questions of Disendowment were involved. He would not have passed the Clause in Committee which dealt with glebe if it had not been for their support, and he would not have passed the Clause dealing with the question of curates without their support, and those were matters on which there was the strongest feeling on the other side of the House that the Bill was unjust and unfair.
  As regards the feeling outside, everyone knows what has been going on. Hon. Members opposite profess to sneer at demonstrations and petitions. They may have their weak spots, but at any rate, let hon. Members try, if they can, to show us some counter demonstration. They may have their weak spots also, and we shall be very glad to point them out. But we are justified in saying that since the last occasion when this was debated,
  1704
  there has been the most striking exhibition of public feeling in opposition to this Bill, and that opinion has shown itself more strongly against Disendowment than against Disestablishment. Why is that? The question of Disestablishment is one that hon. Members opposite do not understand, and it is equally natural that the country as a whole should not understand it. I do not think there are very many people who could give a very clear and definite idea of what they mean by Disestablishment. But now that the Bill has been through Committee, everyone knows what Disendowment is going to be, and in consequence there is a very strong feeling against these Disendowment proposals, and I am perfectly certain, although party loyalty may be so utterly blind as the right hon. Gentleman pretends on that side of the House, the votes that hon. Members give will be brought up against them very much more largely if we can separate the Bill, and their constituents will have a very much more clear idea of the way in which they have been misrepresented than they have at present. If we were given a chance of an absolutely clear vote without the party Whips being put on, I believe the Disestablishment part of this Bill would go through the House, but I do not believe, if every Member voted according to his conscience and forgot all about the whole paraphernalia of party and the rest of it, the Endowment part of the Bill would go through. That is surely a sufficiently strong reason for saying that we ought to have a chance of voting on these two questions separately, and I do not think there would be strong opposition to the idea of dividing the Bill, because the Establishment is the main grievance with the Welsh Members—they tell us that they do not care about the money—and on the other hand, Disendowment is the main thing which those who have not thought very deeply about the question have in their mind. Therefore, it will be easier to deal with the question of Disestablishment by itself than with the questions of Disestablishment and Disendowment together. We feel justified in making our protest, and if we can divide the Bill, I am perfectly certain that the functions of the House of Commons will be more intelligently carried out, and difficult though the position is that the Government has put us into, it will make it easier for us to give definite expression to the opinions that we hold.
  Mr. BUTCHER: The reason given by the Home Secretary for resisting this Instruction was certainly a singular one. It certainly was not complimentary to his followers. He told us, in effect—I am paraphrasing his language—"there is not the slightest use in your dividing this Bill into two, because I am perfectly confident that if you do I can rely upon my followers to support the two Bills with the same mechanical regularity with which they have voted for the one."
  Mr. McKENNA: That is not a paraphrase or anything like a paraphrase of what I said. I quoted from the statements of hon. Gentlemen on this side that they would vote in favour of Disestablishment or in favour of Disendowment.
  Mr. BUTCHER: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed my view with this simple addition, that he wants to tar us with the same brush with which he tars his followers, and says there is no more independence on our side than on his own. At any rate, the only conclusion I drew from his speech was that it was no use dividing upon the Bill, because the same men who supported him upon the one Bill would support him upon the two, if they were divided. I must leave it to him to fight out that question with his supporters behind him. Are they really so well drilled that they have no independent minds at all if the Bill is presented to them in two Bills instead of one? I suggest to some of those who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman that they should make a protest against such an imputation on their independence. We are always accused throughout the country of making these imputations upon the regularity with which hon. Members opposite support their Government, but now we have the Home Secretary himself, in effect, telling us that all these charges are perfectly true. This is an opportunity for the supporters of the Government of proving their independence and voting for this Instruction, in order that they may have an opportunity of dispelling the imputation which has been placed upon them by the Home Secretary.
  But there are other people to be considered besides supporters of the Government, who are not very often considered by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and those are the electors. Assume that the Home Secretary is right in saying it is no use, for the purposes of his followers, dividing the Bill into two. Does it not occur to him that there might be some
  1706
  useful purpose for the electors? Are there not many electors throughout the country who will be prepared to support one Bill, but who would not support the other, and is it not only confusing the issues to put these two distinct matters into one Bill, and to say to the electors, "Take it or leave it as a whole?" Might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that on this, as on some other occasions, he might have more regard for the electors who send us here? On the merits I would point out that, after all, there are two questions, namely, Disestablishment and Disendowment, which are absolutely separable and distinct. They are supported or opposed by totally different, considerations. Disestablishment is supported by many who disapprove of Disendowment, and vice versa, and I put it to the House, is it not obscuring the issues to wrap both up in one Bill? Would it not be much more fair and honest to the House and the country to put the plain issue of Disestablishment in one Bill and the plain issue of Disendowment in another? After all, Disendowment is the main difficulty. Disestablishment is mainly a religious question, and Disendowment is largely, if not entirely, a financial question, which is wrapped up intimately with religious considerations, and from that point of view I think it would be much fairer to the House and the country as a whole, if we were able to consider these two distinct and separate questions apart from each other.
  5.0 P.M.
  We know the objection raised by the Prime Minister last night to a similar Instruction upon the Home Rule Bill, and I think it was hinted at by the Home Secretary to-day. The right hon. Gentleman says that if you pass the Instruction you will prevent the operation of the Parliament Act in relation to this measure, because you will have two Bills instead of one. Is that an argument on the merits of the question? It is quite true that it is an argument upon the necessities of the Government, but it has nothing whatever to do with the merits of the question. This House has never decided yet that the Parliament Act is to apply to the Welsh Church Bill, and, therefore, when I am asked to say I must not vote for the Instruction because it will deprive the Bill of the benefit of the Parliament Act, I say that may be a question for the Government, but it is not one for the House on the merits which we have to consider. After all, has not the time

  1707
  come when we ought not to make any further concessions to the necessities of the Government? Has not the time come when we can consider these great questions on their merits? I would appeal to the Home Secretary to have some more faith in the intelligence of his supporters, and to allow them to vote upon the merits of the Instruction apart from any consideration of the necessities of the Government.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: This is the third time we have had a Debate on the question of dividing the Bill into two parts, and I must say that on every occasion, although we have been overborne by the Government majority, we have always had the best of the argument. There is really no reason whatever why these two questions should be mixed up together. I listened to the speech of the Home Secretary with much interest, as I always do, but I thought his answer was most inconclusive. He said there was no use proceeding with this Instruction because the Government would do so and so. I do not think he described actually what the Government would do. I think if the Government dropped the Bill, that would be a much more satisfactory solution of the whole question. When the right hon. Gentleman said that there would be two Divisions instead of one on the Third Reading, surely he left out of view entirely the opinion of the House. It is true that the Government may make up their mind to keep Disestablishment and Disendowment together, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot fail to recognise the fact that there is a great body of opinion in the country in favour of the one and not in favour of the other. That opinion obtains in this House, too. It is not only that there are a large number of people in favour of Disestablishment and against Disendowment, but there are also some people in favour of Disendowment and against Disestablishment.
  At one of the demonstrations against this great popular Bill in the country last night, I was speaking to a well-known Socialist clergyman who told me that, as a Socialist, he was entirely in favour of Disendowment, while, on the other hand, he was strongly opposed to Disestablishment. If that is the case, why on earth should the Government persist in mixing up the two questions, as necessarily going together, though upon these questions many people hold absolutely contradictory views? Why do they insist in forcing the
  1708
  Bill through in such a shape that we cannot give one vote on the one question and another vote on the other question? May I point out to the Home Secretary that he has not quite fulfilled what he said he would do when we discussed this question last time in December. He said then that this Motion was unnecessary, because if we looked at the Amendments we would find one on the Paper to Clause 8 standing in the name of the hon. Member for Brent-ford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), which, if debated, would enable us to discuss the very point we were discussing upon the Instruction. What happened? Although we were put off then, and possibly the Home Secretary owed part of the majority which he obtained to the fact that he pointed out that a discussion could be taken on the Amendment to Clause 8, when we got to that Clause the guillotine was so arranged that the Amendment could not be moved at all, and there was no opportunity for discussing the whole question as a clear issue. Under the circumstances, I think my hon. Friends are entirely justified in raising the question again. The Home Secretary to-day used rather a strange argument. He said that whatever may be true about the Church of England, in the case of the Church in Wales, the two questions must go together, because the Endowments came to the Establishment. If that is so, how does he reconcile his Bill with the view expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of the Bill last year? The Chancellor of the Exchequer then quoted as a great authority Professor Maitland, who said that the Church was first Established at the Reformation. And yet these Endowments you are taking away were Endowments mostly given before the Reformation. You are taking away Endowments, according to the great authority quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which did not come to the Establishment, and you are leaving those which came to the Establishment. It seems to me that the Government are not entirely in a logical position. If the Home Secretary refuses the Instruction on the ground he has stated, he must reconcile his view with that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who laid down exactly the opposite view on the Second Reading of the Bill last year.
  There is an argument which has never been answered, and no attempt has been made to answer it by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side. It is an argument which I ventured to put in

  1709
  moving the Instruction the last time the matter was discussed, namely, that the arguments for Disestablishment and Disendowment are totally different. Not only in many cases are the people different who support these two things, but the argument is different, and there is no reason why the two questions should be included in one Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) mentioned the case of religious equality. I do not want to occupy the time of the House, and therefore I will not further argue that point. Let me take another point. A great argument which we have always heard, and which I may call the old Liberationist argument is that Establishment unduly fetters the Church, and that we should free the Church from those galling bonds and fetters. It was said also that the connection with the State is bad for the Church, and that therefore it would be to the great advantage of the Church that we should liberate her from, as Mr. Miall and others said, those galling bonds. That may be a good argument for Disestablishment—I do not deny it—but can it be an argument for Disendowment? Do you want to liberate the Church by liberating her from her Endowments? There are many people who naturally support the Disestablishment doctrine, though from all that I can observe in the country the cry of Disestablishment is a dying cry. There is nothing like the cry now that Church and State should be separated which there was forty or fifty years ago, or even twenty years ago, when we had this question before the House and the country on the last occasion. I can well understand a certain number of old Whigs being in favour of Disestablishment, but I cannot understand anyone being in favour of Disendowment. The two things are totally distinct. I know that there is one on this side of the House, and though even my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) might, as an old-fashioned Whig, be in favour of Disestablishment, I doubt very much whether he would be in favour of Disendowment. It seems to me that the reasons are distinct, and although it may be hopeless to expect that any good will come from the moving of this Instruction, because the cast-iron majority who support the Government take no interest in the two questions at all, and this Amendment will be voted down like every other Amendment, we are bound to make a protest. We are bound to show to the country that we realise the difference
  1710
  between Disestablishment and Disendowment, and to say that if the Government were honest they would take a separate vote on each, instead of mixing them up in one omnibus Bill.
  Viscount WOLMER: The volcano on the other side of the House appears to be not only extinguished, but extinct. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones) seem to have sunk into the ease of the Smoking Room, for they have not deigned to attend this Debate. I think that is exceedingly regrettable, because if anything did transpire from the very much curtailed Debates we had last Session, it was that even in this House, this party-ridden Assembly, there is a profound difference of opinion in the minds of many Members on the merits of Disestablishment on the one hand and Disendowment on the other. We saw it throughout the whole of the Debates during the Committee stage of this Bill, and one heard about it during the whole of the intrigues and lobbying that went on behind the scenes. It was obvious the whole time that there was an important section of the Liberal party which was in favour of the principle of Disestablishment, but could not stomach the Disendowment Clauses of the Bill, and it is only by confusing the issue and pretending that Disendowment is an inherent part of Disestablishment that the Government have been able to carry the Disendowment proposals at all. Therefore, if true effect is to be given to the mind of this House it is absolutely necessary that the two subjects should be separated as they are separated by nature, so that those Members who believe in Disestablishment could pass Disestablishment, and those who do not believe in Disendowment could reject the Disendowment proposals. But, of course, the last thing that the Government want is to give the House a free opportunity of dealing with this question. Could anything, more than the spectacle we witnessed this afternoon, prove the utter degradation to which the House of Commons has fallen? This assembly which is supposed to govern the country is not even allowed the opportunity of taking a straight vote on the question of Disendowment and Disestablishment by themselves. The majority of this assembly absolutely acquiesce in that situation. They wait in other parts of the building until they are ordered to come and vote the proposals into effect.

  1711
  On this side we were all very much struck by the speeches made by the hon. Member for Morley (Mr. France), the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Gladstone), and other hon. Members opposite, and when we remember that all Debate on the Committee stage was abolished under the Parliament Act, those Members who find themselves in that position ought to be given an opportunity of voting on a Straight issue. They have not got the chance of voting on the separate Clauses or debating Disestablishment. They are asked to vote on the whole Committee stage en bloc. That to my mind is an absolute absurdity. In all the arguments and Debates which took place on this Bill last Session, as far as I am aware, only one argument emerged from the other side in support of this Bill. That is the argument that there was a mandate for it. I do not think that that argument was conclusive, and it was not supported by adequate proof, but I submit that it is an argument that can only apply to Disestablishment and does not apply to Disendowment at all. The fact that you have got so many General Elections in Wales supporting hon. Members who believe in Disestablishment is only an argument, if it is an argument at all, in favour of Disestablishment, and it is not worth a scrap in favour of the Disendowment proposals of this Bill, which have never been before the country and which are held in universal detestation throughout the country by Nonconformists as well as by Churchmen. For that reason I cordially support this Motion. But I think the point which my hon. Friend made so well requires some answer from the other side.
  Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister state that the Establishment of the Church of England in Wales took place at the Reformation, and the Prime Minister, especially, while admitting the absolute spiritual continuity of the Church throughout all the ages, affirmed that there was a definite Establishment at that date. If that is so, all the Endowments that were given before that date are clearly much more rightly the property of the Church after Disestablishment than before Disestablishment. Therefore, to put them together is absolutely grotesque. It is much more reasonable to say that as long as the Church remains Established she should not be entitled to enjoy the Endowments that she obtained before that Establishment took place. As the hon. Member for Chelsea so well put
  1712
  it, you have numerous instances in all quarters of the world where Disestablishment has taken place without Disendowment Hon Members opposite have admitted that there is no intrinsic connection between the two. They have utterly failed to convince us that they have anything to do with each other. Therefore, we demand, in the name of common sense, that they should be separated. To answer, as the Prime Minister has answered, that it would break down the machinery of the Parliament Act is no answer to our demand. It is a biting condemnation of the Parliament Act. It simply shows what a futile measure that measure is, and how it has absolutely succeeded in degrading the whole spirit of the House of Commons. It seems that on the very first occasion when the Parliament Act has been put into effect we see that it has reduced the House of Commons into a mere voting machine, and has deprived it of all initiative of its own and of the opportunity of making up its own mind on a clear issue, and therefore what it has destroyed is not the House of Lords but the House of Commons.
  Mr. E. WOOD: Hon. Members opposite have felt so completely their inability to answer the arguments which have been advanced from this side of the House, that they have crept silently from this House in order to conceal their diminished heads elsewhere. But I hope that the Under - Secretary, before the Debate finishes, will make some attempt to answer the conclusive case which has been advanced by my hon. Friend from this side. So far as I have been able to understand from the Home Secretary, the grounds of his refusal to accept my hon. Friend's Motion are mainly that first in the ordinary popular belief there is an inseparable connection between Disestablishment and Disendowment, and that therefore it would be outraging popular sentiment if you had one without the other, and secondly that there is a radical connection between the two things in popular sentiment. I think that my hon. Friend was plainly justified in saying that in this matter we have undergone a considerable change since we debated this Instruction last year, for, if it was ever true, the reason why it was true then to say that in the minds of the public the two things were regarded more or less as one was that until the thing was debated in Committee the Disendowment proposals were never made clear to the minds of the public. The ordinary

  1713
  public was led to believe that there was a grievance in the matter of supposed in-quality and in the matter of Establishment, but the ordinary public never knew and had no means of knowing, unless they were prepared to read all the Clauses of the Bill, what were the Disendowment proposals which were put forward. All the references in the election addresses of hon. Members opposite were to "religious equality," and they blurred the question of Disendowment as completely as ever they were able to do.
  With regard to the logical connection between the two things, I think that the Home Secretary in his speech to-day will feel that he was well advised in sheltering himself behind rules of order when once again he argued that Endowment was one of the results of Establishment. Anyone who takes the trouble even to glance at the very surface of this question, apart from prejudice, will not attempt to substantiate such a position. I think it does come back really to this, that apart from party interests and arguments we know perfectly well that there is no answer to accepting the Instruction of my hon. Friend. All common sense invites you to do it. The arguments of some of your own supporters on the last occasion on which the matter was discussed invited you to do it, and the only reason that prevented you was that it would be politically inconvenient. There are three sections of opinion upon this question. One lot of people want to have Disestablishment and Disendowment; another lot of people want to have, if they can, Disestablishment without Disendowment; and until my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said so this afternoon, I was not aware that there was a third class who wished to have Disendowment without Disestablishment, but I am prepared to accept it from him. I do not think anybody would challenge the fact that you certainly would be able to carry Disestablishment in this House as an abstract question without any measure of Disendowment at all. I never met anybody who favoured Disestablishment who said that he would not have it unless it was coupled with Disendowment—except the Under-Secretary himself, who said that it was the only programme worth having. With the exception of him, I do not think that there is anybody who would refuse to vote for the abstract principle of Disestablishment because there was no Disendowment. If that is true, it means that you are afraid
  1714
  to distinguish between the two, because you know that you would not be able to have Disendowment without Disestablishment. You have got no fear about Disestablishment. You have a real fear that you would not be able to carry Disendowment until you mix it up with what a great many other people desire on all sorts of grounds, namely, Disestablishment.
  I invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider how complete the confusion is. The question of Disestablishment, if you are to discuss it properly and arrive at some intelligent agreement as to what is meant by it, raises the whole point of the historical policy which has in this country insisted on the clergy being treated as a separate estate. Then there is your policy of Disendowment, which raises questions in the discussion of which you ought to be guided not by old abstract and in some degree antiquarian questions of history, but by practical considerations of what your Disendowment proposals will do if they are carried now. That is a point which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite always refuse to consider. The main effects of Disestablishment and Disendowment will be almost inverse in their operation. I am one of those who think, and I believe that many hon. Members on each side of the House agree with me, that the result of Disestablishment would be far more unfavourable to the State than it would be to the Church. Speaking for myself, I do not think that Churchmen have any reason whatever to fear Disestablishment, but they have reason to fear it from the point of view of the State. As to Disendowment, I do not, of course, fear its effect upon the Church in regard to its spiritual life, but I do fear it from the point of view of the work which the money enables the Church to perform. In joining Disestablishment and Disendowment together you invite people to vote in a homogeneous way on both at once. Is it not transparent that the reason this Instruction is not accepted is that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have reasons of political expediency which forbid their accepting it? Otherwise, I should be curious to see the result if, for once, Members of this House were allowed to follow the dictates of reason and conscience rather than the crack Of the party Whip, for I believe that in a free Division my hon. Friend's Instruction would be carried by an overwhelming majority, consisting of Members on both sides of the House.
  Mr. MOUNT: I should like to congratulate the Home Secretary, if I may, on the Pontificial attitude he adopted, and apparently his speech has had the effect of imposing a ban on those Members opposite whose powers of speech have been so eloquently manifested on other occasions. I am bound to say that the Home Secretary did not seem to me to adduce any reasonable argument in opposition to the Instruction moved by my hon. and learned Friend. He seemed to base himself only on the interests of His Majesty's Government. He did not state any of the arguments one would suppose he would have stated, nor did he attempt to show that Disestablishment and Disendowment are so closely interwoven that they could not be separated or that the arguments on which they are founded are so similar that no one could properly be expected to vote for the one without voting for the other; or, again, that there are practical difficulties so great that it would be impossible to carry out the proposal. In not one of those particulars did the Home Secretary make out or attempt to make out any case at all. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Hume-Williams) pointed out that the Home Secretary on more than one occasion had stated that Disestablishment and Disendowment did not necessarily go together. The Home Secretary in his reply admitted that, but said that so far as this Bill is concerned Disestablishment and Disendowment were so conjoined. I should like to call his attention to what he said on the 18th December of last year:—
  "We have been challenged whether it was necessary that Disestablishment and Disendowment should be conjoined. There have been several cases of Disestablishment without Disendowment, and there have been cases of Disestablishment with Disendowment. It has never been put forward on this side of the House by the Solicitor-General, as the hon. and learned Member stated, nor by anybody else, that the gift to the Established Church of itself would deprive the Church of the right to retain it upon becoming Disestablished."
  I support the statement of my hon. and learned Friend that there is nothing in the argument that the two cannot be separated. The arguments in favour of Disestablishment and those in favour of Disendowment are not similar; the arguments in favour of Disendowment are based on history; they are not always accurate, they are often varied. But anyone who has followed the course of the Debate realises that the whole of the arguments in favour of Disestablishment are founded simply and solely on expediency. It was said to be
  1716
  expedient that there should be religious equality between the Churches. There is a distinct difference between the arguments in favour of Disestablishment and those in favour of Disendowment. In regard to the question of practical difficulties, I think anyone who has studied the Bill at all carefully has seen that it is comparatively a simple matter to take those Clauses which refer to Disestablishment and put them into a Bill by themselves, and to take the Clauses relating to Disendowment and put them into another Bill by themselves. You have only got to take the three first Clauses and the 13th Clause of the Bill to find that practically the whole of the question of Disestablishment is involved in them. There may be one or two other questions dealing with marriage and other matters which might be necessary to put into the Bill, also, but there would be no practical difficulties such as would make it impossible or even very difficult to separate these two questions into two Bills. The whole matter seems to me to narrow itself down to this, that this Instruction must not be passed because it might interfere with the action of the Parliament Act. I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether the Parliament Act was made for the House of Commons or whether the House of Commons was made for the Parliament Act? I believe that a great many Members of the House on both sides would like to vote for this Instruction if they were given the opportunity of taking an honest Division upon it. If my hon. and learned Friend goes to a Division, I shall most heartily support the Instruction.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The Home Secretary early in the discussion made a speech of amenity and courtesy which it seemed was going to make this Debate quite a memorable one, because some of us thought that he was making a perfectly accurate and correct statement. I remember, in reading one of Mr. Belloc's books, of a Cabinet Minister who, having received an injury to his arm, was obliged ever after to speak the truth. But on reflection my hon. Friends pulled themselves together and began to see that the statement of the Home Secretary was after all not correct. On this question of Disendowment there have been considerable signs of a difference of opinion among hon. Members opposite, for the statement of the Home Secretary is not accurate that the feeling on his side in regard to Dis-

  1717
  endowment is exactly the same as regards Disestablishment; and we are entitled to maintain that this Instruction really gives Liberal Members the Parliamentary opportunity to which they are entitled. We are still trying to take the Parliament Act, and the assurances on which the Parliament Act was based, seriously. The Parliament Act was undoubtedly based on assurances given on the platform in the country and in the House of Commons that we would have a real opportunity of reconsidering proposals which were made. I do not suppose there is anyone who would seriously dispute that if the judgment of the country were taken on this matter of Disendowment, it would certainly be rejected. I do not think that anybody in the House believes for a moment that Disendowment commands the support of the majority. Disestablishment, no doubt, commands the great majority of Nonconformists and a minority of Churchmen, but Disendowment is profoundly unpopular in the Church, and a great body of Nonconformist opinion is now against it. If we are really to carry out the purpose of the Parliament Act we ought to have an opportunity of reconsidering the question of Disestablishment and Disendowment separately. I do not think this Bill is going to pass into law, but if it does, I am quite sure that it will not come into operation, because there must be a Dissolution before the date of Disestablishment, and, in that case, the new House of Commons will be able to do what it pleases with the Act, whatever that may be. Is it in the interest of Disestablishment to bind these two questions together? I think, in the opinion of the country, Disendowment drags down the question of Disestablishment. Even in the view of hon. Members opposite, would it not be wiser to separate the two questions while there is time, and then you would have reasonable hope of keeping the Disestablishment part of the Bill in effect, after the Disendowment part is repealed; or, if the Bill does not pass, you have a better chance, when you renew the controversy, in having separated the questions once for all. If you keep the two questions together, it is not only unsound, but thoroughly bad legislation, founded on mistaken history. The division is also in the interests of those who are most zealous and most conscientious promoters of this Bill—that is to say, opponents of the Establishment. No one, I think, doubts that what feeling there is behind the Bill, inside or outside
  1718
  the House, is concentrated on the Disestablishment part. Would it not be wise, therefore, from the point of view of those zealous supporters, to separate the Bill into two, so that the more popular part, or the less unpopular part, should no longer be weighed down by the other part? For those reasons I think this Instruction is reasonable, though I do not suppose, because it is reasonable, that it will be carried. The House has never been very largely attended during the Debate. Generally we have had about a dozen Liberal Members. No doubt a dozen persons have done great things, but those Gentlemen appear to have taken very little interest in the discussion to which they have condescended to listen, so that I do not anticipate any very striking effect from our arguments in the Division Lobbies. I am quite certain of this: If the Government do to-day, as they have done on very many previous occasions, namely, press forward their proposals, relying only on their party majority, which has got neither reason nor popularity behind it, in the end, though at some discredit to the House of Commons and injury to the traditions of debate, their schemes will fail and their party will be defeated, and we shall reap what we deserve to reap—the benefit.
  Captain TRYON: I rise to support the Instruction, not because I do not oppose either point, as I am opposed to both, but because there is a great difference amongst portions of the Liberal party on the question of Disendowment and Disestablishment. Some hon. Members opposite are, I believe, strongly opposed to Disendowment, and I believe that in that objection they really represent what they do not openly represent here, namely, the views of their constituents, and I think that they know they represent the views of their constituents, because I notice when Liberal Members are speaking in England they do their very best to avoid all reference to the word "Disendowment." There is generally some talk about religious equality and so on, but Disendowment is not mentioned. I think that is a good thing, because I believe it means that a great many Liberal speakers in the country are heartily ashamed of the policy of Disendowment. The Home Secretary gave us a truly remarkable description of what happened at the General Election. He tells us that the voters all knew the contents of the Bill of 1909. I do not believe that the average

  1719
  elector reads these Bills, but I do know that when he goes to Liberal meetings he does not hear about Disendowment, but about religious equality, and a few kind words as to how fond the Liberal speaker is of the Church. It is possible that the voter may not know that when the Liberal speaker says he is very fond of the Church what he really means is that he is going to Disendow the Church. The elector also probably hears a good deal of a desire for friendship amongst the Churches, and perhaps he may not know that that desire is translated into a carefully calculated removal of a considerable portion of the Church's income. Therefore I believe we ought to have these questions decided separately, because the Liberal party is divided about the matter, and the opposition to Disendowment is much stronger than the opposition, what there is of it, to Disestablishment. My print, then, is that because the differences in the Liberal party reflect the far greater difference in the Liberal ranks in the country, we ought to have the opportunity, therefore, of voting separately on those two questions.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is the first time this Session I have intervened in a Debate on a Bill under the Parliament Act, because I thought the whole thing such a farce. On this side of the House we knew the Home Rule Bill and this Bill were going to be dragooned through, and that practically any debate would be a waste of time. I think, however, if we could get this particular Instruction carried, it would be very advantageous to the real thought of the country on these questions of Disestablishment and Disendowment. It appears that the forces underlying the support of Disestablishment and Disendowment are quite different. Disendowment is supported by the force of knowledge, because those who support it know that it means getting money out of the Church possibly into the pockets of the people, and that is very easily understood by the public at large. A large section would be prepared to support that policy. When I go to the country and try to find out what is supporting Disestablishment, it seems to me it is really the force of ignorance, because very few of the ordinary electors realise what is going to happen under the provisions of the Disestablishment Clauses of this Bill. I have often myself had a
  1720
  considerable sprinkling of supporters of the Bill in an audience, and when I have asked them what they meant by Disestablishment, it was exceedingly difficult to get an opinion from them. If we could get this Bill split into two, we should find exactly the same difference in this House. A very large number of Members opposite who glibly support Disestablishment because there is money in it, would find a great difficulty in supporting Disestablishment from any real knowledge of what Disestablishment was going to effect. The only argument I have been able to ascertain, which influences the minds of speakers in the country is that under Disestablishment you would get rid of four Welsh bishops from the House of Lords. There are, I admit, reasons perhaps, why it is unfair to have all the heads of one Church, and not the heads of other Churches in the House of Lords, but, as has been frequently pointed out from these Benches, that inequality could be removed without pulling the whole Church down. It is not necessary to Disestablish and Disendow the Church in order to get rid of those four bishops from the House of Lords.
  Another argument which we might have if we could get a separate vote, and about the only argument, would be that the clergy of the Church of England might sit here. I am not at all sure if we had a separate vote that hon. Members opposite would support that portion of the Disestablishment programme. They, as well as we, have got experience of ministers in this House, and I am not at all sure that they would think it would be desirable to add to the number of ecclesiastics here, which could be done under the Disestablishment proposal of this Bill. I want to go a step further. There is another reason why we should have a separate vote, and that is because Disestablishment involves dismemberment of the Church of England. Most of the arguments opposite arise from what is called the national argument, namely, that we are bound to pass this measure, because the representatives of Wales were in favour of it. That might do for Disendowment, and I can conceive some justification for that argument so far as it involves Disendowment of that portion of the Church in Wales, but the argument has no validity whatever with regard to dismemberment of the Church of England. Many of us here have very grave doubts as to the right to dismember the Church.

  1721
  Parliament may have the right to Disestablish and Disendow the whole Church, but some of us have very grave doubts whether, jumbled up in this way, you have the right to dismember the Church of England from the Church in Wales. The national argument was almost the only argument advanced by the Prime Minister in favour of this Bill. If these matters were separated you would have to prove that you had in favour of Disestablishment a majority of Members from England and Wales, which, of course, you are quite unable to do. You are simply carrying this Bill through by the votes of the Irish party. You are trying to keep these two sections of the Bill in one to prevent difficulties of conscience amongst those who would be prepared to vote for Disestablishment, but who would not vote for Disendowment, if they could get a. clear-cut issue, and, again, because you want, to put the matter plainly, to carry the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church, and the dismemberment of the Church of England by the predatory instincts of the Welsh Radical party who are in favour of Disendowment.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I desire to refer to one aspect on this matter, which has not previously been mentioned. I think I can see, so far as one section of the right hon. Gentleman's party is concerned one very strong reason why he objects to divide this Bill into two parts. Some
  sixty Scottish Members will no doubt support the Opposition to this division of the Bill, because the absence of that division is most convenient for them. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Perth, who is very well fitted to speak on this question, whether he thinks one-sixth of those sixty Members would dare come forward in Scotland and propose a pure Disendowment Bill, if they could not cover it up with some specious plea about religious equality. In the present position and attitude of the Scottish Churches, Scottish Members are doing a very bold, I should say, almost a treacherous act to the Church of England, if they, knowing how Disendowment would be viewed by the Church in Scotland, are ready to confuse those two issues together, and, because the Bill for Disestablishment may be speciously described as a Bill for something unknown, which they interpret as religious equality, would go to their constituents, and defend their action in stripping of its Endowments, a Church, by a procedure which they know perfectly well was not dreamt of with regard to the Church in Scotland.
  Question put, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first dealing with the Disestablishment and the second with the Disendowment of the Church in Wales."
  The House divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 306.

  Division No. 134.]

  AYES.

  [6.0 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Campion, W. R.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Cassel, Felix

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Cater, John

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Goldman, C. S.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Grant, J. A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Gretton, John

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

  Barnston, Harry

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Croft, H. P.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Bigland, Alfred

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Bird, Alfred

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Blair, Reginald

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Hills, John Waller

  Boyton, James

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Bridgeman, William Clive

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

  Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fell, Arthur

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Butcher, John George

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Hunt, Rowland

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

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

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Ingleby, Holcombe

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

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Swift, Rigby

  Kerry, Earl of

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Boner (Bootle)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Wairond, H on. Lionel

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Malcolm, Ian

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

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

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Sanders, Robert

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Sandys, G. J.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Mount, William Arthur

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L p'l., Walton)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hume-Williams and Mr. Hoare.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Nield, Herbert

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Clough, William

  Gladstone, W, G. C.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Adamson, William

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cotton, William Francis

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Alden, Percy

  Cowan, W. H.

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Craig, H. J. (Tynemouth)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Crean, Eugene

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Crooks, William

  Hackett, John

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Barnes, George N.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Delany, William

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Barton, William

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hayward, Evan

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork. N. E.)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Dillon, John

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Doris, W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duffy, William J.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Boland, John Pius

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hinds, John

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Brace, William

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Hogg, David C.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Falconer, James

  Hudson, Walter

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Hughes, S. L.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  John, Edward Thomas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Field, William

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

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

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  1724

  1725

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rowlands, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Keating, Matthew

  Neilson, Francis

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Kelly, Edward

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  King, J.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sheehy, David

  Lardner, James C.R.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  O'Dowd, John

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Leach, Charles

  Ogden, Fred

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  O'Malley, William

  Snowden, Philip

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Lundon, Thomas

  O'Shee, James John

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Sutherland, John E.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tennant, Harold John

  McGhee, Richard

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wadsworth, John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wardle, G. J.

  Manfield, Harry

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Priestley, Sir R. Arthur (Grantham)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Webb, H.

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Radford, G. H.

  White, J. Dundas (Tradeston)

  Meagher, Michael

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  White, Patrick (Meath North)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Reddy, M.

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Molloy, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Richards, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Mooney, John J.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Morrell, Philip

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wing, Thomas

  Morison, Hector

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Young, W. (Perthshire)

  Muldoon, John

  Robinson, Sidney

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Munro, R.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Mr. McKENNA: I have a message from the King signifying to the House that His Majesty has been pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament for the Established Church (Wales) Bill His Majesty's interest in the bishoprics and other ecclesiastical dignities and benefices in Wales and Monmouthshire.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  The CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order of the House of 23rd June, proceeded to put forthwith the Question, "That the Chairman do Report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 309; Noes, 204.

  Division No. 35.]

  AYES.

  [6.12 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Alden, Percy

  Barnes, George N.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Adamson, William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Barton, William

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

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

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Munro, R.

  Boland, John Pius

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Brace, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Neilson, Francis

  Brady, P. J.

  Hayward, Evan

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph,

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

  Hinds, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E H.

  Ogden, Fred

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hogg, David C.

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Malley, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Neill. Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Clough, William

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Shee, James John

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmer (Swansea)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, William (Carnarvenshire)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Crooks, William

  Jewett, Frederick William

  Pointer, Joseph

  Crumley, Patrick

  Joyce, Michael

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Cullinan, John

  Keating, Matthew

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kelly, Edward

  Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

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

  Kilbride, Denis

  Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  King, J.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Radford, G. H.

  Delany, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Leach, Charles

  Reddy, M.

  Dillon, John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, John E (Waterford)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Doris, William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lundon, T.

  Richards, Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  McGhee, Richard

  Robertson, J. M. ((Tyneside).

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Falconer, James

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Rowlands, James

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Field, William

  Manfield, Harry

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

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

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Meagher, Michael

  Sheehy, David

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Glanville, H. J.

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Ailsebrook

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Millar, James Duncan

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Molloy, Michael

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Molteno, Percy Aiport

  Snowden, Philip

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hackett, J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Morison, Hector

  Tennant, Harold John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Muldoon, John

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  1728

  1729

  Touimin, Sir George

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Webb, H.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)

  Wadsworth, J.

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

  Winfrey, Richard

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wing, Thomas

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Wardle, George J.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Grant, J. A.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Greene, W. R.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baird, J. L.

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London.)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Barnston, Harry

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Randles, Sir John S.

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

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Rawlinson, John Fredrick Peel

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Robert, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hills, John Waller

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Blair, Reginald

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hohler, G. F.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Boyton, James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton)

  Butcher, John George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cassel, Felix

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Cator, John

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Cautley, H. S.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stewart, Greshom

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lane-Fox, G. R

  Swift, Rigby

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Valentia, Viscount

  Croft, H. P.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Macmaster, Donald

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Walford)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  M'Calment, Major Robert C. A.

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

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Malcolm, Ian

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

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

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

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

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Forster, Henry William

  Newman, John R. P.

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, Sir George

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Nield, Herbert

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

  Goldman, C. S.

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

  E. Talbot and Mr. Bridgeman.

  Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Wednesday).

  APPELLATE JURISDICTION [SALARIES AND PENSIONS].—
  [Progress, 30th June.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Order read for resuming consideration of Amendment to Question, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of the Salary and Pension of any additional Lord of Appeal in Ordinary appointed under any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the number and duties of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary."—[The Attorney-General.]
  Which Amendment was at the end of the Question, to add the words "provided that the sum paid in salaries in any one year to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary appointed under this Act shall in no case exceed ten thousand pounds."—[Mr. Watt.]
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there added." Debate resumed.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley, and for the guidance of the Committee. May I ask whether this Resolution in Committee will over the new Clause which I have put down with regard to the payment of not merely the judges, but the expenses of their officers? It will probably be agreed that it is essential that these judges should have the necessary officers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] It is arguable. There is, at all events, the further point to be considered as to whether the judges may have the necessary officers. I have put down—and it will come on in due course in Committee—a new Clause to enable them to have the same salaried officers, and so forth, as the other judges. What I want to specially guard myself against when we come into Committee is being met by a Financial Resolution which is not sufficiently wide. I desire, therefore, to ask your guidance as to whether the present Financial Resolution is wide enough to cover the necessary expenses which are mentioned in the new Clause that I have put down, or whether it will be desirable to move an Amendment to enlarge the scope of this Resolution?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a question upon which I shall not rule till we come to the Committee on the Bill. I do not examine new Clauses until we arrive at that stage.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "ten" ["ten thousand pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "twelve."
  When I was speaking last night I was pointing out to the Committee that though I agreed in the main with the limiting Resolution which has been put forward by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of St. Pancras, I could not agree with the Amendment which he had put into his suggested Amendment. There was some doubt on this side of the House, and, I think, also on the other side of the House, as to what amount should be put in, presuming we were desirous of giving to these two new Lords of Appeal the same salary as that given to the other Lords of Appeal. I suggested that the Amendment should be limited to £12,000, instead of £10,000. I was met by cries from both sides of the House that that would not be sufficient, because there were other expenses which should be included for clerks, etc., and which would not be covered by the £12,000. I find, however, that that is not so, and that the £12,000 would actually provide a salary of the same amount as received now by the existing Lords of Appeal. I believe I am right in saying that Lords of Appeal do not have clerks or amanuenses, as the hon. Gentleman for one of the Divisions of Glasgaw said last night. On looking at the Paper, too, I find that the Amendment provides that the sum paid in salaries in any one year to these Lords of Appeal in Ordinary shall in no case exceed £10,000. I am very glad to see that the Resolution is on the Paper, and that the Amendment is also on the Paper, because it makes it so very much better to discuss. The Resolution was not on the Paper yesterday, and I would rather like to know why? I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his place. He was extremely anxious when he was in Opposition that all these Resolutions should be on the Paper. Several hon. Members have asked me why this Resolution was not put on the Paper. I have told them that there was nothing unusual in the Resolution not being on the Paper, but that the eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he sat on this side of the House was unbounded upon the

  1733
  wickedness of the Tories in not putting these Resolutions upon the Paper.
  Now that hon. Gentlemen opposite have come into office, though I admit they have occasionally put these Resolutions upon the Paper, on the majority of occasions the Resolutions are not put on the Paper, and I was endeavouring to show how necessary it is that they should be put on the Paper, because, if this Resolution had been put on the Paper yesterday, probably the misconception that did arise would not have arisen. I move my Amendment to insert £12,000, instead of £10,000, because I do not in the least wish to cut down the salaries of any of the judges. I believe that the judges are by no manner of means exceptionally paid. Their work is certainly deserving of the salaries they get. I should be the last man in this House to desire to cut them down, but I do think before we vote money we ought to know what we are going to do and how much we are going to vote. It has been said that a limiting Resolution of this sort would never be accepted because it is quite unusual. I am glad to say that by constantly pegging away at this form of procedure on nearly every occasion and by moving limiting Resolutions, sometimes with very satisfactory results, I succeeded, I think it was two or three months ago, in actually getting a limiting Resolution accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. My arguments were apparently so conclusive that the right hon. Gentleman accepted the limiting Resolution. In this case my arguments will be, if possible, even more conclusive than they were upon that occasion. What, after all, is it that we propose to do? We propose to give these two Lords of Appeal a certain salary. [An HON. MEMBER: "£5,000 each."] An hon. Member opposite says £5,000 each, but that is £1,000 less than they already receive, and I see no reason for a diminution when you are going to appoint further Lords of Appeal—though, of course, I cannot go into that question. When you are appointing gentlemen of this sort you ought to pay them properly. I am certain hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, who are all in favour of trade union rate of wages, will support me in this, because there is no doubt that this is the trade union rate of those concerned. No trade unionist could say that less than the existing rate could by any manner of means be regarded as the trade union rate; therefore I can count upon their cooperation for this Amendment. I wish to
  1734
  substitute the sum of £12,000, which enables the existing rate to be paid, and that would have the advantage that we would know what we were doing, and that we are not putting into the hands of the Government large sums to be extravagantly spent. I venture to say from the returns that have been coming in I do not know where the money is to come from, because the returns for the quarter are extremely bad. At the same time I cannot advocate the cutting down of salaries below the existing rate. On the other hand, considering the bad returns that are coming in, it is not right to give the Government the spending of more than this. If we do not put in some limiting words it may be in the power of the Government, as somebody suggested, I think quite wrongly, to appoint two Lords of Appeal and to give one a larger salary than the other. I do not believe that for a moment. I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) may say to these limiting words. I am not quite certain he will be agreed, and I hope if he does not agree he will be able to show by convincing arguments that I am wrong and he is right. I move, therefore, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "twelve."
  Mr. BARNES: I am sorry to disillusion the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for the City of London, and so far as I am concerned, at any rate, I am not going to vote for £12,000 as against £10,000.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is the hon. Member a "blackleg"?
  Mr. BARNES: The hon. Baronet can apply that term if he likes. I quite agree with his argument that he has so often urged before that there is need for limiting the amount of money taken in this Resolution. I do not think it is right we should give the Government a blank cheque, but when he assumes that the Labour party are going to vote in favour of £12,000 as against £10,000, I think he is labouring under a delusion. I should like to refer for a moment to what was said last night about the Labour party in reference to the appointment of a new judge. I counted at least half a dozen of my colleagues in the same Lobby on that occasion as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyme.
  Mr. WATT: And fifteen in the other Lobby.
  Mr. BARNES: That only shows that the Labour party did not make it a party question. On the previous occasion the question of arrears in the King's Bench was shown to be very bad, and having regard to the fact that colleagues of ours signed a Report in favour of a new judge and felt bound by that, consequently most of us voted in favour of the additional judge. I believe with hon. Members behind me that no one case has been made out for the appointment of these two additional judges, but, however, I cannot go into that on the Resolution now before the House. I agree that we ought to have a knowledge of how much money we are going to vote before adopting this Resolution. It is upon that I am going to vote now, but I shall vote for the smaller sum rather than the larger sum, because it seems to me that the question of trade union rates will not come in here at all. Trade union rates are fixed by persons banding themselves together.
  Sir F. BANBURY: So are lawyers.
  Mr. BARNES: Yes, but the lawyers are protected by having their salaries fixed here in this House, and not by higgledy-piggledy rates outside. I shall not vote for £6,000 a year each simply because lawyers at the present time have £6,000. I shall vote for £5,000 because I think it is quite ample.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I think the House will recognise that on the Second Reading of the Bill I stated the proposal of the Government in some detail. In substance it means this: We are seeking by this Resolution to pay salaries to the two new Lords of Appeal the same as are paid to the four Lords of Appeal under the ordinary powers of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876. This proposal of the Government is to put the two new Lords in exactly the same position as the present Law Lords, and that they shall receive the same amount. It is very curious that on the last occasion when we were discussing this on Second Reading, and when I had already explained what the proposal of the Government was, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Martin), said this. I am very glad the Government have decided to put the salaries of the judges at £6,000, and to provide that each additional judge performing these duties shall get £6,000 and
  1736
  should receive the same as the other judges. The conclusion the Government came to was not to make any distinction between the Law Lords appointed under this Bill and those appointed under the earlier Act. All we are doing at the present moment is seeking power from the Committee to pay the judges these salaries, and it is right that they should be paid at the same rate as the other four Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
  Mr. WATT: Why was not that done in the previous Bills?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I explained that on the Second Reading. The original proposal was that they should be paid lower salaries and that led to a good deal of discussion and criticism. It was thought that there was no reason why, if you are to appoint two new Law Lords to do exactly the same duties as the present Law Lords, that the salaries should be reduced unless the House intended to reduce the whole of the salaries. Moreover, on the second Bill introduced in 1912 it was suggested that the clerks to the Law Lords should be paid through the Law Lords. After a considerable amount of consideration and reflection the conclusion the Government came to was—and it was approved by all my colleagues—that the salaries should be the same with regard to the two new Law Lords as in respect to the four Law Lords, and that is the proposal we are now putting forward, and all we ask is that there should be power under the Resolution to pay them salaries the same. I have no objection to the limiting words so long as the limiting words enable us to pay these salaries. The hon. Baronet has proposed limiting words of £12,000, instead of £10,000, which would enable us to pay salaries of £6,000 to each. There never was any intention of paying more, and I think the limiting words the hon. Baronet proposes are quite acceptable to the Government, and I shall accept them.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I should like to say a few words in reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes). In the first place, the Report to which he referred the Committee, signed by his colleague, has nothing whatever to do with this Bill. It was in reference to the King's Bench and not to the Appellate Jurisdiction Court. Of course, I should like to say that the Labour party when we divided the House voted for a pension of

  1737
  £3,500 for a man who only served fifteen months upon the bench. I ask the Attorney-General if these limiting words were placed in the Bill would that prevent the Government of the day giving pensions of £3,500 to a judge who sat for a few days only.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The limiting proposals here affect salaries only. The words of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend apply only to salaries, and the Amendment to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London applies only to salaries. Pensions stand in exactly the same position as they did. We are making no change, we are placing them on exactly the same terms as judges' pensions stood hitherto. We are not making any alteration of any kind whatever.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I think we will have to move an Amendment to that effect.
  The CHAIRMAN: I should point out that these Amendments are much more appropriate to the Committee on the Bill than to the Money Resolution. I have already an Amendment handed to me dealing with pensions. It might be possible in that manner to raise a Debate or discussion of the whole Bill upon the Money Resolution. That is a most undesirable practice and this Debate cannot range over the whole scope of the Bill.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: May I draw your attention, Mr. Whitley, to the fact that under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876, if my memory serves me right, I think it is Clause 56, there is power given to the Government to give pensions or not as they think fit. The word "may" is introduced. It is in the discretion of the Government. What I want to say is that power should be with this House and not with the Government of the day.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is no doubt a very good point and a very pertinent one to the Bill when we arrive at it, but we are not on the Bill at the present time.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I think it is extremely satisfactory that the Attorney-General has yielded upon a very important question of principle. The Financial Resolution as it stands is absolutely unlimited, and it would empower the Government to pay any salary or pension. Now, as I understand it, the Attorney-General has properly appreciated the force of the conten-
  1738
  tion of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, and is willing to put limiting words into the Bill as regards salaries. I think that is not quite enough and I think the Attorney-General will probably see that the same reasons which make it desirable to limit the amount of the salaries would make it desirable in this Resolution to limit the amount of the pensions, and I would suggest that the best form of Amendment would be somewhat in this effect, to insert at the end of the proposed Amendment: "Provided that the pensions and salaries to be granted to any Lord of Appeal appointed under this Act shall in no case exceed the amount which might be granted as pension and salary to any Lord of Appeal in Ordinary."
  Sir A. MARKHAM: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. You have already ruled that I was not in order on this matter. Is the hon. and learned Member now entitled to move that Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for York has handed in the Amendment to which I just now referred. It is really an Amendment to the Bill. As the Committee will have full opportunity of dealing with and inserting these restrictions, if it sees fit, I do venture to say that to try to turn this stage into a Committee on the Bill is not in the real interest of hon. Members, and is a most undesirable practice. With regard to the particular Amendment handed in, that could not he moved until the other one has been disposed of, and I would suggest to the Committee that it would be better to defer the whole matter until we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am ready to give an undertaking that no further sums shall be asked for than the pensions already granted under the Act as they stand. We have no desire to increase pensions. All we wish is that the same pensions should be granted as are at present in existence. I ask the hon. Member to rest content with that undertaking on behalf of the Government, and any question which arises upon it can be discussed in Committee.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will accept some limit to provide that the pension of £3,500 will not be payable until a judge has served at least three years?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a point which will be more properly raised in Committee.
  Mr. BUTCHER: This is really more than accepting a question of Amendment, because there is a matter of principle raised. I suggest that when the House is in Committee, in order to pass a Financial Resolution, sanctioning a charge upon the public funds, it is extremely desirable to put some limit upon that charge. As the Resolution stands, there is no limit whatsoever on the charge——
  The CHAIRMAN: The only question now before the Committee is the question as between the word "ten" and the word "twelve," which is the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I was speaking upon the Amendment as proposed to be amended, and I was urging upon the Attorney-General that it would be appropriate not merely to have this undertaking, but to put some limiting words in the Resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN: The only question is whether in the Amendment, the word "ten" should stand, or whether it should be left out, and the word "twelve" inserted in lieu thereof.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. HENRY TERRELL: In a Debate on these Resolutions the matter cannot be debated in full because we are restricted at every turn, and it is impossible to raise the question as to whether £6,000 is sufficient, or whether the pensions are sufficient, or whether both salaries and pensions ought to be more or less. Therefore, we are having a curtailed Debate upon a vital matter limiting the powers of this House, whereas if the Resolution passes in the form in which it appears on the Paper, then the House when it comes to the Committee Stage can deal with the whole matter in a full Debate. It is
  impossible to deal with the matter in this way. The Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Watt)—
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. and learned Member has mistaken the point. The only question now is between the "ten" and the "twelve," and we must get rid of that question before we can discuss any other matter.
  Mr. J. HOPE: I desire to say that if the hon. Member for Glasgow presses his Amendment to a Division I shall support him, because I object altogether to the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords
  ——
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on the question of "ten" or "twelve."
  Mr. J. HOPE: I object to the whole system on principle, but I shall vote for the lesser sum. I think it is time some protest was made against a system which leads to such misconception, and on that ground I shall vote for the Amendment.
  Mr. MACMASTER: I believe in judges being paid proper salaries, and I apply the same rule to every other employment in life. This is a question, however, between "ten" and "twelve." For my part, I am against both, because I consider this addition perfectly unnecessary.
  Mr. WATT: This is a question as between £10,000 and £12,000. May I remind the Committee that in 1911 the view of the Government was that the salary should be £5,000, and in 1912 that was still their view? In 1913 it is the view of the Government that the salary should be raised to £6,000, and there is no explanation why the Government has changed its view. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cost of living."] My proviso carries out the view held by the Government in 1911 and 1912, because it limits the amount to £10,000, and if it accepted these judges will receive £5,000 each instead of £6,000.
  Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 386.

  Division No. 136.]

  AYES.

  [6.54 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Barton, William

  Brace, William

  Alden, Percy

  Bigland, Alfred

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Baker, Joheph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Barnes, George N.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Barrie, H. T.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Jewett, Frederick William

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Snowden, Philip

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Dixon, C. H.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Sutton, John E.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Thomas, James Henry

  Glanville, H. J.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Gretton, John

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wardle, George J.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Winfrey, Richard

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wing, Thomas

  Hinds, John

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Hogge, James Myles

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rowlands, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Watt and Sir A. Markham.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Cassel, Felix

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cator, John

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Forster, Henry William

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Cave, George

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

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

  Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Clancy, John J.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Clough, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Goldman, C. S.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Greene, W. R.

  Baird, J. L.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Guest, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Gulland, John William

  Barnston, Harry

  Crooks, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Cullinan, John

  Hackett, J.

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensingten, S.)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardiganshire)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Dawes, J. A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Delany, William

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Harris, Henry Percy

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

  Denison-Ponder, J. C.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Devlin, Joseph

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bird, Alfred

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dillon, John

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Blair, Reginald

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Boland, John Pius

  Doris, William

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

  Duffy, William J.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Boyton, James

  Edwards, Clement (Glamoran, E.)

  Hills, John Waller

  Brady, P. J.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hogg, David C.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Falconer, James

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Fell, Arthur

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Butcher, John George

  Field, William

  Hume, Williams, Wm. Ellis

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

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Hunt, Rowland

  Camplon, W. R.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  1742

  1743

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Neilson, Francis

  Sandys, G. J.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Sheehy, David

  Joyce, Michael

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Keating, Matthew

  Nolan, Joseph

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

  Kelly, Edward

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Nuttall, Harry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  King, J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Dowd, John

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Ogden, Fred

  Stewart, Gershom

  Lardner, James C. R.

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  O'Malley, William

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Leach, Charles

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  O'Shee, James John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Thynne, Lord A

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lundon, T.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Lynch, A. A.

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  McGhee, Richard

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

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

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Webb, H.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Marks, Sir George Croydon.

  Reddy, M.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Meagher, Michael

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Richards, Thomas

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

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Roberts, Charles (Lincoln)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Millar, James Duncan

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Molloy, Michael

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Winterton, Earl

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Younger, Sir George

  Morison, Hector

  Rutherford. John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Muldoon, John

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.)—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

  Munro, R.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Question put, "That the word 'twelve' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 372; Noes, 65.

  Division No. 137.]

  AYES.

  [7.7 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ashley, W. W.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Baird, J. L.

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

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

  Doris, William

  Kerry, Earl of

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kilbride, Denis

  Banbury, Sir Frederick

  Duffy, William J.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Barnston, Harry

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Boner (Bootle)

  Barton, William

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Leach, Charles

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Falconer, James

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Fell, Arthur

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Beckett, Han. Gervase

  Ffrench, Peter

  Locker-Lampoon, O. (Ramsey)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Field, William

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lundon, T.

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lynch, A. A.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Bird, A.

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  McGhee, Richard

  Blair, Reginald

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Boland, John Pius

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T J.

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Gilmour, Captain John

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Boyton, James

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Goldman, C. S.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Neill, Ronald, (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Grant, J. A.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Greene, W. R.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Meagher, Michael

  Bull, Sir William James

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury, S. Edmunds)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Butcher, John George

  Gulland, John William

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Molloy, Michael

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Campion, W. R.

  Hackett, J.

  Money, L G. Chiozza

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Money, John J.

  Cater, John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Cave, George

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Morison, Hector

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Mount, William Arthur

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Muldoon, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Munro, R.

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Clough, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Newman, John R. P.

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Nield, Herbert

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cotton, William Francis

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hogg, David C.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hohler, G. F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Crichton Stuart, Lord Ninion

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Cullinan, John

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Dowd, John

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Ogden, Fred

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardiganshire)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Malley, William

  Dawes, J. A.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Delany, William

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Shee, James John

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Devlin, Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Keating, Matthew

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Kelly, Edward

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Dillon, John

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  1746

  1747

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Perkins, Walter F

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Philips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Valentia, Viscount

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Wadsworth, J.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Price, Sir J. (Norfolk, E.)

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

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

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

  Sheehy, David

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Randles, Sir John

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton)

  Webb, H.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Reddy, M.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  White, Patrick (Meath North)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Richards, Thomas

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Winterton, Earl

  Robinson, Sidney

  Swift, Rigby

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Wood, Rt. Hon T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Yate, Colonel. C. E.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Younger, Sir George

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Touche, George Alexander

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

  Samuel Rt. Hon. H. J. (Cleveland)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Hinds, John

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Alden, Percy

  Hogge, James Myles

  Rowlands, James

  Barnes, George N.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  John, Edward Thomas

  Snowden, Philip

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Brace, William

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Sutton, John E.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Taylor, John (Durham)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  King. J.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Thomas, James Henry

  Crooks, William

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wardle, George J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Glanville, H. J.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Goldstone, Frank

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wing, Thomas

  Gretton, John

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  A. Markham and Mr. W. Thorne.

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Question, "That the words, as amended, be there added," put, and agreed to.

  Sir RUFUS ISAACSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  Mr. BUTCHER(seated and covered): I handed in an Amendment to the Motion, and I was under the impression that you were about to call upon me before putting the main Question. Am I not right in supposing that it would have been proper
  1748
  for you to have called on me to move my Amendment before you put the main Question?
  The CHAIRMAN: When the Question was claimed to be moved, "That the Question be now put," I accepted that Motion, and that, of course, excluded the hon. and learned Member from moving his Amendment.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Would it not have been proper that, before the Closure was moved by the Attorney-General, you should have called on me to move my Amendment? That Amendment was

  1749
  handed in long before the Closure was moved, and I venture to submit the proper course would have been to call on my Amendment before the Closure was moved.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not so. Mr. Attorney-General rose at the same moment

  PLURAL VOTING BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is an Instruction on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Sandys). That is not in order. It seeks to divide the indivisible.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  PLURAL VOTING BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Penalty for Voting in more than One Constituency at a General Election).
    (1) During the continuance of a General Election of members to serve in a new Parliament, a person shall not vote as a parliamentary elector, or ask for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of so voting, in more than one constituency.

    (2) If a person acts in contravention of this section, he shall be guilty of a corrupt practice other than personation, within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1863, and the expression "corrupt practice" shall be construed accordingly.

    (3) The expression "constituency" in this Act means any county, borough, or combination of places, or university or combination of universities, returning a member to serve in Parliament, and where a county or borough is divided for the purpose of parliamentary elections means a division of the county or borough so divided.

    The CHAIRMAN: The first five Amendments on the Paper are not in order. Some of them conflict with the Motion which was proposed on the Second Reading of the Bill and negative it, and others are dealing with the deferring of the operation of the Bill and should be moved as new Clauses. A new Clause will be in order to defer to a later date the coming into operation of the Bill. The Amendment proposing to leave out Sub-section (1) is equivalent to negativing the Bill, and therefore is not in order. What I have already said applies to the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Hoare), who proposes to defer the operation of the Bill till 1916. That, of course, should be done in the form of a new Clause. The first Amendment in order is that in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Evelyn Cecil). I am not sure whether that will not cut out the following one, which seems to me of greater importance. The hon. Member may move it if he pleases.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Would it not be possible to put the question in some form which would safeguard the other Amendents?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I wish to make it perfectly clear, in regard to the Amendments which you have ruled out of order, that the two which it will be in order to move as new Clauses are those standing in the names of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave) and the hon. Member (Mr. Hoare).
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not prepared to say at this moment that a specific Amendment dealing with Redistribution will be in order as a new Clause. No doubt the subject can be raised on a new Clause deferring the date, but I am doubtful whether, under the practice of the House, one Bill in that form can be made conditional on another. With regard to the point of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Pollock), I think it would be possible, if it is desired to do so, that I should only put the word "the" in order to save the next Amendment.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: You have ruled the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1) out of order because it practically means negativing the Bill. According to the title, the object of the Bill is simply to impose a penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency. Sub-section (1) goes far beyond the title. It not only imposes a penalty, but absolutely prohibits a person from voting, therefore, by leaving out that Sub-section, we should not negative the object of the Bill, but, on the contrary, we should better fulfil it, taking the title as the guide, by leaving it out and by carrying out what we want to do under Subsection (2).
    The CHAIRMAN: Then the Clause would begin, "If a person acts in contravention of this Section," and we should not know what he was acting in contravention of.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think there is an Amendment which alters those words and says, "If a man votes in more than one constituency." In that case the penalty would follow under Sub-section (2). That is really the appropriate way of doing it and not to prohibit a man from voting altogether, which is really outside the title of the Bill.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Does not this Clause 1 clearly go beyond the title? It is not an incidental matter at all. The object of the Bill, as stated, is to impose a penalty upon the elector. Clause 1 imposes an absolute prohibition, which is an entirely different thing.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter to be raised with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, and, if I am not mistaken, it was so raised. In regard to the question of the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), I do not think what he has said changes my view. The Bill has been drafted in the form of the first Sub-section prohibiting voting in more than one constituency. We must take that as the basis of our discussion. The hon. Member's proposal would amount really to an entire redrafting of the Bill.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The object of the Bill will be perfectly well carried out. I have an Amendment to leave out from "person" to "the," and insert "votes in more than one constituency at a General Election." In that way the object of the Bill would be entirely carried out, if Sub-section (1) was omitted I submit, therefore, that the object of the Bill would not be negatived by omitting Sub-section (1).
    The CHAIRMAN: We cannot propose to leave out the real body of the Clause in order to insert some other hon. Member's drafting. We can amend it as we go along.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "the continuance of."
    I think it is merely a drafting Amendment, unless the Government have any ulterior meaning in these words. If there is any hidden meaning in them, I hope the Minister in charge will explain it, and if there is not the words had better be omitted. The Government are in favour of brevity. They have often asked for it, and they have shown it by their actions and by their methods, and I do not myself see what use there is or what can be gained by retaining these words at all. On the contrary, I think the Government should accept the Amendment, if the anxiety which they have shown for brevity on so many occasions is to be carried out on the present occasion. They have shown great anxiety for brevity in this Bill. That is certainly realised, for it is drafted in a method in which hardly any Bill has
    1760
    ever been drafted before. They are equally anxious for brevity in dealing with the procedure of this House. They are similarly aiming at brevity in tampering with the Constitution of the Kingdom, and it appears to me that it will be only following out in a very small way a policy which they have applied in far more pernicious ways. But if it is merely a question of wording, as I believe it is, I would suggest to the Government that the ordinary wording of legislation is to cut out such words as these. The Standing Orders of the House never countenance such words. For instance, on page 16, I observe, "Suspension from the service of the House shall not exempt the Member so suspended from serving on any Committee." But you do not say "during the continuance of the suspension." The words would be redundant, and I do not think anybody would suggest that they would have any meaning. Similarly I turn casually to another Standing Order and I find, "after Whitsuntide, Government business shall have precedence at all sittings, except the sittings on the third and fourth Fridays after Whitsunday." You do not say, "except during the continuance of the sittings on the third and fourth Fridays," and yet it would be quite as valuable, and probably more valuable, than on the present occasion. Bearing in mind the precedent set by the phraseology of the Standing Orders of this House, and bearing in mind, further, the desire of the Government to be brief on all occasions, I submit this Amendment with some confidence for their consideration and acceptance.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The hon. Member has not really made out a very good case for the alteration. It is a mere drafting point, and whilst I admit that, to the ordinary lay mind, the omission of these words might not make much difference, yet at the same time I am advised that from the drafting point of view the words are preferable as they stand in the Bill. There is obviously an interval between the dissolution of one Parliament and the summoning of another, and some time must elapse, and therefore it is thought advisable that the words are quite appropriate, and we see really no reason whatsoever why they should be removed, because there is no improvement by their omission, but rather the language is made less plain by their omission than by their retention. Therefore, though the

    1761
    hon. Member has appealed for brevity in the phraseology of the Bill, I think probably his interest in brevity will be best promoted if he does not press the matter to a Division.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has raised rather a serious question, because he now informs the Committee that these words are intended to cover the whole period between a Dissolution and the summoning of a new Parliament. That would cover the re-election of Ministers of the Crown who had to seek reelection. May I take it that these words imply that that is the intention on the part of the Government? If so, it is a very serious matter, and it is a new revelation for the Committee, showing that this Amendment raises a very material point. If the right hon. Gentleman has given the real explanation, I take it that the meaning, if the words mean anything, is that they are intended to cover the whole period between a Dissolution and the summoning of a new Parliament. Will he tell us whether that is so or not? We hope that Ministers will be able to give us a clear explanation of their own Bill.
    Mr. PEASE: The seats are not vacated until a new Parliament is summoned.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I believe seats are vacated immediately on acceptance of office. That is a point in regard to which I may be allowed to press that the Law Officers should give us their opinion.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): You cannot have an election of a Member other than at a General Election, unless a writ is issued for the purpose, and you cannot have a writ for the election of a new Member unless there is a Speaker. You cannot have a Speaker during a General Election, or until Parliament assembles and elects a Speaker. What the hon. Gentleman is thinking of is probably this. It is not what happens between the end of one Parliament and the beginning of another, for by no possibility can there be a by-election then of a Minister or anybody else. What he is thinking of is the end of one Session and the beginning of another Session in the same Parliament. It is quite possible if a Minister is appointed between the end of one Session and the beginning of another Session, that the Speaker may in the vacation, while Parliament is not sitting, issue his writ and an election may proceed. I have some reason to remember that
    1762
    because it happened to me. It is not possible for a by-election to take place between the end of one Parliament and the beginning of another, because none of the machinery to secure a by-election is in existence.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I suppose that would be so, and therefore we are safe from that danger. I am bound to say that I most strongly support the Amendment, because I really cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman has given any reason why these words should be retained in the Clause. He merely said that he was advised. Who advised him, and on what ground was the advice given? Surely there was some reason for the advice, and it might be communicated to the Committee. The fewer the words that are introduced in an Act of Parliament the better, unless they have some real meaning and intention. I fail to understand what is the meaning of these words. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that as a matter of drafting the words may be left in or omitted. As a matter of principle we have always adopted the practice of not inserting words unless they are necessary. I do not know that the Clause is very much better with the words in or out, but unless they are necessary, surely it is obviously desirable to omit them. I submit that the onus does not lie upon us to show that the words are necessary. The onus lies upon the right hon. Gentleman to show that they are necessary, and he has not yet said anything beyond stating that he is advised they would do no harm. In that case they stand condemned, for he has to prove, not only that they would do no harm, but that they would do good.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has given any explanation at all. He seems to be already absolutely at sea about his own Bill. He has made no attempt to answer the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Evelyn Cecil). I must ask some other Member of the Government to explain the words. When the Solicitor-General spoke he did not attempt to give any explanation in support of the retention of these words.
    Sir J. SIMON: I was not asked to explain the words.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I hope we shall have an opportunity of hearing the hon. and learned Gentleman once more.

    1763
    He is a lawyer, and he can explain the Clause a great deal better than the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill who has told us that he is advised that these words should be retained. I suppose his adviser is the Solicitor-General, and perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can enable us to find out the necessity for the retention of the words. In my opinion they are absolutely unnecessary. This Bill is one of the briefest on record for dealing with such a subject as the doing away with the plural voter, and although the omission of the words will make it briefer still, I will support my hon. Friend if he divides the Committee on the Amendment.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think my hon. Friend has rendered a valuable service by moving the Amendment, because the Government cannot tell us what they mean by the words "the continuance of." No one can say when a General Election begins and when it ends. That is one of the difficulties we have to put up with in various ways. Take the question in connection with the Corrupt Practices Act. Nobody knows when a General Election begins and when it ends, but the law says that you must not do certain things before, during, or after a General Election. It is generally before an election, and sometimes all through an election that those things are or are not done. We do not know for the purpose of the Corrupt Practices Act what is the duration of a General Election. Take the case where a by-election occurs immediately before a General Election. That is a state of affairs that very often takes place. Would a man be prohibited from voting——
    The CHAIRMAN: I understood that this was going to be argued upon the purely drafting point. The hon. Member seems to be trenching on another Amendment with respect to the definition of a General Election. I only say that as a matter of warning.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I will not pursue the question which is to be raised on another Amendment, but I think we are entitled to some statement from the Government as to what they mean by the words "the continuance of." They are intended to mean something, and unless the Government say what they mean, the only way to deal with them is to
    1764
    leave them out. There is no use retaining words which the Government fail to define. You are only providing food for lawyers later on, and it ought to be the object of this House to avoid that.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: As this Amendment stands also in my name, perhaps I may be allowed to say that it does not require a grammatical purist to object to the retention of these words. As my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) has pointed out, if words appear in a Bill introduced by the Government, it is for the Minister in charge to justify them. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has made no attempt whatever to justify these words, and there is very great danger if unnecessary words, purely redundant expressions, are left in an Act of Parliament, because they may require hereafter some judicial interpretation, with considerable emoluments to those professional gentlemen who are interested in the judicial interpretation of Acts of Parliament of every kind, but with no very great advantage to the country. I wish to protest, as I have done on many previous occasions, as a professional conveyancer against the slipshod way in which Bills presented to the House by the Government are drafted. We do not expect, or if we expect we certainly do not find, any artistic merit in Government draftsmanship, but every Session the drafting gets worse. I hope, now that we are about to enjoy an autumn holiday, that the Department will take some pains in drafting Bills to be presented, so that every word may be justified in this House. To my mind these words can have no possible meaning unless it is that a General Election is in some way to be protracted or extended beyond the normal period. Unless they have that ulterior object in their mind, I suggest to the Government that these words would be better omitted.
    Mr. BARNSTON: The right hon. Gentleman opposite started by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Aston Manor made a very poor case for the Amendment. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for saying that he made a very poor case indeed for keeping the words in the Clause. He really did not make any case whatever. He merely told us that he was advised. If he wishes to get this Bill through in a happy and peaceful way, I hope he will in future give a somewhat less curt answer than he gave

    1765
    to my hon. Friend. We have not been told any reason why these words are to be kept in the Bill, and unless we are to have better explanation than the right hon Gentleman gave, I shall certainly support the Amendment if it goes to a Division.
    Mr. BAIRD: I am bound to say that I must echo the dissatisfaction expressed by hon. Members on this side at the extremely curt manner in which a perfectly reasonable request was met by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We have asked an explanation of these words, and we have received none. I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman, who is a layman, might find it impossible to give a legal interpretation, but we are favoured by the presence of distinguished lawyers, and none of them have endeavoured to explain the words. It really is rather humiliating to think that it is quite impossible to get a straightforward answer to the questions put by my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman stated that if the words "the continuance of" were omitted, the Clause would become less plain. I really think that does not settle the question. We suggest that it is just as clear to say "during a General Election," and that it is more correct. What other course can we pursue than that of going into the Division Lobby and wasting time, unless Members of the Government, who ought to know their own Bill, give some plausible and adequate explanation? Therefore I beg to endorse cordially what has been said with reference to the elimination of these words, and I hope that in the briefest possible manner the right hon. and learned Gentleman on
    the Front Bench will find it possible to give an explanation.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: May I press the Solicitor-General for a few words to straighten out the difficulty: Do the two expressions, "during a General Election" and "during the continuance of a General Election," mean the same thing? If they mean exactly the same thing, why put in the longer expression? Why not take the shorter and more precise means of expressing an identical thing? It may be a matter of very grave discussion, not only in the polling booths but in Courts of Law, as to whether some individual is or is not entitled to vote at that particular election. He may have studied this Bill when it becomes an Act and said, "I do not understand whether I may vote at this particular election or may not vote. If I do, there may be a very heavy penalty; if I do not use my right, that one vote might be the very vote that would effect the election." I cannot help thinking it a very bad beginning when we are actually told that we are not entitled to an explanation from the Law Officer of the Crown, who is as capable as, if not more capable than, any Member of this House of straightening out a difficulty of this kind. An explanation would have saved fifteen minutes of discussion, and even now it would have the effect of enabling us to proceed with the Debate in a happier frame of mind.
    Question put, "That the word 'the' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 121.

    Division No. 140.]

    AYES.

    [8.16 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Delany, William

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Devlin, Joseph

    Adamson, William

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Dillon, John

    Alden, Percy

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

    Doris, William

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Duffy, William J.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Clough, William

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Barnes, George N.

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Barton, William

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Cotton, William Francis

    Falconer, James

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Black, Arthur W.

    Crooks, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Boland, John Pius

    Crumley, Patrick

    Field, William

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cullinan, John

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Brace, William

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Brady, P. J.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Glanville, H. J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Richards, Thomas

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Meagher, Michael

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Gulland, John William

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Robinson, Sidney

    Hackett, J.

    Molloy, Michael

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Rowlands, James

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Mooney, John J.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbychire, N.E.)

    Morgan, George Hay

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morison, Hector

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hayward, Evan

    Muldoon, John

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Munro, R.

    Sheehy, David

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

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

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Needham, Christopher Thomas

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Hinds, John

    Neilson, Francis

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Hogg, David C

    Nolan, Joseph

    Snowden, Philip

    Hogge, James Myles

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Nuttall, Harry

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sutton, John E.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Tennant, Harold John

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Thomas, James Henry

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Dowd, John

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jones, H. Hayden (Merioneth)

    Ogden, Fred

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Malley, William

    Wadsworth, J.

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Shee, James John

    Wardle, George J.

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Kilbride, Denis

    Parker, James

    Webb, H.

    King, J.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Leach, Charles

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Lundon, T.

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

    Lynch, A. A.

    Radford, G. H.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Wing, Thomas

    McGhee, Richard

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Young, W. (Perth. E.)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Reddy, M.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    W. Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    M'Kean, John

    Rendall, Atheistan

    NOES.

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Baird, J. L.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Barnston, Harry

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Hills, John Waller

    Barrie, H. T.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Hohler, G. F.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Hope, Marry (Bute)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Fell, Arthur

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Bird, A.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Blair, Reginald

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Forster, Henry William

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Hunt, Rowland

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Boyton, James

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Goldman, C. S.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Butcher, John George

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Campion, W. R.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    1768

    1769

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

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclésall)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Touche, George Alexander

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Valentia, Viscount

    Malcolm, Ian

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Sandys, G. J.

    Wheler, Granville, C. H.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

    Morrison-Bell. Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Nield, Herbert

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

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

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Swift, Rigby

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Mr. C. Bathurst.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Pryce-Jones, Calonel E.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Sir HARRY SAMUEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words "During the," to leave out the words "continuance of a General Election of Members to serve in a new," and to insert instead thereof the words "period between the day of the issue of writs, issued in pursuance of a Proclamation by His Majesty the King in Council summoning a Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the day ordered for the holding of such."
    I do not intend to apologise in any form or shape for moving this Amendment. The Debate we have had on the first Amendment more than ever convinces one that we require to be very careful, in this very short Bill, to use definite and precise phraseology, if it is desired to prevent people from having to go into the Courts of Law and spend a large amount of money in order to find out what is really in the Bill. The object of my Amendment is to get rid of the slovenly phraseology "continuance of a General Election." This is another example, and a very bad example, of the way in which vague and loose terms are used in legal documents. We have had a great deal of legislation by reference, and, of course, I quite agree that we all know, in a rough way, perfectly well what the words "General Election" mean. I suppose the man in the street can tell what is meant by them, but we are not here as men in the street; we are here to put into the Bill the clearest and most perfect definition of what is meant by the words which are used. Such an expression as that to which I refer is most undesirable in the interests of clean and precise draftsmanship. It is undoubtedly a part of our business in the House of Commons to have clear definitions. As the Clause stands at the present moment a General Election might mean almost any period. Does it mean the statutory period
    1770
    of thirty-five days between the date of the issue of the proclamation summoning a new Parliament and the day on which such Parliaments shall meet? I believe the period was fixed by the Act of 1852. If it does mean this, why does the Bill not say so? But, after all, when does the General Election really begin, and when does it really end? I have here several opinions of judges on that point. Mr. Justice Bruce, in regard to this question, says:—
    "I think that as soon as the candidate begins to hold meetings in the constituency to advance his candidature—in other words, as soon as he begins to take measures to promote his election—the election commences…. No definition and no definite rule can be laid down as to the time when an election begins. The Legislature has not fixed any definite period, and I think it is not for the judges to attempt to lay down a general definition, which the Legislature has carefully avoided doing."
    Mr. Justice Channell says:—
    "I quite adopt the view which has been put forward by other judges that the time when the election is supposed to commence may for several purposes be an important matter, and that it certainly is not limited to the commencement of the active part of the election by the occurrence of a vacancy or by the issue of the writ. But although the election may Commence from the time when any particular individual is announced as a candidate, it does not follow that the work of the election does begin then."
    Mr. Justice Field, in the Kennington case, said:—
    "I can perfectly understand that where it is known that an election is to take place, and the Ministers of the Crown are only waiting for the completion of the new electoral roll to announce the Dissolution, and, especially if that has been announced on authority in Parliament, from that time the electors are put upon the selection of a candidate, and intending candidates are open to offer themselves for the suffrages of the constituency."
    I venture to submit that no two opinions will be the same upon this subject. If the Government now chose to announce their intention of appealing to the country, say, before the end of the Session—they are not likely to do so, I am aware; at the same time there is no reason why I should not

    1771
    suggest it—the different parties in the constituencies would at once begin to prepare for a General Election. I ask the Solicitor-General to say whether under those circumstances, this Bill would operate if it becomes law. What I want to know is this: Supposing something were to occur which caused His Majesty's Government to make the announcement that they proposed to appeal to the country later on, and the various parties in constituencies proceeded to make their arrangements for a General Election, and the candidates to devote their days and sometimes a portion of their nights to hard work—in those circumstances, if this Bill be passed, would it operate so as to cover the whole period of the General Election, and would it operate in any election which took place during that time? Suppose by any possibility there were a by-election, and the Whip of the particular party concerned moved for the writ. Under those circumstances, the Government might possibly be defeated some afternoon, and decide to resign. This writ having been moved for, would the by-election merge in the General Election, or would it still be a by-election, or what would it be? I should like to have a reply to that question, and I should like to know, also, whether or not this particular Bill would operate in that particular by-election. It has often occurred that hon. Members of this House have applied for the Chiltern Hundreds, and I have noticed that, for certain reasons, the writ is not applied for until after a very long period has elapsed. Under those circumstances, again, we really require to have a most careful definition, so that there can be no possible misunderstanding of what is meant by the phrase "continuance of a General Election."
    That is a phrase which is nearly as bad as the phrase in the Corrupt Practices Act, "before, during, and after an election." It is very essential that nothing loose in the way of phraseology should be allowed to creep into an Act through which you might "drive a coach and four." I believe I am correct in saying that no Court has ever been able to establish the definite period of time covered by that wording. I have tried to see things from the common-sense point of view. I always find, whenever the legal mind deals with anything practical, that it commits very grievous errors. Take the case of legal gentlemen who make their own wills, and in nearly every in-
    1772
    stance they commit grievous errors. Therefore, I say, it is absolutely necessary that the common-sense mind of the House of Commons ought to come to the assistance of the legal mind and try and get over the difficulty of legal phrasology, which very seldom stands the test of common-sense. To say that the period commences with the issue of the Royal Proclamation and ends when the statutory thirty-five days elapses is a perfectly clear and understandable proposition. It gives a clear, definite description of the period intended by this Bill, and I cannot help thinking it is much superior to the very indefinite phraseology of the Bill. It makes no alteration in the principle, and I confidently appeal to the Government, as it adds to what I may call the understandability of the Bill, to accept the Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Baronet has expressed his great contempt of what he calls the legal mind, and has assured us that his object is to introduce a little practical common sense into our otherwise hopelessly technical expressions. The question the Committee have to decide is whether it is more like common sense to talk about a General Election, which is what the Bill does, and which every human being that ever had to go through one understands the meaning of, or whether it would be better, in the name of common sense and in the desire to avoid technicalities, to use a very long form of words referring to the issue of the writ, the order in Council, and the directions to the sheriffs and returning officers inviting them to take proper steps for the purpose of returning Members to serve in Parliament. The real question is which of those two things is most like common sense and enables the man in the street to avoid the subtleties of the law. I labour under the misfortune of holding the opinion that the Bill when it speaks of a General Election is using such language which everyone can understand, and that it would not be an improvement to substitute the elaborate form of words proposed. The hon. Baronet put one or two conundrums, and, as very often happens, when a man of common sense puts conundrums, he turns out to be more technical than any lawyer I have ever met. There is no difficulty about his conundrum. He put this question: Suppose that a writ was moved by one of the Whips towards the close of a Parliament, so that there should be a by-election, and that then later in

    1773
    the same day the Government should be defeated, and a General Election should at once take place? Then he wanted to know whether one of them merged in the other, and he put other conundrums of that sort, which occurred to his ingenious but common-sense mind. The answer is that the writ which would be issued for the purpose of a by-election would be a writ directing the returning officer to return somebody to be a Member of that Parliament, whereas a General Election is not an election to return Members to that Parliament, because a General Election begins with a dissolution of that Parliament, and there would not be very much use in returning people to a Parliament which had ceased to exist. Consequently, as soon as ever there is the Proclamation, any question of a by-election for that Parliament necessarily and automatically drops on the plain principles of common sense. I think that must be the answer to that conundrum.
    The hon. Baronet also referred to some difficulties which he understood arose from some remarks of the late Mr. Justice Bruce, and also from the remarks of a Scottish judge. I think it will be found, though I have not looked at the particular matters, that all that was being discussed was the conundrum, which is undoubtedly a conundrum, of what point is the point at which you ought to begin, if you are accusing a man of treating before, during, or after an election. That is not this case at all. This case is the case of providing that plural voting shall not be permitted, and shall be penalised during the course of a General Election, and all that is important, if one is a plain man trying to deal with this thing practically, is to be sure to have a clear form of words which do not leave it open to doubt on the part of any honest man as to what is meant. There cannot possibly be any doubt as to what is meant when one says voting during the continuance of a General Election. Every election which takes place after the end of one Parliament and before the beginning of the next is part of a General Election, and by no human possibility could it be a by-election, because a by-election is an election which takes place while a Parliament is in being, whereas a General Election is an election which takes place, not while Parliament is in being, but when a Parliament has ceased to be, and for a new Parliament. With every desire to allow the full force of the ingenious comments made by the
    1774
    hon. Baronet, I would respectfully suggest that common sense would be best served to use the expression which all of us understand. I do not know that I dispute what he now suggests as being the true definition in his view of a General Election, except that I am not at all certain that the thirty-five days would be found to be the most convenient way of putting it. The truth about the matter is that a General Election lasts from the time that the elections begin after one Parliament is ended, and cover every election that takes place until the new Parliament meets. That is what it means and that is what everybody knows it to mean, and that is why the words are used here, and why I advise the Committee to retain them.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I find myself in agreement with a great many of the observations of the Solicitor-General, and in disagreement with many of the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir H. Samuel). The observations of my hon. Friend with which I disagree were those in which he referred to the legal profession, for which personally I have a great respect. The observations of the Solicitor-General with which I agree were those in which he referred to the quotations made by my hon. Friend from certain judgments delivered in an election petition when the question before the Court was, "When did the election begin?" For the purpose of imposing penalties under the Corrupt Practices Act. But in spite of my partial disagreement with my hon. Friend I am desirous of supporting the Amendment. It must be remembered that this Bill goes a long way beyond merely imposing a penalty for voting more than once. Under the first Clause, if I read it aright, any person who asks for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of voting acts in contravention of the Section, and consequently is guilty of a corrupt practice. I hope that those words will be cut out; otherwise, if a man goes to a booth and asks for a voting paper, and then on reflection before he has voted suddenly recollects that he voted perhaps a fortnight before during the same General Election, he would have committed an offence under this Clause.
    I think such a man might very fairly say that he did not know that he was doing wrong. An election lasts for several weeks. If I remember aright, at the last General Election the proclamation went out on 5th December, 1910, and

    1775
    returns were required to be made by 31st January, 1911. That gives not 35 days but six or seven weeks. Under the Statute of 15 Victoria the 35 days is the minimum. You cannot insert a shorter period. Under no circumstances can a General Election last less than 35 days, but it may and probably does last more. At the last General Election the borough elections were over in a very few days, but the county elections went on, and certainly the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was not returned until the concluding days of January. Consider such a case as the following. It may be an extreme one, but it might very well happen. Suppose a man after voting in a borough went up to Scotland and found an election still going on. He presented himself and asked for a voting paper. He might say, "I am a plain man; I understand common sense language; the General Election is over in England, and has been for some time." But he would be at once seized and told that he had committed an offence under Clause 1, and was liable to a penalty.
    Sir J. SIMON: Does the hon. and learned Member think that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet would save that very stupid man?
    Mr. POLLOCK: I have handed in an Amendment which I think will meet the case. It contains, as I believe, apt words more appropriate for dealing with the difficulty, which I conceive to be a real one. The Solicitor-General taunted my hon. Friend somewhat, who, I am sure, intended to put forward his case with all sincerity, because he wished to make the Statute clear and authoritative. As he pointed out, a new phrase is being used. In order to ascertain whether the words "General Election" appeared in any Statute, I looked at a modern law work of great authority, namely, Lord Halsbury's "Compendium on the Laws of England," and I found it there stated that the period from the issue of the proclamation down to the time of the return of the writs was called a General Election. But there is no legal phrase or Statute which defines that. When you are imposing very heavy penalties, you ought to use language which is perfectly clear to the mind of the lawyers who will have to administer the Act, as well as to those who want to understand what is going on. I can quite believe that ordinary persons will understand, as before,
    1776
    that a General Election is during the time when a number of elections are taking place under a Proclamation, but at the same time, you want in an Act of Parliament words which shall be apt to express the time limit during which a very severe penalty is to be imposed. I shall ask the Solicitor-General to accept these words, which I suggest to my hon. Friend, as an Amendment to his proposal: "During the time between the date of the issue of the writs issued in pursuance of a Proclamation by His Majesty the King in Council summoning a Parliament of the United Kingdom and the day named in the said Proclamation for the return of the same." The Solicitor-General is doubtless aware that under the Proclamation and under the writs there is a date fixed, and the General Election lasts up to that date. Therefore, under our existing system, you have a limited period or a time fixed by which the return of those writs has to be made. You may call it in common parlance what you like; but when the people are to be liable to a penalty, I want clear words which will be perfectly plain to those who have to administer the Statute. It is not the man on a Clapham'bus who will have to administer the Act. That will have to be done by the Courts of Law, where the procedure under which a Parliament is assembled is perfectly understood. I suggest, therefore, that the Solicitor-General should drop this loose phrase, and insert the proper words which ought to be there. With the alteration which I suggest, I think the Clause will read far better and be more exact in its phraseology. May I remind the learned Solicitor-General that, although a good many points are clear to his mind, a certain amount of confusion may arise in the minds of the electors who take part in a General Election. Let me give an illustration. If I recollect, a year or two ago there was an election at Birmingham, I think within a very few days of the Dissolution. If I recollect a little further back, there was an actual election which took place, and the return was made only a day before the actual Proclamation for a new Parliament. I think, certainly, that with a little research I could discover the names of certain Gentlemen who, within the last ten years, have been returned at by-elections to Parliament and have never taken their seats in this House owing to the immediate Dissolution of the Parliament to which they were returned. I do not care very much about that. It does not matter. But what I want to be made

    1777
    clear is that there is no confusion in the minds of the electors. Let me take the case of Birmingham. The Member was returned there within a very few days, in November or December—I think the latter—of the General Election. At the General Election which followed, of course, a new writ had to be issued for Birmingham. Might there not be a doubt in the minds of some of the electors who voted at the by-election as to whether they had the right to go and demand a voting paper and vote in the General Election? You do not want to have confusion. You want to have this matter perfectly clear, because you want to see that the electors do exercise that right to vote which is left to them when this Bill has been passed. I do not know whether I should be in order in moving the alteration of the words to those that I have proposed as an Amendment to the Amendment of my hon. Friend. If not, I will ask the hon. Baronet if he will adopt the suggestion I have made, and move his Amendment in the form I have suggested. But may I ask your guidance, Sir, as to whether I can move my words now?
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be moved until after the Amendment which is now under discussion has been disposed of. The hon. and learned Gentleman can move his Amendment if the words proposed to be inserted becomes a substantive Motion.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I am very much obliged, and I will move at the time you state and in the form I have suggested, and I think that will be satisfactory
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I want to make it clear that the opportunity of the hon. and learned Member depends upon the decision of the Committee. The Question I shall first put is that "The words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," and if the decision be in the affirmative, the suggested Amendment cannot be brought forward. It could be discussed if the Amendment of the hon. Baronet is allowed to be withdrawn.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I should be very glad to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Mr. POLLOCK: I think it is unfortunate in the interests of making this
    1778
    matter perfectly clear that the appeal of the hon. Baronet should be refused, and that refusal should come from Members below the Gangway.
    Mr. POINTER: You are not making it clear; it is a waste of time.
    9.0 p.m.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is in order for the hon. Member opposite to say that an hon. Gentleman on this side of the House is wasting time and is not making the thing clear? Should he not rather exercise the right to speak, and show how my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is not right? Is he in order in making a disorderly interruption?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I deprecate the interruption of the hon. Member below the Gangway.
    Mr. POLLOCK: If the hon. Member had really considered the point that I am putting to the Solicitor-General, he would not, I think, have interrupted. It might well be as I have said. I have endeavoured to put the point as clearly as I can and as shortly as I could, namely, as to what a General Election is. I have pointed out to the Solicitor-General, and he knows perfectly well that I am perfectly right in what I have said, that the period of a General Election is between the date of the Proclamation and the return of the writ. He knows as well as I know that there is a date named in the Proclamation. It is only because I do not wish slipshod language to be used that I venture to protest, to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and to point out the words that ought to be used if we are endeavouring to be precise. Perhaps the hon. Member below the Gangway will believe me that there are electors in the country who would be very glad if perhaps a little more care was taken in drafting Acts of Parliament, for it would lead to less expense and greater freedom. I am speaking as representing electors; I am desirous that they should have the opportunity of recording their votes. I am anxious that they should not be put in peril by any slipshod work that passes through Committee of this House.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is rather remarkable that the Government should not accept this Amendment, and if they do not accept it, should not propose another Amendment. After all, there is some definition needed of what is admitted

    1779
    to be a very vague phrase—the continuance of a General Election. Why should not the Government define it? The electors should know what they are doing. The Solicitor-General has not met our objection. In the case of Corrupt Practices, there has been very grave difficulty in deciding, for there have been conflicting decisions as to when a General Election begins. Did not the Solicitor-General say that?
    Sir J. SIMON: Oh no, I made no such statement. The words do not occur in that Act. Therefore the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite mistaken.
    Mr. POLLOCK: They do not occur any where.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. I have no wish to misrepresent him.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and gallant Member made the same point in a previous speech.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: When I made my previous remarks the Solicitor-General had not spoken, but what has been said only intensifies the necessity for having a definition of the matter. The words do not occur in the Corrupt Practices Act, and we have no definition, and the result is that we get arising, as it does arise, the question as to what date election expenses commence. That may be assumed to be the beginning of the General Election, but that date may be before the formal dissolution of Parliament. If, therefore, a by-election occurs before the formal dissolution of Parliament, when the General Election is obviously imminent, my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that is that case an elector may be damnified by voting at a by-election. Let me give an example. In December, 1905, as is well known, the Unionist Government resigned. A Liberal Government was formed by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed."] If hon. Members opposite think they are going to get their Bill any quicker by interruption, they are mistaken. We are merely trying to clear up a difficulty. The new Government was formed by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, but it was understood that they must at once dissolve because they had not a majority in the then exist-
    1780
    ing Parliament. A General Election was imminent, and I know it was held by many election agents that the election expenses would begin before the actual dissolution of Parliament. Some doubt, it appears to me, might very well arise under this Clause, and assuming a vacancy occurred in that Parliament when the General Election was imminent and certain, might it not be held under this Clause, unless you have a definition, that that by-election took place during the continuance of the General Election? If that is so, my hon. Friend's contention is perfectly correct, and the unfortunate elector who voted in that by-election, which was not part of the General Election, might be damnified and guilty of a corrupt practice merely because he asked for a ballot paper. At all events, if a legitimate doubt arises, why not accept some definition? It will not hurt the Bill if you put an absolute definition of what you mean into it, instead of using a vague phrase like "continuance of a General Election," the meaning of which nobody does know. I am accused of delaying the Bill. I do not want to delay it in the least, and if the Government will accept this Amendment they would save a great deal of time, and by not accepting it, it is they who are delaying the progress of the Bill.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the time has arrived when we might divide upon this matter, which, after all, is a matter of drafting. I do not think there is any great difference between the two sides as to the words in the Bill and the words suggested from this side, but I must, say I think it is rather remarkable that an Amendment moved previous to this which moved out certain words that were redundant were refused and this Amendment, which is merely for the purpose of inserting words that make the meaning clear, is rejected. I point out to the Government that they have already wasted an hours' time available for this Bill on pure matters of drafting. If they accepted this Amendment the Bill would not be worse but a great deal better, and we would have saved a whole hour. The waste of time is not due to any action on this side of the House, but is due to the action of the Government. I think it would be more desirable to give an effective and definite reason why this Amendment should not be accepted, or else to accept this Amendment, and thereby save time which has in this particular case been taken up on points of drafting.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not want to enter into a discussion as to whether time is wasted or not, but I wish to put before the Committee what seems to be a perfectly clear proposition. Here is an Amendment which puts into legal phraseology something which will have to be interpreted by the Law Courts. Unfortunately I did not hear the speech of the Solicitor-General. I understand that his argument against accepting the Amendment was not that the Amendment in any kind of way alters the effect of the Clause, but that it put the meaning of the Clause into legal phraseology. That seems to me to be the strongest argument for accepting the Amendment, if that is the correct interpretation of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and he can correct me if I am wrong. We, as Members of Parliament, will, when a General Election comes, have to stand as candidates, and there will be a large number of agents and others who will have to interpret the law. Surely it is better that the Bill should be in legal phraseology than in language which is perfectly well understood by people like myself and others, but may possibly not be understood by judges and lawyers who will have to interpret it! Anyone who reads the reports of the Law Courts and the decision of judges, and who listens to arguments put forward by counsel, knows perfectly well that one of their chief arguments is, "These words do not occur in law. They have no recognised meaning," and the judge says, "I do not know what these words are. They are not legal phraseology, and I must look into the matter and see what the intention of Parliament was." How is anyone to know what the intention of Parliament was? The matter may be interpreted in our favour, and against hon. Members opposite or vice versâ. I have always maintained in this House that the simpler a Bill is the better, and the less opportunity there is for legal technicalities to interfere. We know perfectly well that human nature being what it is there is a desire on the part of a great number of people to take advantage of forms of law. The Solicitor-General has admitted that these particular words are the right words that would be used by a Court of Law.
    Mr. POINTER: The right hon. Gentleman has not admitted that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Of course, if that is so, I fail on that point, but I may point out to the hon. Gentleman that I specially
    1782
    asked the Solicitor-General to correct me if I am wrong, and he has not done so, and therefore I am bound to accept the silence of the Solicitor-General to the interruption of the hon. Member below the Gangway opposite. I have had no experience in conducting Bills through the House. It does not lie in my mouth to tell right hon. Gentlemen how they ought to conduct their Bills, but it does seem to me, when a very simple Amendment is moved that, in no way alters the meaning of the Bill, that the simplest way, if you want to get the Bill through, is to accept that Amendment. Personally, I am quite ready to argue the meaning of the Amendment, but I think in the interests of peace and harmony, and in the interests of candidates at the next General Election, it would be very much simpler if we put our meaning into legal phraseology, so that there shall be no doubt as to what is meant. The hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Pointer) knows perfectly well that he has only to go to a solicitor and ask him to obtain counsel's opinion, and he can obtain it any way he likes upon——
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet seems to be dealing with questions connected with litigation rather than with this particular Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was trying to show that the words in the Amendment are simpler than the words in the Bill, and would prevent litigation. I see that the Minister for Education is present, and he is one of the most reasonable men in the House. Had he been in charge of this measure a short time ago, I think he would have accepted this Amendment. I ask him to terminate this discussion now by accepting such a small and reasonable Amendment as this.
    Mr. POINTER: It does appear to me, after all, that so far as the discussion has gone, it has been all cry and very little wool. It proceeds upon two assumptions: one is that there exists in the country men so stupid as not to be able to understand the words in the Bill, but quite able to understand the legal phraseology which the hon. Gentleman opposite wants to substitute. The second assumption is that the legal fraternity are such blockheads that they do not understand ordinary English, but they do understand legal English. Anything built on two false assumptions of that kind cannot carry conviction. So far as I am personally concerned—and I think

    1783
    my party would also take this view—generally we strive for simplicity in legislation. I understand from the legal standpoint of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that anything which smacks of legal jargon may be simple to the ordinary man, but I do not think that is so. The hon. Baronet opposite suggested that if you take counsel's opinion upon any particular point of the English law, you can always be sure of getting a conflicting opinion from different men. If these words are substituted that will still be a possibility, and you will not remove the peculiar way in which the legal mind follows the brief which is given to it. I see no reason why we should alter a simple expression like "During the continuance of the General Election," which is perfectly easy to understand. I do not think there is any man in the whole country who does not understand exactly what is meant by that term. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock) suggested that the man might go down to a certain election, after another election had progressed so far, and actually forget that he had voted in one constituency, and he might ask for a ballot paper in another constituency. He also suggested that the man's memory might be so treacherous as to allow him to do such a thing as that, but I think the penalty which this Bill puts forward would prove a very effectual check upon that kind of thing.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The judges have never yet decided what a General Election means or the period during which we should have a General Election. During the whole time these election petitions have been before the judges of the High Court, there has never yet been a definite decision given as to the precise moment, or the day, when a General Election commences, or when it ends. I think that conclusively answers the argument of the hon. Member who has just spoken.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not quite understand the argument of the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Pointer). Neither my hon. and learned Friend, nor
    myself ever suggested that judges and lawyers are blockheads. They understand their own business and the law. What we did suggest was that unless this Clause was put in proper legal phraseology, it would be argued that the House of Commons had done something different to what it had actually done.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: My hon. Friend explained that the stupidity was on the part of those who had plural votes.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It would not be in order to go into that point now, or else I should be entirely able to refute than argument. I will deal with what was said by the hon. Member opposite. The hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division knows perfectly well why they put a cross opposite the names on the polling card, and he knows why his agent puts a cross opposite his own name. If the electors are so intelligent as the hon. Member makes out, why not send out your polling cards without a cross?
    Mr. POINTER: My point was that all electors are not equally intelligent, but the difficulty would not be removed by the acceptance of this Amendment.
    Mr. POLLOCK: The hon. Member opposite has entirely misunderstood what I said and what I suggested. I explained, as some voter will discover to his cost, that every voter will not always remember that Parliament has passed a Plural Voting Bill. Somebody may not bear that in mind, and if he does not, it is quite possible that he might ask for a voting paper and so incur the penalties provided in this Bill, although he does not go as far as to actually vote. If a man asks for a voting paper, he will have incurred the penalty. A man might easily imagine that he had a right to ask for a voting paper even though he did not go so far as to vote. I express this opinion so that the Committee may clearly understand what my point was.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 134.

    Division No. 141.]

    AYES.

    [9.27 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Alden, Percy

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Barnes, George N.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Adamson, William

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Barton, William

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Agnew, Sir George

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Black, Arthur W.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Boland, John Plus

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hudson, Walter

    Pointer, Joseph

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Brace, William

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Brady, P. J.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood)

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, John (Waterford)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Clough, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Richards, Thomas

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    King, J.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West.)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Crooks, William

    Leach, Charles

    Robinson, Sidney

    Crumley, Patrick

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cullinan, John

    Lundon, T

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Rowlands, James

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Dawes, J. A.

    McGhee, Richard

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Delany, William

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, S.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles. E.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Sheehy, David

    Dillon, John

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Doris, William

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Duffy, William J.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Meagher, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Snowden, Philip

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Molloy, Michael

    Sutton John E.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Falconer, James

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Tennant, Harold John

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Thomas, James Henry

    Ffrench, Peter

    Mooney, John J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Field, William

    Morgan, George Hay

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Morison, Hector

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Muldoon, John

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Munro, R.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Wardle, George. J.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Waring, Walter

    Goldstone, Frank

    Needham, Christopher Thomas

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Neilson, Francis

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Webb, H.

    Gulland, John William

    Norman, Sir Henry

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

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hackett, J.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Connor John (Kildare, N.)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wiles, Thomas

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Ogden, Fred

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Malley, William

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Wing, Thomas

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Shaughnessy, P, J.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T McKinnon (Glas.)

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

    O'Shee, James John

    Young, W. (Perth, E.)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Higham, John Sharp

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Hinds, John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Benn and Mr. W. Jones

    Hogg, David C.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Hogge, James Myles

    NOES.

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Barrie, H. T.

    Baird, J. L.

    Baring, Maj. Han. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Barnston, Harry

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    1786

    1787

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Blair, Reginald

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Randles, Sir John

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Boyton, James

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hills, John Waller

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Butcher, John George

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hohler, G. F.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Cator John

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Royds, Edmund

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Cave, George

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sandys, G. J.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Swift, Rigby

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewshury)

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Forster, Henry William

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Valentia, Viscount

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Malcolm, Ian

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Goldman, C. S.

    Nield, Herbert

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

    Goldsmith. Frank

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Grant, J. A.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Greene, W. R.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Harry Samuel and Sir W. Bull.

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Mr. STAVELEY-HILL Mr. STAVELEY-HILL rose in his place——
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: On a point of Order. Do I understand that the Amendment of my hon. Friend has precedence of that standing in my name?
    The DEIWUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for North Down comes within the same category as those to which the Chairman made reference as being out of order.
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to move, after the word "new" ["Members to serve in a new Parliament"], to insert the words "Commons House of."
    This Amendment is one which the Committee will readily recognise has no appropriate place in the present condition of things, but it is surely the duty of this Committee and of every other legislative body not to look to the present, but to the possibilities of the future. Whereas at the present moment this Bill is confined to the House of Commons, it is possible that, in the future, there may be, when it is reestablished, if at all, a Second Chamber on
    1788
    an elective basis. Hon. Members who applaud that possibility of the future will readily recognise that it is necessary to safeguard the electorate in that possible event, because, unless this Bill is altered on lines similar to those which I venture to suggest, it would refer alone to the election of Members of the House of Commons, and if there were an elective Second Chamber, and the election for the two Chambers took place at the same time, there is a possibility that the electors of this country might be deprived of the opportunity of voting for both Chambers. They would, in fact, be prevented from recording their vote for one of them, and I cannot but think that., if the Government will accept this Amendment, which really carries the Bill no further, they would safeguard themselves or any future Government from having to do what is a most dangerous thing to do—to amend the Franchise Acts of this country. By accepting this Amendment now they will place this Bill on lines which would enable them to meet any possible eventuality. Whatever doubt there may be in the minds of hon. Members, I can safely say that it is abundantly clear that these words would make

    1789
    the position much more plain and simple. They specifically declare the intention of the Government, or of the promotors of the Bill, to abolish plural voting for Members of Parliament., and, if that is the intention, it should be made clear for all time, so that we may not be hampered by doubts in the future.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Baker): The hon. Member who moved the Amendment based his suggestion mainly on a possible altered state of affairs, and he said it might be desirable to have more precise phraseology in the Bill to meet such changed conditions. I think he will admit that that is an objection that might be made to the phraseology of almost any Bill or Clause brought forward in this House. It has been the universal custom not to anticipate possibilities or even probabilities, but to wait until the occasion has arisen and then to make the necessary change. Assuming that the hon. Member is correct in his statement that at some distant date constitutional developments may provide us with an elective Second Chamber—and I would remind hon. Members that the proposals which have been foreshadowed do not necessarily imply an elected House of Lords—assuming there is to be an elected House of Lords, then the very Act which brings that Chamber into being is the Act which must necessarily deal with provisions of previous Acts thereby affected. That being so, I think the hon. Member might see well not to press this Amendment. The phrase "Parliament" is applied to the House of Commons in connection with all elections. It has been the common form in use for a great many years. There are hundreds of precedents, from the Acts of 1797, to those of 1832, down to the Redistribution Act of 1885, and if the hon. Member will look at the writs issued in this House he will see that the term used is "for the election of a Member to serve in Parliament" —not in the House of Commons.
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? He has gone rather wide of what I meant to say. My argument was this: I understood it to be the intention of the Government that this very Bill which we are discussing and the Bill for the creation or alteration of the Second Chamber will both be proceeded with immediately under the provisions of the Parliament Act.
    Mr. BAKER: I understand that the hon. Member does not contest the fact that the use of the phrase "Parliament" in this connection is well understood. He bases his argument on the probability of there being an elected House of Lords. I do not think I need repeat what I have said, and I ask him to allow the ordinary custom to be followed as in the past, so that changes, if they are necessary in any previous Act of Parliament, shall be made in the Act which brings about the change.
    Mr. J. HOPE: I shall be interested to know if the Cabinet Minister in charge of this Bill will confirm what has been said by the hon. Member who last spoke. We understand from him that any reform of the Second Chamber on an elective basis is to be postponed to a distant date.
    Mr. BAKER: Nothing I said can possibly suggest that.
    Mr. HOPE: The words of the hon. Gentleman are fresh in the recollection of the House. He said that if some constitutional development, which may have a bearing on this Amendment, takes place it will be at a distant date.
    Mr. BAKER: No.
    Mr. HOPE: I should like to know whether the President of the Board of Education confirms that.
    Mr. BAKER: If the hon. Member will allow me, perhaps I may correct him. What I did say was that, the question of an elected House of Lords was not a matter of certainty. It was a matter of possibility or probability. As to its being "distant," I mean merely "subsequent."
    Mr. HOPE: The hon. Gentleman may not have intended to say "distant," but undoubtedly he did use that word, and I ask the President of the Board of Education whether he confirms that statement The object of my hon. Friend's Amendment was to secure that if the Second Chamber were reconstructed on an elective basis the provisions of this Bill should not affect the election of that Second Chamber. It has undoubtedly been contemplated that there shall be a reformed House of Lords. Is that reform not to proceed on the elective principle? Is it to proceed on the nominative principle? If we are to look for a lead in this matter, perhaps it may be found in the Government of Ireland Bill. In that there was a proposal for a nominated Second Chamber, but that has been abandoned.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is rather straying from the point.
    Mr. HOPE: I did not quite gather I was straying from the argument put forward by my hon. Friend. His object is that this provision with regard to plural voting shall not apply to elections of a future Second Chamber, if such Second Chamber is to be reconstructed on the elective basis. Surely, then, it is pertinent to ask whether there is a likelihood of the Second Chamber being reconstructed on an elective basis? It does not, I submit, become relevant to ask the President of the Board of Education for some little further enlightenment on this point. Further questions may arise. We hear talk of a General Election. It is contemplated, assuming there is to be one, that the election of a Second Chamber shall synchronise with the election of the House of Commons? If it should be so, then obviously the same elector will not be able to vote for the two Chambers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because if the two Chambers are to be elected at the same time the elector will obviously, under the provisions of this Bill, have to choose whether he is going to vote for the first Chamber or for the second. It is, therefore, a vital point if it is contemplated by the Government that the two Chambers shall be set up in such a manner as to involve a synchronous General Election for both. Otherwise, the unfortunate elector will be placed in an extremely embarrassing position. He will have to consider, at an election for the first and second Chamber, for which of the two his vote will be of the most value. That is a position which the Government have not contemplated. No harm will be done to their Bill by accepting this Amendment. I understand their intention is that in an election for Members of this House an elector shall be able to give one vote and one vote only. That is a principle we detest, but it is a perfectly intelligible principle. If they go no further, they will surely accept the Amendment, but if they wish to go further, and reject the Amendment, the only result will be that they will prejudice their future scheme, if they have one, for a Second Chamber upon an elective basis. Judging from the concession they made upon the Irish Bill, they have such a scheme, and the election is to be by proportional representation. Does the President of the Board of Education admit that the future Second Chamber should be upon an elective basis?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is going beyond the Amendment.
    Mr. J. HOPE: With great submission Sir, you did not hear a speech of the hon. Gentleman who replied for the Government, which distinctly raised this point. He said it was not for him to say whether or not the reform of the Second Chamber involved the elective principle, and he challenged us to show how far our Amendment bore upon that point. I will revert to the bare fact. Is it the intention of the Government to provide in their Bill that a person shall have one vote and one vote alone for this House, or do they mean to lay down the principle that at a General Election, whether it is a General Election for one House or two, that a person shall have only one vote?
    Mr. PEASE: Out of courtesy to the hon. Member, I must say at once that one of our reasons for objecting to this Amendment is that by imputation it assumes that the House of Lords is or may become constituted upon an elective basis. Whenever the question of the reconstitution of that House is considered, the matter will then arise, but I submit it does not arise now.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has rather confirmed the impression conveyed by the Financial Secretary to the War Office. That hon. Gentleman quite accidentally let slip the word "distant." I know that it was a mistake, and I do not wish to press it, but it is in the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is going to be distant. After having, unfortunately for him, used the word "distant," he went on to recommend that we should wait and see. That is exactly what my hon. Friend (Mr. Staveley-Hill) does not want to do. He wants to arrange in this particular Bill that there shall be no waiting to see, but that we shall know exactly what we are going to do. The argument advanced by the Financial Secretary, and confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman, disclosed the future intentions of the Government. We now know that the Second Chamber will not be elective. I am very glad to hear it.
    Mr. HOPE: Would my hon. Friend rather have it nominated?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I would rather leave it as it is. It would depend entirely whether it was nominated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite or by my right hon.

    1793
    Friend (Mr. Bonar Law). The hon. Gentleman said that all the precedents from 1770 up to now showed that the word "Parliament" was used to indicate the House of Commons. May I point out that precedents which occurred two or three hundred years ago are of no value now, because the Constitution to which those precedents applied no longer exists. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh, but it is a fact. There is another very strong argument, which was not used by the hon. Gentleman, but it was in his mind, and in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. It was, "We do not want a Report stage; therefore we will not accept any Amendment. Never mind how reasonable are the Amendments, or if they make perfectly clear the meaning of the Bill, we will not accept them, because there will have to be a Report stage." It would save a great deal of time if the hon. Gentleman had got up and in a candid manner told us the real reason for the rejection of the Amendment. It would save my endeavouring to show that the three reasons adduced by the hon. Gentleman were not good, and did not meet the point at all, and it would, no doubt, have pleased hon. Gentlemen opposite who are anxious to retire to the 'country or the seaside.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: What about you?
    Mr. GOULDINGmade an observation which was inaudible.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I have done more work than you know how to do.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite will allow me to continue my argument, I shall be very much obliged. This Amendment is necessary in the interests of simplification. If it is not accepted, there may be considerable doubt as to the actual meaning of the word "Parliament." What is the objection to putting in the words "Commons House of Parliament"? If the right hon. Gentleman means the Commons House of Parliament, why on earth should he not say so? It is such a simple proposition that it can be understood perfectly, even by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. In these circumstances I appeal to them to support the Amendment.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: The President of the Board of Education made a most extraordinary statement. It was that the Government rejected this Amendment on
    1794
    the ground that they did not wish to pledge themselves as to the future constitution of the Second Chamber. But they have pledged themselves up to the hilt in the Preamble of the Parliament Act. It says that they contemplate putting the Second Chamber upon an elective basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Democratic."] The word "democratic" means "elective." [HON. MEMBERS: "It is 'popular.'"] I will take the word "popular." I take it as popular. Does not popular mean elective? Of course it does. What 'we are urging is to make it perfectly clear that this Bill is only to apply to this House. If that is the intention of the Government, why reject the Amendment? It will do them no harm. If the Government mean that the Bill is only to apply to the House of Commons, why not put in the words "House of Commons," and make it perfectly clear? That is the sole object of the Amendment, and I am really astonished that the Government do not see that it is right to make it perfectly clear.
    Mr. BAIRD: I think for once perhaps the Government might consent to call a spade a spade. Do they mean the House of Commons or Parliament, or do they think the House of Commons is Parliament? In the very Preamble of the Bill you find, "Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this Parliament assembled." There are a great many more people besides the Commons, and unless you put in the Commons you imply that Parliament consists of the House of Commons alone, since this Bill is to deal with the election of Members to this House. In the country we are well accustomed to supporters of the Government calling a spade a shovel whenever they can get votes for it, but when it is a question of making laws surely they might endeavour to say exactly what they mean, and several of them have repeated that their intention is that the Bill shall apply to the election of Members of this House only. At present I agree that Parliament is constituted by this House only, although hon. Members opposite are quite ready to deny it in the country. This House controls the whole machine of government. If this is to be perpetuated, well and good. If, on the other hand, we are to have a reconstruction of the Constitution so that Acts of Parliament shall be enacted in deed, and not only in name, by the King and Lords and Commons in

    1795
    Parliament assembled, what earthly objection can the Government have to insert words into this Bill which will make it perfectly clear that it is to apply only to that branch of Parliament which they themselves say it is to affect? It is extraordinarily difficult to understand, unless it is for the reason given by the hon. Baronet, that they do not want to have a Report stage. If that is their reason, let them say so. But surely they might take the trouble to advance some argument for the purpose of showing why they will not accept perfectly reasonable Amendments.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad my arguments have been so good that it is abso-
    lately impossible for anyone on that bench to contradict them. I should like to repeat the request which has been put forward by my hon. Friend to know whether or not the Government intend to have a Report stage. I do not see any Law Officer present, but I see my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Finlay). Will he excuse me, in the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown, if I ask him this question: Is the Amendment one which would be understood in any Court of Law?
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 266.

    Division No. 142.]

    AYES.

    [10.5 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Baird, J. L.

    Grant, J. A.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Greene, W. R.

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pollock. Ernest Murray

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Mall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Barnston, Harry

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Hamilton. C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Bathurst, C. (Wilts., Wilton)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Remnant. James Farquharson

    Been, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hills, John Waller

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Bird, A.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Royds, Edmund

    Blair, Reginald

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Boyton, James

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey. Guildford)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Butcher, John George

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Campion, W. R.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Cater, John

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cautley, H. S.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Stewart. Gershom

    Cave, George

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Swift, Rigby

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Law, Rt. Han. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewel)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Tryon, Captain George clement

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Duncannon. Viscount

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Eyres-Monsell, Balton M.

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Winterton, Earl

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Mount, William Arthur

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Forster, Henry William

    Newdegate, F. A.

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

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Newman, John R. P.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Gilmour, Captain John

    field, Herbert

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Goldman, C. S.

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

    Staveley-Hill and Mr. Samuel Roberts

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Needham, Christopher Thomas

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Neilson, Francis

    Adamson, William

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Gulland, John William

    Nolan, Joseph

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hackett, J.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Alden, Percy

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Ogden, Fred

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Barnes, George N.

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Malley, William

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barton, William

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

    O'Shee, James John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Higham, John Sharp

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Hinds, John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hogg, David C.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Boland, John Pius

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Brace, William

    Hudson, Walter

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brady, P. J.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    John, Edward Thomas

    Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Raphael, Sir Herbert

    Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

    Joyce, Michael

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Keating, Matthew

    Reddy, M.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Clough, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rendell, Athelstan

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    King, J.

    Richards, Thomas

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roberts, Charles (Lincoln)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Camb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Leach, Charles

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Crooks, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robinson, Sidney

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cullinan, John

    Lundon, T.

    Roche, M. Augustine (Louth, N.)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Rowlands, James

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Dawes, J. A.

    McGhee, Richard

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Delany, William

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Dickinson W. H.

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Dillon, John

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Sheehy, David

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Doris, William

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Duffy, William J.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Snowden, Philip

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Meagher, Michael

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Millar, James Duncan

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Esslemont, George Birnle

    Molloy, Michael

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Falconer, James

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sutton, John E.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Field, William

    Mooney, John J.

    Thomas, James Henry

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Morgan, George Hay

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Morrell, Philip

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morison, Hector

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Muldoon, John

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Munro, R.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Wadsworth, John

    Glanville, H. J.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    1798

    1799

    Wardle, George J.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Wing, Thomas

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Wiles, Thomas

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Webb, H.

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

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

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move, after the word "Parliament" ["to serve in a new Parliament"], to insert the words "of the United Kingdom."
    I should like to say at once that I quite sympathise with the difficulties which beset Ministers in charge of the Bill in finding fresh reasons on each Amendment for the avoidance of a Report stage. As to this Amendment, I wish to say, in the first place, that it is really a matter of terminology rather than of principle. In the second place, I hope that the argument used by Ministers against other Amendments—I have sufficient respect for their ingenuity to think that they will discover one—will not be used against this Amendment, namely, that in these matters you must have regard to the necessary, ordinary, and well-understood phrases of Acts of Parliament. I could have understood that argument in regard to any Amendment other than the present one. Under present circumstances the word "Parliament" has acquired entirely new significance. When we remember that there are proposals before this House with regard to the formation of other Parliaments in other parts of the United Kingdom—which, of course, it would not be in order for me to go into at this stage on this Bill—then I think it is time to consider whether the mere use of the word "Parliament" accurately reflects what I believe to be the intention of the Government in regard to this Bill. I understand—I should like the President of the Board of Education to correct me if I am wrong—that it is the intention of the Government, under this Bill, that in casting votes for membership of the Imperial Parliament a man should vote once and once only.
    I want to know whether they intend that principle to apply under this Bill to the Imperial Parliament only, because, if they do, I think they ought to consider very seriously whether they cannot accept the phraseology of my Amendment? Without going into the details of other proposals, I wish to say that I have heard reports that there are other proposals before the House which would have the effect of imposing the election law, whatever it may be, on subordinate Parlia-
    1800
    ments for at least three years. Therefore, while in this Bill we are professedly legislating for this House of Commons, we should be legislating for other Parliaments as well. I am under this difficulty that, however strongly one may feel on that point, it is impossible within the Rules of Order to refer to what may take place between this Parliament and other Parliaments, but I think I am entitled to point out the difficulty, because it is one which is certain to arise. May I point out, further, that the Clause says that a Parliamentary elector shall not vote in more than one constituency during the currency of a General Election of Members to serve in a new Parliament? I take a parallel case, the case that was put a moment ago. Imagine that your dream comes true, that you have a subordinate Parliament, or if you like a whole set of them in the United Kingdom.
    The CHAIRMAN: There would really be no end to our discussion if we were to argue all the Amendments on this Bill on the prospects of other Bills which are not yet law. I do not think it desirable to pursue that.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Is it not in order to use an argument which is relevant to an Amendment, if the Amendment is itself in order? It would be very greatly encroaching on the rights of the Committee if the Chair ruled out of order arguments which might move votes if those arguments are relevant.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord will see that it is necessary to draw a line in these matters. For instance, he might, himself, desire to argue all the various Amendments on this Bill on the hypothesis that Woman Suffrage became law. That clearly would be introducing a matter which had nothing to do with our present Debate, and would really lead to there being no end to our discussion.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: On the point of Order. Is not that the ruling—that arguments which are perfectly relevant and likely to move votes should be ruled out of order merely because they interfere with the Government getting their business as soon as they want?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that the Noble Lord's last words imply a reflection on the Chair.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Nothing of the kind. I had not the slightest intention of impeaching your ruling in this respect; but there is a great danger that too technical an interpretation of rules may really interfere with the rights of the minority, and so interfere with the freedom of debate.
    The CHAIRMAN: Dealing with what the Noble Lord originally said, he will see that he implied that I was giving my decision with some other matter in view than the impartial administration of the Rules of the House. To that I took strong exception.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: With regard to the particular question submitted, is not this the point—that my hon. Friend is dealing with an Amendment which especially has regard to the word "Parliament," and dealing with that Amendment, he points out that by the wording of the Bill as it stands it might apply either to this Parliament or to other Parliaments. Is not it in order to point out the undesirability of that, and to make it clear that it ought to apply only to this Parliament?
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think that that is so. Within those limits that is quite a correct thing. What I object to is going beyond that.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I fully appreciate your ruling, and shall endeavour to observe it, but it is a little hard, I think, on the minority in this House with regard to certain questions, with regard to the question, for instance, which came up yesterday, that we are met, on the one hand, by the argument of the Government: "There is no use in suggesting this. You must proceed on the ground that the Parliament Act is a fait accompli, and on that hypothesis the Government are going to continue in power." For instance, with regard to the Amendment ruled yesterday, we were told that there is no use in moving an Instruction of that kind, because it takes the Bill out of the category of the Parliament Act. It is a little hard if we cannot proceed on the same assumption in the face of other arguments which the Government adopts when it suits them. What I meant to suggest is this: Suppose the case where there is an election for a
    1802
    subordinate Parliament which may happen to be set up—and I gather it is the intention of the Government to set up subordinate Parliaments—and suppose that election coincided with the election of Members of this Parliament, then, as I read the Bill, without the interpolation of my Amendment, the elector would be put in this quandary, that he would have to make up his mind to vote for a Member to serve in this House of Commons, or for one to serve in the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, or Lancashire House of Commons; he would have to do one or the other; he could not do both. I do not believe that is the intention of the Government; I think it is too silly to be the intention even of this Government; but, if I am right in that surmise, I think the Government might do well to accept the words I suggest, unless they wish to avoid the Report stage.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have listened very closely to the argument of the hon. Member, and I think I appreciate the point he desires to make. I can assure him, if he will be good enough to listen to the argument I wish to make, that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to resist any Amendment, and if the hon. Member or any of his Friends produce Amendments which commend themselves to the Government, the Government will not hesitate to accept them. In our opinion, however, this Amendment is not necessary. The word "Parliament" is perfectly understood. It is used in the enacting words of this Bill, it is used in various enactments, it is used in the Parliament Act itself, and it cannot be misunderstood. It refers to the only Parliament in existence in this country, this Parliament in which we are now sitting.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I understand the policy of the Government to be that there shall no longer in these islands be one Parliament, but a number of Parliaments.
    Mr. MONTAGU: So far, we are concerned with existing circumstances, and there is only one Parliament to which this Act can apply. I hope and believe that very soon there will be other Parliaments. There I agree. When we are discussing a Bill constituting Parliaments for Wales and Scotland, and the other Parliaments to which the hon. Member referred, then will be the time to call

    1803
    attention to the difficulty which he foresees, and to move the amending words. They are purely irrelevant to the Bill now under discussion, and deal with a state of things which does not at present exist. For that reason I respectfully suggest that the Amendment is not necessary.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman made the statement in giving his reasons for rejecting the Amendment that the Government—and I assume they were sincere—do not at all events aim at avoiding the Report stage. The hon. Gentleman says the words of the Amendment can only apply to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, because there is no other Parliament. But we all know—for they have told us that before long they will carry their intention into effect—that shortly before this Bill comes into operation there will be another Parliament in the United Kingdom, and, if so, this Bill as it stands would apply to that other Parliament precisely as it applies to the Parliament which exists. In these circumstances, surely, if their object is not to avoid the Report stage, there will be no harm in putting into the Bill exactly what they mean. What was the right hon. Gentleman's other defence for refusing the Amendment. He tells us that the very Preamble of the Bill speaks of Parliament and shows what is meant, but in the Amendment before this the defence of the Government was the exact opposite. They pointed out then it had nothing to do with Parliament, but had only to do with the House of Commons. There, again, I would venture to say to the Government, judging by my experience in this House, that they gain nothing by avoiding a Report stage. They simply, by showing their determination not to accept any Amendment, increase the amount of discussion. I would strongly recommend them to adopt a more reasonable attitude and treat the House of Commons as if it were still a legislative Assembly, and give full weight to the Amendments which are put down.
    Mr. HENRY TERRELL: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu) suggested to the House that the proper time to deal with this matter was when there was a Bill before the House to set up some other Parliament. We have a Bill before the House to set up a Parliament in Ireland. Does the hon. Member propose that the proper time to deal with this
    1804
    matter is when the Bill to set up a Parliament in Ireland is before the House, and, if so, will he give an assurance that the Government will accept in that Bill the necessary Amendment to exclude that Parliament from the operation of this Bill? If they will not give that undertaking there is no force in the hon. Member's objection, because it follows that the Bill which they have got before the House will not contain any provision which will exclude the Irish Parliament from the operation of this Bill, and if that Bill comes into law at the same time this Bill comes into law, then at the moment this Bill comes into law we shall have two Parliaments, and, if we have two Parliaments, to which Parliament does this Bill apply? Is it to the Parliament of the United Kingdom or to the Irish Parliament or to both Parliaments? I do submit to the Government that it is trifling with the House to suggest that we should introduce this Amendment when a Bill for the introduction of a new Parliament is before the House, and at the same time to refuse to say that they will listen to and accept such an Amendment in that Bill. The result is that if this Bill is passed without this Amendment, you have this Bill becoming an Act and at the same moment two Parliaments in the United Kingdom. I defy the Solicitor-General, when he comes to interpret this Bill becoming an Act under those circumstances, to say that it will not apply to both those Parliaments. The Government refuse to accept this Amendment because it does not commend itself to them, and no Amendment from this side will commend itself to them. We know that perfectly well, and the result of that will be that you will have this Bill passed and framed in such a way that it will operate, as stated by the Mover of the Amendment, in such a way as that it will impose on the elector the greatest possible difficulty, which it is not intended by the Bill to impose on the elector. If the Government will only look on this Amendment on its merits they will accept it.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: It is characteristic of the habitual discourtesy with which the Government treat the Opposition, and of the contempt with which they treat the House of Commons, that no Minister has risen to reply to the Leader of the Opposition. When I first entered into Parliament such a thing was absolutely unknown. If they are unable to reply to the arguments they might at

    1805
    least rise and show the courtesy of attempting to deal with arguments with which they are unable to cope. [An HON. MEMBER: "The new style."] It is the "new style" which the Government are adopting. They do not think it worth while to answer those who are in the most distinguished position on the Opposition side of the House. That is gross discourtesy; it is opposed to the precedents and traditions of Parliament; and it is a procedure of which the Government ought to be ashamed. This is an Amendment to make clear the meaning of a Clause which is obscure and ambiguous. We have only to look at a Bill at present on the Table of the House and ordered for Third Reading to see that the word "Parliament" is used in respect of another Parliament than this. I believe I should have been in order in asking the Clerk to read Clause 1 of the Government of Ireland Bill in order to show the relevance of the arguments that we are pressing upon the Committee. Nobody who really addresses his mind to the subject can doubt that the Clause is ambiguous; but the Government, merely because they are afraid of a Report stage, decline to consider an Amendment or to reply to the arguments addressed to them. They put up the Under-Secretary for India to reply. I do not know what he has to do with the matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "His name is on the back of the Bill."] I do not know why his name should be on the back of the Bill. The point is perfectly simple and plain. According to the Bill and the existing practice of this House the word "Parliament" is used in two different senses. It is used in respect of this Parliament of the United Kingdom, and it is used in the Government of Ireland Bill in respect of a Parliament in Ireland. We want to know to which of these Parliaments the Bill refers, and we have propounded an Amendment which makes it clear. I cannot see why the Government on the merits of the case do not accept the Amendment. They say that they intend the Bill to apply only to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Then why should they not say in the Bill what they mean? If legislation is submitted for our consideration at all, and if it is not to be registered precisely as the Government frame it, we are entitled to ask that it should be dealt with in a workmanlike manner. It is workmanlike to say what you mean clearly. Therefore we are entitled to press this Amendment which makes clear what the Government say is their own meaning.
    Sir J. SIMON: The Noble Lord began by complaining of what he described as discourteous treatment of the Leader of the Opposition. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that we treated him with discourtesy, I would wish to express to him at once my regret that any conduct of ours should have given him that impression. I do not offer any apology to the Noble Lord, because he went on to show what he meant by courtesy, by a wholly unworthy sneer at my colleague, the Under-Secretary for India. My hon. Friend's name is on the back of the Bill, and, so far as I know, he is as much entitled to take an interest in the Bill, and to explain its provisions as anybody else on this bench. As far as I can judge his explanation was a perfectly clear one, and was couched in most temperate language. The Committee is, of course, entitled to consider and decide whether or not the language of the Bill would be improved by adding after the word "Parliament" the words "of the United Kingdom." That is a question on which no doubt opinions may differ. I have an opinion, I believe it is a perfectly honest one, and I do not think it would make the slightest difference to the Bill, or make it less clear if these words are not put in. Though it is perfectly natural for an Opposition which imagines that some advantage would accrue to them by making some change in the language of the Bill to protest that they are putting forward such change in the interests of clearness, I must be excused if I, for my part, say I am quite unable to understand how anyone could suppose that this Bill is to be made clearer by the addition of such words. The enacting words of the Bill are: "in this present Parliament assembled." Nobody can question what is meant by that! Nobody can doubt that in talking about "a General Election of Members to serve in a new Parliament" as to what is meant! I see sitting opposite an hon. and learned Gentleman who has written a book which we all recognise as a classic, on "The Law and Custom of the Constitution." I think the first volume of it, so far as my memory goes, is entitled "Part I. of 'Parliament.'" I really do not myself see that any advantage is gained in clearness of expression by the inclusion of anything of the sort suggested. When so recently as the Parliament Act we were dealing with Parliament, never, from first to last, was it thought necessary to explain that we

    1807
    meant the Parliament of the United Kingdom when we used the word "Parliament." We did not mean the Parliament of Canada. When we legislated for Canada we passed an Act of Parliament which created a Parliament for Canada. With every desire to give due weight to the arguments of the other side, I cannot see what advantage will be secured by changing the expression which has been used in the drafting of this Bill. I believe that expression to be right, and since I believe it to be right I am bound to recommend the House to resist the Amendment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee definitely that if the words stand as they are in the Clause, that is to say, that the words proposed by my hon. Friend are not added, the words will not affect the Parliament which is to be elected under the Bill before the House, and which is in process of passing for Ireland? Can he tell us definitely whether it would affect that Parliament or not?
    Sir J. SIMON: I can offer an opinion, and that is that I have no doubt whatever that as the Bill is drafted, and as it stands, it applies to this Parliament only. The only sense in which it can possibly apply to a Home Rule Parliament is this: My recollection is—if it is in order to refer to it—that the Home Rule Bill does provide that whatever is the election law of the Imperial Parliament shall be the election law of the Home Rule Parliament for three years. In that sense, no doubt, it would adopt whatever was law of this Parliament. In the sense in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts his question, and puts it perfectly fairly, I am bound to say, expressing my best judgment, that I have not the faintest doubt the Bill refers to this Parliament, and no other Parliament on this earth.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General, and the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary have both in my humble opinion been most courteous in the words they have uttered, but they have had nothing to do with the argument or Amendment of my hon. Friend. I only wish to deal briefly with the last argument of the Solicitor-General as to Canada. It was never supposed that any Bill of this House should apply to Canada. He told us only a few moments ago that there is in the Irish Home Rule Bill a
    1808
    Clause which says that any enactment adopted by the Imperial Parliament shall be adopted by the Irish Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That is what the Solicitor-General said, and he can contradict me if I am wrong. I will read the Sub-section:—
    "After three years from the passing of this Act ….the Irish Parliament may alter as respects the Irish House of Commons the qualification and registration of the electors who vote at elections, the constituencies, and the distribution of Members of the House among constituencies."
    No, that is not it, but the whole point is the three years. Until the three years have elapsed the Irish Parliament is bound by this Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not the point."] It is very much the point as to what would happen in the three years. The Under-Secretary for India said that hitherto the word "Parliament" always meant the one Parliament. Then he went on to say that if there was any intention to establish a Welsh Parliament or a Scottish Parliament the proper time to discuss whether this was to be extended to the Welsh Parliament or the Scottish Parliament was upon the Bills creating those Parliaments. He left the Irish Parliament out entirely. The Bill creating an Irish Parliament has already passed many stages this Session during which we were not allowed to have any discussion. Why did the hon. Gentleman leave out the Irish Parliament? Because he knew under our existing procedure there is no Committee stage of that Bill, and therefore the Bill we are now discussing, which was not brought in last year, could not be discussed during the Committee stage of the Irish Bill last year. It is evident that that is the real reason. Let me point out why the Under-Secretary for India did not show in any kind of way why these words should not be inserted. The insertion of the words "United Kingdom," would in no way injure or destroy that which the hon. Member desires to bring about. The hon. Gentleman desires to bring something about in the Parliament of this Kingdom. Then why not put in the words "United Kingdom"? It will not be a United Kingdom when the Irish Parliament is in existence. The Plural Voting Bill may be right or wrong, but it is very evident we must insist on the intention of the Government being carried out. All we ask is

    1809
    that the Government should accept an Amendment which will make their meaning clear, and I shall certainly vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be very sensitive about any allusion to the Irish Parliament in this Bill. I do not follow the reason of that, except the reflection that it is a Bill which is being forced upon the Government, and that they are unwillingly undertaking it. It is absurd to suggest that this House should consider these questions in watertight compartments, that we are dealing with this Bill only, and that we have not to consider other Bills which have got to a very advanced stage. This particular phraseology might be appropriate if this Parliament was likely to remain the only one, but we know from Bills now before Parliament that it is the intention of the Government to create other Parliaments which will come within the jurisdiction of this House. Even under the Home Rule Bill this House is entitled to legislate for Ireland, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what phraseology he would adopt if it were proposed that these words should include the Irish Parliament. If that is the intention of the Government hon. Members will see that they could not adopt any phraseology more expressly designed to include the Irish Parliament than the words which are in the Clause at the present moment. I do not follow the relevance of the Solicitor-General's observations with regard to the enacting words. He says those words refer to "the present Parliament assembled." It seems to me that the two cases have nothing to do with each other. It is true that those are the words of ordinary Acts of Parliament, but they enable this Parliament to deal with any Parliament it pleases, and it does not follow that because it is this Parliament which is passing the Bill that the Bill which it passes deals only with this Parliament. It must be obvious to every impartial mind that this Amendment is wanted to make the Bill clear. If the Government do not choose to accept it, that is another question. They have their majority to support them, and those hon. Members who are not in the House will come up to vote. In the interests of making legislation clear we are bound to support this Amendment, and point out that the only reason the Government are refusing it is from sheer obstinacy and un-
    1810
    willingness to accept any suggestion whatever from the Opposition. It is no use the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary for India saying that they are prepared to accept Amendments if the necessity for them is proved, because that has been done in this instance. We might as well pass over all our Amendments and let the Government pass the Committee stage in the same way as they did the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. It is true that we are now making a vain attempt to preserve the liberty of the House of Commons and the private Member in regard to moving Amendments, but so long as we have the opportunity I hope we shall continue to exercise our right, and every Amendment as it comes up will show the Government more clearly than the last that at all events if they have forgotten what are the rights and privileges of the House of Commons we have not forgotten them on this side.
    Sir W. ANSON: The Solicitor-General has not convinced me that it is not desirable to add these words. The Under-Secretary for India said if our Amendments commended themselves to the Government they might be disposed to consider them. Would it not be better, as we are going to let Ireland to a large extent manage her own affairs, to confine our changes to the United Kingdom or to what will remain of the United Kingdom after the Government of Ireland Bill has been passed? We might very well confine this new legislation to ourselves and let Ireland for the next three years settle her own question of the plural voter as she pleases. After all, there is the possibility, and we must always consider the possibilities in legislation, that there might be simultaneous Parliamentary elections in Ireland and in England after the Home Rule Bill has been passed, and a man might be perfectly well entitled to exercise the franchise there and here. The Bill as it stands would preclude him from doing so. You may say that it is a remote contingency, but it is the unexpected that happens, and it should be provided for. It can easily be provided for by the addition of these words. Will not the Government consider whether it would not be worth while, even at the expense of a Report stage, which would not last very long, to put in words to make the meaning absolutely clear.
    Mr. W. THORNE: 'Vide, 'vide.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for West Ham, who has several times interrupted our proceedings——
    Mr. W. THORNE: It is not true.
    HON. MEMBERS: "Order" and "withdraw."
    Mr. W. THORNE: Yes, I will withdraw, outside.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON.The best place for you.
    Mr. W. THORNE: What about you?
    Sir W. ANSON: These words would carry out what I understand the Solicitor-General to say is the intention of the Government, and I would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to accept them.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: I am quite at a loss to understand why the Solicitor-General is unable to accept these words. He said that they were unnecessary, but, when one realises that this Bill might apply to an election affecting either this House of Commons or the new Irish House of Commons, it seems to me very necessary that they should be introduced. Why
    should the right hon. Gentleman object to putting these words in this Bill when they appear no less than three times in ten lines in Clause 26 of the Government of Ireland Bill. There can be no doubt at all why they appear there, but there may be equal difficulty in interpreting this Bill, provided it ever comes into law.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty has explained that it has not got a hundred to one chance, and I thoroughly agree with him. But if it ever should come into law it is obvious that there might be extreme difficulty in interpreting this Bill, and I absolutely fail to understand why the right hon. Gentleman should refuse to accept these words which might make it clear. It must be through pique or quite unnecessary pride. But I still hope to hear some right hon. Gentleman opposite get up and agree to accept them.
    Mr. PEASErose in his placè, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes. 282; Noes, 182.

    Division No. 143.]

    AYES.

    [10.58 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

    Field, William

    Adamson, William

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Clough, William

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Alden, Percy

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Cotton, William Francis

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Crooks, William

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Cullinan, John

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Barnes, George N.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hackett, J.

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Barton, William

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

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Dawes, J. A.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Delany, William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Devlin, Joseph

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Black, Arthur W.

    Dillon, John

    Hayward, Evan

    Boland, John Pius

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Doris, William

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Duffy, William J.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Brace, William

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Brady, P. J.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Hinds, John

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hogg, David C.

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Falconer, James Patrick

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Hudson, Walter

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Murphy, Martin J.

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

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Needham, Christopher Thomas

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Neilson, Francis

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N.(Doncaster)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Nolan, Joseph

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

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Sheehy, David

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Joyce, Michael

    Nuttall, Harry

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Snowden, Philip

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    King, J.

    O'Dowd, John

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Ogden, Fred

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    O'Malley, William

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Sutton, John E.

    Leach, Charles

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    O'Shee, James John

    Tennant, Harold John

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Thomas, J. H.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    London, Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    McGhee, Richard

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Maclean, Donald

    Pointer, Joseph

    Wadsworth, J.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wardle, George J.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Radford, G. H.

    Watt, Henry A.

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spaiding)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Webb, H.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Reddy, Michael

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Richards, Thomas

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Richardson, Thomas(Whitehaven)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Molloy, Michael

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Roberts, Sir H. (Denbighs)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Mooney, John J.

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Morgan, George Hay

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wing, Thomas

    Morrell, Philip

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Morison, Hector

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Muldoon, John

    Rowlands, James

    Munro, R.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Butcher, John George

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Campion, W. R.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Cator, John

    Forster, Henry William

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Cautley, H. S.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Ashley, W. W.

    Cave, George

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Baird, J. L.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Barnston, H.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Gordan, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Grant, J. A.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Greene, W. R.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Gretton, John

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Bird, A.

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Blair, Reginald

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Dixon, C. H.

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Boyton, James

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Bull, Sir William James

    Fell, Arthur

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    1814

    1815

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Starkey, John R.

    Hills, John Waller

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Newman, John R. P

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hohler, G. F.

    Neild, Herbert

    Swift, Rigby

    Hope, Marry (Bute)

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

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

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

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Touche, George Alexander

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgomr'y B'ghs)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Kerry, Earl of

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

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

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Royds, Edmund

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

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Rutherford, John (Lance., Darwen)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripen)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

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

    Malcolm, Ian

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton)

    Younger, Sir George

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Barlow and Mr. Wheler.

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 279.

    Division No. 144.]

    AYES.

    [11.8 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hills, John Waller

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Barnston, Harry

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Barrie, H. T.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Fell, Arthur

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Kerry, Earl of

    Bigland, Alfred

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Bird, Alfred

    Forster, Henry William

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Blair, Reginald

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Boyton, James

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Grant, James Augustus

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gretton, John

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Butcher, John George

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Campion, W. R.

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Cator, John

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Meysey-Thompson, E.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Cave, George

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Mount, William Arthur

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Newman, John R. P.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Nield, Herbert

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

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

    Sandys, G. J.

    Valentia, Viscount

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Wheler, Granville, C. H.

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    White Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

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

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Stewart, Gershom

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

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Swift, Rigby

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Younger, Sir George

    Royds, Edmund

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mitchell-Thomson and Major Hope.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

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

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hudson, Walter

    Adamson, William

    Delany, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

    Devlin, Joseph

    John, Edward Thomas

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Alden, Percy

    Dillon, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Doris, William

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Duffy, William J.

    Joyce, Michael

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Keating, Matthew

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Kelly, Edward

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    King, Joseph

    Barnes, George N.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Falconer, James

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Barton, William

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Leach, Charles

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Ffrench, Peter

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Field, William

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lundon, Thomas

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lynch, A. A.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Boland, John Pius

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    George, Rt. Hon. Hon. D. Lloyd

    McGhee, Richard

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Maclean, Donald

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Brace, William

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Goldstone, Frank

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hackett, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Meagher, Michael

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Clough, William

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Millar, James Duncan

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Molloy, Michael

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hayward, Evan

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Mooney, John J.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Morrell, Philip

    Crooks, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morison, Hector

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hinds, John

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Cullinan, John

    Hogg, David C.

    Muldoon, John

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Munro, Robert

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    1818

    1819

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Reddy, Michael

    Tennant, Harold John

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Neilson, Francis

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Randall, Athelstan

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Nolan, Joseph

    Richards, Thomas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Nuttall, Harry

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Wadsworth, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Roberts. Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Wardle, G.J.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Robinson, Sidney

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    O'Dowd, John

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Ogden, Fred

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Rowlands, James

    Webb, H.

    O'Malley, William

    Rowntree, Arnold

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston),

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Shee, James John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Scanian, Thomas

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Sheehy, David.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh. Central)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wing, Thomas

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Radford, G. H.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Sutherland, John E.

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Sutton, John E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Committee report. Progress; to sit again To-morrow (Wednesday).

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Colonel YATE: I am glad to see the Secretary of State for War in his place and wish to ask him to take into consideration the unfairness of the present rules and regulations regarding the commutation of pensions of military officers. I have already raised the question in connection with the Naval Estimates and I now ask the Secretary of State to consider the question with regard to the Army Estimates. In the case of officers who are allowed to commute their pensions, the money is taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the savings bank on a 3½ per cent. basis. The result is that there is a large surplus accruing to the State. The Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged to me not long ago that the State had already made a profit out of the officers of £200,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has also agreed to look into this question, and to see whether the margin now allowed, between 3½ per cent.
  1820
  and 5 per cent., is not far too large. It tells unfairly on the officers, and I would ask that this question should receive consideration. Personally I am against the commutation of pensions.
  Mr. SPEAKER: What authority has the hon. Member for saying that pensions are included in this Bill?
  Colonel YATE: This came into the Army Estimates.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The only Army Vote in this Bill, if my recollection serves me aright, is Vote 1.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The subject is mentioned in the Report of Supply.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not include pensions.
  Colonel YATE: I will deal, then, with the question of the pay of Reservists. The Reservist soldier is paid 6d. a. day, and I would appeal to the Secretary of State to consider the question of paying these men weekly, just as old age pensions are paid, instead of their receiving the sum of £2 5s. quarterly. The present system is not beneficial to the soldier, for quarter day is known, and men turn up for "a drink." The result is that the money is often all gone before the man gets back

  1821
  to his wife and family. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether the Reservists cannot be paid weekly instead of quarterly as at present.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I want to call attention to the question of the Mounted Infantry, who, I believe, get an allowance of pay over and above the ordinary allowance, and I want to know why it was that the Mounted Infantry were recently sent back to their regiments? When the 15th Hussars returned from foreign service, I am told that they were given the horses of the Mounted Infantry, and that the latter were sent back to their regiments. That seems to me rather a curious manœuvre from two points of view. In the first place the Cavalry were supplied with the cobs of the Mounted infantry, horses not being available, and in the second place it seems to me reprehensible that before their training has been completed, or even if it has been completed, they should be sent back to their regiments in order that their cobs may be available for the Cavalry. This is a case which I am informed has caused a great deal of feeling in Cavalry circles throughout the Army. I think it is one which certainly demands explanation from the Secretary of State. We are all aware that the Secretary of State for War has done perhaps more than some of his predecessors in the direction of supplying sufficient horses for the Army. I do not wish in the least to detract from what he has done in that respect. I am aware he has had the matter under review and has done a certain amount. Still it seems to me there is a prima facie case for supposing that the steps which have hitherto been taken to mount the Cavalry have been inadequate if it is necessary to disband a force of such value as the Mounted Infantry in order to mount a Cavalry regiment coming back from abroad. I am sure the House will await with interest whatever explanation the right hon. Gentleman has to give on that point. There is also a question I should like to raise on the Post Office.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing about the Post Office.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I see that under the heading of Civil Service the Post Office comes in on that Vote.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That was taken in a former Consolidated Fund Bill.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I think the Noble Lord has done great service at this late hour of the night in raising this important question of horses for the Army. It is not the first time the question has been raised and I hope it will be often raised at every convenient and inconvenient time until the Government give proper attention to it. This question is one which has arisen almost automatically and in a way for 'which I admit the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible. Nor is the Department over which he presides wholly to blame. At the time of the South African War there was a reserve of horses to draw upon. Bus horses at that time were estimated to number at least 20,000. Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and all the great towns——
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing about horses in this Bill.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: Surely this Bill includes the pay of men who are mounted, and therefore I respectfully submit the question of horses in germane to the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It may be germane but it is not included. That is on Vote 6 and Vote 6 is not included in this Bill.
  Captain MORRISON-BELL: On page 26 of the Army Estimates there is an increase of £400 in the item, "Rewards, etc., for the Apprehension of Deserters, etc." That is an increase of 20 per cent. Why has that increase taken place in this particular year? The Secretary of State has made many speeches recently saying how happy and contented the soldiers are with their lot, how splendid recruiting is, and how everything is for the best in the best of all possible armies. I imagine this increase must be due to an increased number of desertions, because these emoluments depend upon the number of desertions. Therefore we ought to have some explanation why the number of desertions has increased. In the same paragraph there is an increase of £500 in the item, "Wages of civilians attached to units." I do not know who these gentlemen are or what are their duties. Where would these civilians come in in case of active service conditions? We have a very small army, but we do not want to have its numbers artificially increased by including civilians. Another large increase occurs in connection with, "Expenses of native Indian troops"—£25,500. I am not clear who bears the expenses of these native Indian

  1823
  troops, but I was under the impression that they were borne entirely by the Indian Government. We ought to have an explanation of this large increase. The next item is equally important—an increase of £200 on "miscellaneous and unforeseen charges." When we are dealing with millions £200 is not a very large sum, and it is very hard to discover what the unforeseen charges may be. But we ought to be very careful in examining the Estimates to see that these miscellaneous charges are properly checked. It is very important that the House should know what these miscellaneous charges are. Unforeseen charges may occur in any branch of the Service, and we must not blame too hardly the Secretary for War. But "miscellaneous charges" is a vague expression. We should know exactly what they are, and whether they really apply to this particular Vote 1 of the Army Estimates. No doubt the Secretary of War will seize the opportunity to explain these matters to the House.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I wish to raise Vote J of the first Army Vote, which deals with the pay and establishment of the Cavalry, Mounted Infantry, Camel Corps, Signalling and Cookery School. The first part of the Vote is headed "School of Instruction for Cavalry and Yeomanry Officers." That heading is extremely misleading, because as a matter of fact, there is at present no adequate instruction whatever provided for Yeomanry officers. It is true that there is provision made at Netheravon for twelve Yeomen of a rank not lower than field officers to have a short course. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will say that it is limited to twelve because in former years it has been found that field officers have not generally availed themselves of the facilities. The explanation is that the course is merely an optional course. The result is that the course, as I admit, has not been very fully attended. Those who need the course are junior officers who at the present time have no facilities for instruction whatever. It is laid down that they have to pass two examinations, and that they have to attend in some centre the training of a Cavalry regiment to get their practical experience in the field. That is a very undesirable system.
  These officers are a nuisance to the Cavalry regiment to which they are attached. They crowd the officers out of the mess.
  1824
  It is no one's job to teach them anything, and they go wandering about in everybody's way. After that fortnight with the Cavalry regiment they generally have to spend a certain amount of money in going through a course of cramming. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to encourage energetic young men of the country to join the Yeomanry they ought not to be put to the expense of getting instruction. The right hon. Gentleman ought to provide them with an adequate system of training at Netheravon, or elsewhere, whereby they can not only have theoretical instruction, but where they can also see regiments at work. I think it is no answer whatever to say that field officers do not attend the present courses because they are optional. I think the way really to deal with the difficulty of educating the officers of the Yeomanry is to make these attendances at courses compulsory, but to make it quite easy for one who wants to learn to have an opportunity of getting the courses at a time that suits him.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I think the point my hon. Friend has just raised is one of considerable interest to all of us who really do endeavour to do our best to make the Territorial Force, as far as it is possible to make it, a success. I do honestly think that the present state of instruction for Territorial Force and Yeomanry regiments is absolutely disgraceful. My hon. Friend has mentioned the point of teaching officers with regard to ordinary Cavalry training. I want to call attention particularly to their musketry training. Some years ago in the musketry course one was allowed to go to the School of Musketry at Hythe where one got excellent instruction and was able to give some value for the teaching. What happens at the present time? The right hon. Gentleman has instituted a system of instruction in musketry at Hythe, Bristol, Portsmouth, and other provincial towns, and also in London. Classes are held from six o'clock in the evening until ten o'clock or eleven o'clock at night with an hour's interval. That lasts for a month, and during that time the Yeomanry officer, who is paid the ordinary pay of a Cavalry officer, has to live in one of these provincial towns, and at the end of a month of that instruction he has to pass a stiff examination. During the whole of the days during that month that unfortunate officer, who is taken away from his ordinary occupation, whatever it may be, has to settle down in one of these provincial towns with nothing to do,

  1825
  with no means of instruction or learning unless he is able to get somebody to coach him privately. It is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows those officers that they are not going to stand that sort of thing. They are compelled before they get promotion to pass that sort of examination, and any officer who does not pass has a bad report made of him. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt hoped that this was done for the benefit of the Infantry Territorial Force——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Territorial Force are not on this Vote.
  Sir R. BAKER: I thought the schools of instruction were on the Vote.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hythe is, but the hon. Member seems to be talking about some other schools of instruction.
  Sir R. BAKER: I was trying to induce the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the system. Only a few years ago, a little before the right hon. Gentleman took up his present position, we were allowed to go to the School of Instruction at Hythe. Now the ordinary officer is made to go to those local courses instead of the School of Musketry at Hythe, where we had a useful and proper course.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question would come more properly under the Vote for the Territorials.
  Sir R. BAKER: I will leave that side of the question, but I want to say a word or two about the Cavalry school. Here again the right hon. Gentleman has done away with the system of sending Yeomanry officers there. I know he says there are some other depots to which the officers are supposed to go, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that those classes at the Cavalry school were of the greatest value to the Yeomanry officers. There is room for a Cavalry school at the other end if he will spend a little additional money upon it, or some part of the large amount now paid for these schools of instruction. The right hon. Gentleman might provide one or two additional instructors who could take say one Yeomanry class a month as they used to do, and by that means you would be able to teach your Yeomanry officers, giving them valuable instruction, and make them far more useful to take part in the defence of the country than they are at present. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into this question,
  1826
  because there is no more burning question than these schools of instruction. We ought not to be treated in this way when we are endeavouring to do all in our power to get the Yeomanry up to a state of efficiency because the difficulties put in our way by the abolition of these schools of instruction are enormous. I hope the Secretary for War will return to the old and more sound system of training officers at schools of instruction instead of the present haphazard methods he has adopted.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I hope the Secretary for War will take into consideration the points which have been put to him by my hon. Friends. The point I wish to raise is connected with the Central Flying School at Salisbury Plain. Last winter some of the officers and men there were living under conditions which I am sure hon. Members would not wish to continue. We must all realise that these officers and men are undergoing every day of their lives a very serious risk. It is no exaggeration to say that every time a man goes up in a flying machine he is exposed to a greater risk than any other person connected with other branches of the Army. These men have volunteered their services to secure the safety of the country, and they ought to receive every consideration at the hands of the Government. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can be satisfied with the accommodation provided for these men at Salisbury Plain last winter, because some of them had to hire rooms in a public-house, and public-houses are not very up-to-date in their accommodation. I think it is wrong that officers and men risking their lives should be obliged to be put up in such a rough kind of way at Salisbury Plain, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that these men are treated better in the future than in the past. The other point I wish to raise is partly connected with the administration of the Army, but still more connected with the administration of the Navy—I refer to the increase in pay of the Royal Marines. His answer to me was that nothing was to be decided until the increased rates of pay of the junior officers of the Army had been settled by the War Office.
  Officers in the Navy have already been granted an increase in pay within the last year or two, and it has been announced that the junior officers of the Army are to have increased rates of pay, but so far no

  1827
  announcement has been made about the junior officers of the Royal Marines. The Royal Marines are, perhaps, apt to be a little neglected by this House. They do not fill up as much of the glittering space in the eyes of the House as either the Army or the Navy, but I think everybody recognises that both the officers and men of the Royal Marines do their duty in a most admirable way when ashore or afloat, and it would be most unfair if when their fellows in the Army and Navy are to receive increased rates of pay these gentlemen who are serving in the Royal Marines were left out. I hope, therefore, that the Admiralty will pay attention to the question of increased rates of pay for the Royal Marines, and I hope also that the Secretary of State for War and his financial colleague will give attention to the question of increased rates of pay for officers in the Army and get the scheme put forward as soon as possible, because not only is there great uncertainty in the minds of the officers of the Army as to what will be the state of their pockets at the end of next year, but by the right hon. Gentleman's delay in definitely settling this scheme he gives an excuse to his colleague in dealing with the pay of the Royal Marines. I venture to hope that both right hon. Gentlemen will give their attention to these matters in the coming year.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): It may be convenient if, before the discussion on the Army closes, I reply to the points which have been raised. First of all with regard to the Central Flying School, it is quite true that those officers who run great risks have not been so well housed as we should have wished, but that is because the school was only established a year ago, and it is imposssible to do everything all at once. It is indeed satisfactory and astonishing, with the risks so great, that not one single serious accident has taken place in the school, and one can only hope that marvellous record, for which there is no parallel in any other country, may be continued. I agree that these officers ought to be well-housed, and I am glad to inform the House that arrangements have been made and the money provided to set up buildings, and they are being and will be proceeded with with the least possible delay. With regard to the other points it would have been more convenient, seeing the importance attached to them, if hon. Members had given some
  1828
  notice in order that I might have replied more fully.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: We did not know that you were going to take the Bill tonight.
  Colonel SEELY: It is quite true, as the hon. Member says, that local schools of musketry have been set up, and that was considered to be for the advantage of Yeomanry officers. It may be convenient for some people to attend the depots, but after all this seems to be the most convenient plan.
  Sir R. BAKER: Would the right hon. Gentleman take the advice of Yeomanry officers—I believe he has some body of Yeomanry officers whom he himself consults—because opinion is extremely strong on the matter.
  Colonel SEELY: I have had the advice of a great many Yeomanry officers and tonight I have had that of the hon. and. gallant Gentleman. There are two sides to this question as there are to all, and I think the balance of advantage lies with the present system—to throw them open, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, to the junior as well as the senior officers. With regard to the Miscellaneous and Unforeseen Charges I cannot agree that this is so very large a sum as to require careful consideration. Although it is desirable to keep a close watch on all expenditure, I think that even the hon. Baronet will admit that a miscellaneous and unforeseen charge of £5,000 on an expenditure running into eight millions shows very accurate accounting. It is I suggest a remarkable instance of estimating accurately. As to the item for Indian troops, that is caused by the necessity of keeping those troops in China owing to the disturbed state of affairs there. I had hoped to be able to withdraw them ere this, but the condition of matters there has not justified the taking of that step. With regard to rewards for bringing in deserters the number of deserters has been falling off in recent years. Last year there was a slight increase of arrests, but I do not know if it was due to greater vigilance, or to a lesser anxiety to escape detection. Still the amount in itself is small. Having replied to the questions as fully as I can I hope we may now be given the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
  Colonel SEELY: I will send the Noble Lord a memorandum on the subject. I can then deal with it fully, and without any fear of being called to order by the Speaker.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Mr. Speaker did not call me to order while I was suggesting that the training of Mounted Infantry and also of the 15th Hussars had been wasted.
  Colonel SEELY: I am convinced that if I were to attempt to answer the points raised by the Noble Lord, especially with regard to the size of the horses, I should have Mr. Speaker's eye upon me.
  12.0 M
  Mr. ALAN SYKES: While I am loth to detain the House at this late hour I wish, as the Secretary for War is here, to discuss one or two questions which certainly do cone under this Vote. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he is getting the Estimates out for next year, the items cannot be a little more sub-divided than some now are. I see we have grouped together honorary pay, guards' pay, engineers' pay, flying pay, and coast pay, and some of these items show a very considerable increase as compared with the corresponding items last year. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how much of the increase is due to flying pay? Everybody in the House must agree that the officers who undertake this somewhat new branch of Army work incur great risks and are certainly entitled to a very considerable amount of extra pay. Especially is that the case when to-day and on previous days we have had to ask questions as to deplorable accidents which have occurred, and have ascertained that new flying machines bought for the Army have collapsed owing to repairs which ought to have been executed in a better fashion than appears to have been the case. If we vote all this extra money for flying pay, we are entitled to see that the country gets good value for its money, that the Flying Corps is as efficient as it can be made, and that these deplorable accidents due to weak repairs do not occur again. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether in the future he can make, a separate heading for the flying school, so that we shall then be able to compare what we are spending one year with another upon this new branch of the Service.
  I notice that under another heading, "Health Insurance; payment for soldiers,"
  1830
  a sum is set aside for the Flying Corps. Is that due to the National Insurance Act, and do the soldiers who fly have to pay a greater risk under that Act than the Infantry, Cavalry, or any other soldiers? Lower down there are grouped together, "Contingent allowances and expenses, including funerals." The total sum is up by no less than —500 this year. Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether that increase is due to contingent allowances and expenses or to funerals, and, if it comes under the head of funerals, what has been the cause, if any, of such increase? Then I should like some explanation as to the library allowance, which is the same as last year. We have to do a very great deal more reading in the Army than we used to do and the work entailed on the librarians in the Staff College and at Sand-hurst is considerably more than it used to be and there is somewhat of a difficulty in retaining the librarians at the Staff College, who have been working at a somewhat inadequate pay. I should like him to compare it with the pay given to the librarian at our own House here. I do not know whether I should be in order in referring to the pay and allowances of Territorial officers and men.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is a special Vote for the Territorial Force.
  Mr. ALAN SYKES: Does that not cover the permanent staff and not the ordinary officers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will look at it he will see the character of it.
  Mr. PRETYMANI should like to ask whether the First Lord of the Admiralty has yet made the representation to the Treasury with regard to the granting of gratuities to Sir Edward Raban and Colonel Exham which he undertook to make, and if so with what result? The cases received support from both sides, and it was generally recognised that both officers were entitled to consideration and the First Lord practically recognised that they were entitled to a gratuity. The matter has been represented to the Treasury. The House should understand that Sir Edward Raban, who had served for many years in the office of Director of Works at a moderate salary, afterwards undertook additional work of a very arduous character for which he received no extra salary or consideration whatever.

  1831
  I am glad to see the Home Secretary here, because he is personally acquainted with Colonel Exham's case. He will confirm me when I say that he gave a pledge to Colonel Exham to obtain for him either a pension or gratuity. I am sure it is not the right hon. Gentleman's fault that these efforts have hitherto failed. I venture to tell him that the case is not yet settled. I would ask him to continue to use his influence in the matter. I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any reply to the representations made to the Treasury on his behalf
  Mr. HOHLER: I wish to raise a point with regard to the Admiralty, as this is the last opportunity I shall have of doing so this Session. I confess to considerable disappointment that we have not yet had answers to the petitions. The answers we have had were limited to one or two cases of the pay of certain large bodies of men. I asked a question as long ago as March last, and I understood that a promise was given that the answers to the petitions would be given before the Votes dealing with the questions were taken. The only answers we have had are not the general answers to the petitions, but only with respect to a limited number. The result is highly unsatisfactory. It is quite true that the Admiralty was threatened with a strike. There were most strenuous protests against the wages paid to the men.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the wages in the dockyards?
  Mr. HOHLER: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not borne on this Bill.
  Mr. HOHLER: I looked at this in the Vote Office, and I found that it does include the personnel of the dockyards.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has got hold of the wrong list.
  Mr. HOHLER: I bow to your ruling. I understood it included Vote 8.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It does not include Vote 8, and it is not borne on this Bill.
  Mr. HOHLER: If that be so, the subject of wages in the dockyards will be raised on another occasion. Meanwhile it may have served a useful purpose to have reminded the Admiralty of the promise which was made. I desire to raise another question which I believe is included in this
  1832
  Bill, namely, the question of compensation paid to men who sustain injuries whilst employed in Government works. Since I raised this matter in the House I have been in communication with the Admiralty in reference particularly to the case of a man named Millar. Since then his claim has been rejected. I submit that a more outrageous case it is difficult to conceive. The man died suddenly and medical evidence was given by the doctor who was cognisant of his case and knew his constitution, that death was due to lead poisoning. On the other hand the Admiralty doctor denied that. The result was that the jury unanimously found that the man had been suffering from lead poisoning. That being so I want to know on what grounds the Treasury wholly rejected this man's claim? I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to again represent the case to the Treasury to find what were the grounds for the rejection. I should have thought that the Admiralty would accept the verdict of the coroner's jury without a moment's delay. I also desire to draw attention to a case which I raised before of the pension of a man who had served the Crown for fifty-five years in the humble position of messenger, and I trust that consideration may be given to that case. In reference to the position of the dockyard shipwrights I greatly regret that the First Lord has not seen his way to grant the request made for increased pay.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going back again to dockyards.
  Mr. HOHLER: I am speaking not of dockyard shipwrights but of Naval ship wrights. They are included in Vote I, pay of the Navy, and I submit that that is in order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: You must leave out the dockyards.
  Mr. HOHLER: There are Naval shipwrights, not the shipwrights in the dockyards. It is difficult at this late hour to keep closely to what is included in the Vote. I understand that Members on that side of the House have gone to the Vote Office and taken off every Schedule which shows exactly what is included, and I hope that this will cause you to make allowance for any little digression that may be made. The question I want to deal with is that of the Naval shipwrights, who asked for an increase of pay, and the Admiralty made them a small concession in that

  1833
  direction. Many of those Naval shipwrights have been trained in the dockyards, from which they go into the Navy. They entered into the terms of a contract under which at the end of the first period of their engagement they can if they choose re-enter the dockyard. When the First Lord of the Admiralty offered them an increase of pay he said that if they were going to adhere to their contract then they would not get the increase of pay. I think that is incredibly mean. If the men were entitled to their increased pay, they were entitled to it whether the contract with the Admiralty was a good One or a bad one. Why they should have been put under this condition I am quite at a loss to understand. I would like to know what is the exact position. The threat was held out that they would get no increased pay unless they accepted certain conditions. No less than sixty-seven of these men, who belong to the port of Chatham, have refused to sign the conditions, and I should be glad of information from the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, as to what number at other ports have refused to sign the conditions. It is singularly important to know what steps you are taking to supply the places of these men.
  There is another point in regard to which I have never yet elicited a satisfactory answer from the First Lord of the Admiralty, and that is in regard to the pay of engine-room artificers and engineers and chief officers. One realises that practically the whole of the engineering work of the Navy, in regard to destroyers and similar vessels, is in charge of these men. There is no officer above them, and they are responsible direct to the commander of the vessel for the whole of the engine-room work, and undoubtedly their duties are immensely responsible and are daily increasing. These men have put forward a scheme for improving their condition. I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to tell us what consideration he has given to it, and what prospect he holds out for an improvement of the conditions. Personally I rejoice that there is now the prospect of rising from the ranks to executive command on board ship, and if we are to have able seamen and petty officers getting promoted to higher rank, why has nothing been done for the engine-room artificers and engineers? It is only reasonable that those men with
  1834
  the whole of the responsibility should have an increase of pay. Matters in regard to the Navy are of great importance to this country. Are the Admiralty able in regard to shipwrights and engine room men to get men from outside or have they not to train their own men. If that be the case, the truth is that they are insufficiently paid and something ought to be done. I ask the First Lord to consider these matters and especially the Naval shipwrights and engine room artificers to the chief artificer; and particularly to deal with the case of Miller and remove it from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is not here to reply, but decides the case. Something should be done to compensate the woman for the loss of her husband as she is now without means.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I asked the Secretary for War some time ago to inquire into the position of non-commissioned officers and men in the Army who were married but not on the married strength of the regiments. I notice the Secretary of State is not now present, but perhaps the Under-Secretary will reply. I refer particularly to non-commissioned officers especially in the Departmental Corps such as the Army Pay, Royal Army Medical Corps, and others. The House knows that there are only a limited number of married men of the non-commissioned ranks who are allowed to be married on the strength of the regiment. It is generally about 5 per cent., but I believe there is no regulation laid down as to the number. A man applies for permission to marry on the strength, and may be recommended by his company officer or commanding officer, but in the cases of which I have heard, the invariable answer has been that there are no vacancies. There are cases of men who have had eighteen years' service in the Army Medical Corps for example—seasoned soldiers who have special technical knowledge in their own departmental corps—and I submit it is not quite the same thing as an old soldier in a cavalry or a line regiment.
  It may be that the policy of the War Office is not to encourage too many old soldiers to re-engage, but that cannot be the policy with regard to departmental corps, where a man must become more and more valuable as he gains knowledge of the special work that, is carried out by that particular departmental corps, and it seems to me that if the men are allowed to re-engage for

  1835
  service in the corps, it is most desirable that they should be allowed to marry and live the lives of married men in connection with their work. The difference it makes to the men is enormous. Not only are there the married quarters that are given them, or, if they are not available, the married quarters' allowance, which amounts to a very considerable increase in pay, but, if they are moved from one station to another, the expense of their family's removal is paid if they are married on the strength, whereas it is not paid if they are not married on the strength, and it frequently happens when they are moved about from one station to another they are put to a large expense, or have to leave wife and family at the old station for a considerable time, and perhaps all the time if it is undecided how long they are going to stay at the new station.
  I have not the least doubt there is a good case for a great number of men who have re-engaged for a second, or even a third, period of service, and, while I can understand there may be objections to what may be called the fighting branches of the Army, at any rate the objections cannot be so real in the departmental corps, and I ask the Secretary of State for War to tell me what he has done in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman promised to make an inquiry into it some four or five months ago. I raise the question tonight because this is the last opportunity we shall have this Session of getting an answer upon a question of this sort. I was in hopes that as soon as the right hon. Gentleman had made his inquiry, and had seen that the facts were as I have stated them to be, he would at least make some rule to the effect that those who had been longest in the service should have their marriages recognised, and that they should have the privileges of those who were married on the strength; but, so far as the right hon. Gentleman has given any answer, apparently nothing serious has arisen from his inquiries. I ask him now whether he can give me the result of his inquiries, or, at any rate, that within a shorter time than the official short time he will give an answer favourable to the men for whom I am now speaking.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: I should like to draw the attention of the Admiralty to the position and manning of the obsolete battleships moored in the Solent. They are extremely under-manned, and are
  1836
  placed in a dangerous position for the navigation of vessels which ply between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight. There is only one caretaker on board, and the consequence is that in foggy weather no proper watch can be kept, and it is extremely dangerous to passenger vessels crossing the Solent. I have asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could see his way to provide at least two caretakers on board so that a proper watch could be kept. It is all very well in summer, but in winter, when there is heavy fog in the Solent, steamers very often do not cross for fear of these vessels. One of them is only a few yards out of the fair-way, and captains have told me that they would very often have crossed in thicker weather than they had if these vessels were not in the way. I asked a question the other day of the Admiralty, and I was told that the railways had made no complaint—a most miserable excuse.
  We know perfectly well that the railway companies only go on sufferance into Portsmouth Harbour at all, and that if they made any complaint they would probably have to build a place outside at enormous cost. Therefore their hands are tied, and they do not like to complain. But all the captains of these vessels who cross the Solent continually complain, and it is a standing grievance to all the inhabitants of the island. There is plenty of room around these large estuaries in which to place these obsolete vessels, and why the Admiralty should choose this spot no one but the Admiralty can understand. I would ask the First Lord if he could see his way to go into the question. I know he is very frequently on the "Enchantress," and has probably seen these vessels. If he has crossed over to Ryde from Southsea, he must know what a dangerous position they are in. I ask him to inquire into the question for the safety of the public. It is only a question of removing the vessels a few hundred yards.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I rise to call attention to a question of very great importance, but which I do not in any sense mean to be a personal attack on the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is with reference to the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress." Under Vote I. of the Navy Estimates we have voted pay and wages for something like ten officers and 186 men for the "Enchantress." It seems to me that the time has come when this very expensive yacht should be done away with. The

  1837
  First Lord of the Admiralty in an answer the other day gave the cost of depreciation, the amount of coal the yacht had used, and so on. When we want every man and every penny we can get for the Navy it seems to me we ought not to be spending on this yacht what amounts to something like the interest on a million of money, for the yacht must cost £30,000 a year at least. In addition to that these officers and men are kept away from their other duties, although they are very much required in the service at the present time. The usefulness of this yacht appears no longer to exist. I am not making any sort of personal attack on the First Lord. I know that other First Lords have had the yacht before. We heard the other day in reply to a question that the right hon. Gentleman had been 186 days afloat in the yacht. That is certainly a tribute to his energy, but my point is that it is not necessary for the First Lord of the Admiralty to go to sea at all. If he has to inspect Naval stations around the coasts of these islands he can do it much more quickly and better by rail. The Naval stations are not out at sea, and as they are dotted round the coast——
  Mr. SPEAKER: Criticisms of the conduct of the First Lord of the Admiralty as such ought to come on the Vote for his salary.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I was endeavouring to bring forward reasons why the number of officers and men who are at present employed in the "Enchantress" should be curtailed and this yacht done away with in order to set free those officers and men to serve in His Majesty's Navy. With respect to that it may be argued that the yacht is required to go to the Mediterranean for the purpose of the inspection of the Naval stations there. But I can see no reasons why the yacht should be sent to the Mediterranean any more than that it should be sent to the Cape, to China, to Australia, or to any other stations. All the Naval stations in the Mediterranean are fully garrisoned, and, if anything, they are over-inspected. If further inspection is needed, it should not be done by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That should come upon Vote 12.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: It is very difficult to bring forward reasons for doing away with the Admiralty yacht
  1838
  without in some way mentioning the First Lord of the Admiralty. Of course, strictly speaking, this is not the time to raise a very important point like this, but I think it is a subject which ought to be raised, and I hope it will be dealt with in the future, no matter what Government is in power. There is, I submit, no necessity for this yacht. Therefore, the money might be much better spent in other ways connected with the Navy, and the officers and men who form the crew might be much better employed in performing their ordinary Naval duties than they are in serving on a ship which, after all, is only kept up as an expensive luxury for the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The question which the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has raised is, after all, I would remind the House, one of policy, and decisions in regard to it have been taken for a great number of years past by different Administrations. The most important decision was the one taken by the late Conservative Administration, when Lord Selborne decided to build a new Admiralty yacht, and constructed the present vessel at a cost of over £120,000. Whether a yacht costing so much should have been built or not is a difficult question into which at this moment I will not enter at any great length. There are a good many people who think that some old vessel might have been converted for the purpose for which the Admiralty yacht is required. I am bound to say that I, personally, would be very sorry to place upon the Naval Estimates, for which I am responsible, such a very large sum for a non-combatant vessel as that spent on the present yacht, and when I have been asked to provide a sum of money for yachts in China waters I have cast about to find some expedient which might more thriftily serve the needs of the Service. But, as I have said, the decision was taken by the late Conservative Government to spend this money, and I am neither blaming nor approving what they did.
  The yacht is now built, and I should suppose from its structure that it is not a vessel which could very easily be put to any other purpose than that for which it is now employed, except that possibly in time of war it might be used as an auxiliary hospital ship. Nor is it a vessel which, if put on the sale list, would realise a sum of money

  1839
  that would approximate at all to the amount spent on the original construction. The depreciation of this yacht at, say, twenty years' sinking fund would amount to £7,000 or £8,000 a year, whether the yacht were used or not, and the decision in policy having been taken so deliberately by the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, it would be plainly a waste of money if the yacht were not employed for the purpose for which it was originally intended. It would simply depreciate and rot away, or else it would be sold for a sum wholly incommensurate with its original cost. That being so it is quite clear that while the yacht is in a condition of efficiency and has not yet exhausted its life, it would be premature to reconsider the general question of policy. As far as I can gather, I think it is probable that this vessel will continue in a state of useful activity for six or seven years more. After that time I dare say the question will arise of providing a new yacht. If it does arise and if the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs should happen to be in power then—though I should think that is a very questionable matter—it would, I suggest, be a very suitable opportunity, should he still be among our body, for him to raise the question of effecting a change in the policy of providing the Board of Admiralty with a yacht, which I should not be in order in dealing with generally now. Meanwhile I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which has frequently been given in this House on the subject, and say that the whole of the personnel of the yacht, officers and men, would be appropriated by the war fleet in time of war, and disposed of in fighting vessels, and that the vessel itself would be used as an auxiliary hospital ship.
  The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Douglas Hall) who spoke immediately before the hon. Member for Finsbury used a rather uncomplimentary phrase about the Admiralty. He said that the old ships to which he was referring were placed in stations which would appear very ridiculous to anybody but the Admiralty. I do not think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will think that is a very useful or suitable remark to have made about the great naval service of this country. After all the Admiralty in a matter like that probably represents the highest possible naval authority on where to put a ship without danger to navigation. I think it would not be possible in the whole
  1840
  world to find any authority which could more safely decide how a ship was to be manned, or where a ship was to be moored at anchor.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: They have done it badly in this case.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Here is the hon. Gentleman, a member of the patriotic party, dismissing the Admiralty with a scornful phrase of this character. Whether there was any serious purpose behind the phrase, or whether it was only put in to fill up time while the hon. Gentleman was thinking out something else to say, I cannot tell. I shall, however, certainly make it my business to bring the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the positions in which these old ships are placed to the attention of the expert authorities who deal with the berthing of vessels. We have great difficulty in finding proper berths for the old and the obsolete ships, which have not been sold off at the rate they might otherwise have been because it was thought possible that they might come in useful in quite exceptional circumstances during the course of a war. Meanwhile we have had to do our best to find suitable stations for them. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that if inconvenience has been suffered, and it is thought that these old ships lie in a dangerous position in regard to the fairway, we will, if that state of things can be proved, see what can be done to move them. But I must not at all be taken as admitting the truth of what he has said on the subject without inquiry in the proper quarter. As regards the Dockyard questions, these can all be dealt with, if an opportunity be provided, at a later date in our discussions. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty is quite prepared to deal with the special points which have been raised by hon. Gentlemen. So far as Colonel Exham is concerned, I promised to give the matter attention, and that I would again address my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject. I can only say that the matter is now under discussion between the Departments. But in a matter of this kind the Admiralty is not the final arbiter. The Treasury deals with the affairs of all the Departments and with public officials of every class, and must be the final judge of what is just or unjust in regard to the public service. I have fully kept my promise to the hon. Gentleman opposite

  1841
  and I am now in correspondence with the Treasury, and I have brought under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the various new points to which the Debate, which was initiated by the hon. Gentleman opposite, called the attention of the House.
  Mr. BAIRD: I desire to bring to the notice of the hon. Gentleman who represents the Office of Works the question of consular and diplomatic buildings, and I think it is the more necessary to do so because the sum is considerable, the objects upon which the money is to be spent are very important, and the knowledge displayed by the hon. Gentleman who was in charge of this topic on the last occasion was exceedingly sketchy. Further, there is no other occasion on which this question of great importance, especially to those gentlemen who serve the Empire abroad, can be raised. On the last occasion when this question was discussed my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir John Rees) made a speech of some length and went into a great many details of considerable importance on this matter, and he was answered by the hon. Gentleman who represents the Office of Works in a speech which covered only twenty-nine lines of the OFFICIAL REPORT. That Gentleman spoke of cemeteries and other minor points in connection with the subject, and he said:—
  "With regard to expenditure whether you rent a place here or buy a place there the matter must be left to the decision of the local officers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1913, col. 663, Vol II.]
  The suggestion was that the local officers only knew the circumstances. I think it is the business of his Department also to know the circumstances, so that we may find somebody in this House who is responsible. He declared to the House that this was a matter to be settled by the diplomatic and consular officers on the spot. But the diplomatic and consular officers on the spot are for ever bringing forward proposals and suggestions based upon knowledge of the local circumstances and they are being vetoed because there is no money available—because it is impossible to pay sufficient attention to them. In these circumstances it is our business in the House of Commons before we sanction the expenditure of this money to do our best to prevent a recurrence of what has been happening in this matter for many years past. With regard to St. Petersburg, the
  1842
  hon. Gentleman representing the Office of Works, said on the same occasion:—
  "At St. Petersburg we continue to rent premises, but whether we rent or buy is a matter which involves local knowledge and these things have to be surveyed in a general way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1913, col. 663, Vol LI.]
  I venture to say that you cannot deal more unsatisfactorily with these questions of how our embassies are to be housed in places like St. Petersburg than by an offhand sentence of that kind. When we come to the question of local knowledge, is it not a fact that the Office of Works have got their own representatives? There are people who are their agents in St. Petersburg and other capitals, and it is their business to supply local knowledge to the Department and the business of the Department to supply it to this House. We have had no information of that kind, and what is the result? The result is that we saw last year the estimate was framed for £85,800, and so badly was it framed that the Government had to come down and ask for an increase of £20,000. They were almost 25 per cent. out in their estimate. If you take that as an example of the manner in which this subject is dealt with by the Department concerned, if you look at that badly drawn estimate of last year, I think there is justifiable ground for inviting the Government to give us more detailed information with regard to this expenditure which we are now asked to sanction.
  There is also the question of the maintenance and repair and purchase, etc., of Consular and Diplomatic Buildings. It is a very complicated arrangement. To some extent I believe it is in the hands of the Foreign Office and to some extent in the hands of the Office of Works. There is overlapping and there is an inconvenient facility which enables one Department, when something is brought to its notice or to the notice of this House, to say it is the business of the other, with the result that the particular legation, embassy, or mission as the case may be suffers, the tax-payers' money is wasted, and the work is not efficiently and promptly done. You see the result clearly in the increases of the estimates which are down in this Vote No. 7 for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings. [Interruption.] The remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite will not turn me away from my point. I am quite aware that hon. Gentlemen who never go abroad do not fully understand how important it is that our missions should be properly housed. I think these increases

  1843
  in the estimates do justify even at this late hour my endeavour to elicit something about them from the office concerned. In the case of one mission the estimate was £9,000 and since then it has gone up to £10,700, an increase of 19 per cent.
  Coming to Sofia, where a great deal of money has been spent in improving the accommodation of the Legation, there again there has been a very substantial increase upon the original estimate, and in China you will find an increase also. In one case there was an original estimate of £5,000 which was increased to £6,100, an increase of 22 per cent., and in Pekin for the electrical generating plant the original estimate was £13,800 and the revised estimate is £19,200. I think if hon. Members opposite conducted their private affairs in that way even the allowance of £400 a year would not last very long. Since we are dealing with the money of the taxpayers it seems to me that we are entitled to a rather more detailed explanation than we have yet received with regard to this matter than was afforded to us on the last occasion. I come to the Vote for the Maintenance and repairs of buildings, state rooms, and furniture, including new works of a character such as gardens, £960. That you will find includes the Embassy houses at Berlin, Constantinople, Madrid, Paris, and Rome. For a long time considerable alterations have been in progress in the Embassy House in Paris. I should like to know where one can find out exactly what is being spent on the Embassy House in Paris, and what is likely to be spent in the future? This expenditure is obviously necessary, but I think that if sufficient care had been taken in the expenditure of a far less sum two years ago the great expenditure now necessary would have been avoided. That is not dealt with in detail in this Vote, and I should like to know if the hon. Gentleman can supply any information with regard to the progress of
  that work which I suppose must be included in the sum of £33,652 under the head of maintenance of buildings. There are still a certain number of places where ministers have to supply their own houses, and where they are provided with a housing allowance which is quite inadequate to the increased cost of living in those places. It consequently necessitates the Government increasing the amount which would be required to supply houses. In view of that I do think it is necessary that we should have a more detailed explanation than we have had in the past, and that some indication should be given that the Office of Works do attach more importance to the subject than was shown by the very brief and superficial statement of the hon. Gentleman on the last occasion.
  1.0 A.M.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): I am sorry the hon. Gentleman should think that only superficial attention has been given to the matter. That is far from being the case, and although I do not carry in my mind all the particulars of the repairs taking place in Paris, I should be prepared to give him a full statement if the hon. Member would give me until to-morrow. It is true there have been slight increases as regards the consular houses at Sofia and Cettinje, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been circumstances in those countries which involved delays in carrying out the work, and delay naturally means a slight increase in the expenditure. The same is the case in China.
  Mr. McKENNArose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 32.

  Division No. 145.]

  AYES.

  [1.4 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Adamson, William

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Brace, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Cullinan, John

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Brunner, John F. L.

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

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dawes, J. A.

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Delany, William

  Barton, William

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Doris, William

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Duffy, William J.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Boland, John Pius

  Clough, William

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Leach, Charles

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Falconer, James

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Reddy, Michael

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lundon, Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lynch, A. A.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Field, William

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  McGhee, Richard

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Robinson, Sidney

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Goldstone, Frank

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rowlands, James

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meagher, Michael

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Hackett, John

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Sheehy, David

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Molloy, Michael

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mooney, John J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Muldoon, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Munro, Robert

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hayward, Evan

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hazleton, Richard

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Higham, John Sharp

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Neilson, Francis

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Webb, H.

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Doherty, Philip

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Malley, William

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Winfrey, Richard

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wing, Thomas

  Kelly, Edward

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pointer, Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Sandys and Captain Craig.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  It being after half-past Eleven of the
  1846
  clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at a quarter after One a.m. Wednesday, 2nd July.