Commons Sitting of 10 July 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions, for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords],
Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Arundell Estate (Closing of Arundell Street and Panton Square) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 12) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time Tomorrow.
Wibsey (Bradford) Independent Chapel Scheme Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity consisting of the Independent Chapel school and trust property at Wibsey, in the township of North Bierley, in the city of Bradford." Presented by Mr. CHAELES ALLEN; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 245.]
Padiham Horeb Union Church Scheme Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity consisting of
558
the Horeb Union church and trust property in the ancient township of Padiham, in the ancient parish of Whalley, in the county of Lancaster." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 246.]
Hulme Trust Estates Scheme Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity called the Hulme Trust Estates (non-educational), in the county of Lancaster and elsewhere." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEX; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 247.]
Roe Street (Macclesfield) Congregational Chapel Scheme Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity consisting of the Congregational Chapel and trust property in Roe Street, in the ancient township of Macclesfield, in the ancient parish of Prestbury, in the county of Chester." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 248.]
Hatfield (York, West Riding) Calvinistic Chapel Scheme Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity consisting of the Calvinistic chapel at Hatfield, in the West Riding of the county of York." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEX; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 249.]
Kingswood Chapel Scheme Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity consisting of the chapel at Kingswood, in the ancient parishes of Banstead and Ewell, in the county of Surrey." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]
Great Haywood and Tompkin Congregational Chapels Scheme Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the following Charities in the

559
county of Stafford: (1) the Charity consisting of the Congregational Chapel in the ancient township of Great Haywood, in the ancient parish of Colwich; (2) the Charity consisting of the Congregational Chapel in Tompkin, in the township of Bagnall, in the parish of Stoke-upon-Trent." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 251.]
Private Bills (Group E),
Sir WILLIAM HOWELL DAVIES reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; that, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Ribble Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Tynemouth Gas Bill [Lords],
Grays and Tilbury Gas Bill [Lords],
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
West Hampshire Water Bill [Lords],
Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
City and South London Railway Bill [Lords],
North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Railway Bills (Group 5),
Sir FRANCIS LOWE reported from the Committee on Group 5 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Message from the Lords,
That they have agreed to,—
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Tramways Provisional Orders Bill,
Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.
Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled,
"An Act to amend the Moneylenders Acts 1900 and 1911." [Moneylenders Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909, relating to Kingstown and Portrush." [Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order, made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909, relating to Romford and district." [Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to. constitute trustees for the purpose of holding and managing Ascot Race Course and the stands, buildings, and property held or used in connection therewith, and to. vest in them all property now held or used for the benefit or purposes of Ascot Races, and to confer all necessary powers on the trustees so constituted; and for other purposes." [Ascot Authority Bill [Lords.]
Ascot Authority Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 245.]
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 246.]

NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of St. George, Hanover Square, in the room of the right hon. Alfred Lyttelton, deceased.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 30th June, 1913, made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Naval and Military Forces) (Time Limits) Regulations (Scotland), 1912, Amendment Regulations, 1913 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 194.]
EAST INDIA (ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES, 1913–14).
Copy presented of Explanatory Memorandum by the Under-Secretary of State for India [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANDISE MARKS ACTS, 1887 AND 1891.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Board of Trade, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, under Section 2 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1891, with regard to the Prosecution of Offences under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 195.]
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1894 TO 1906 (DISPENSING POWERS).
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade of the Cases in which they have exercised their powers under Section 78 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, during the year ended 31st May, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 196.]

PUBLIC RECORDS (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN BANKRUPTCY).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
Copy of Third Schedule, containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents of the High Court of Justice in Bankruptcy, existing or accruing, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].

TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
Return ordered, "showing (1) the Rates of Duties, Taxes, or Imposts collected by Imperial officers; (2) the quantities or amounts taxed; (3) the gross receipts derived from each duty; and (4) the net receipts and appropriations thereof in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1913; and(l) the aggregate gross receipts derived from all such Duties, Taxes, or Imposts, under the principal heads of revenue; (2) the aggregate net receipts; (3) the charges of collection; and (4) the produce after deducting these charges in each of the ten years ending the 31st day of March, 1913;
562
and Notes to show any changes in the Taxes, Duties, or Imposts, consequent upon the acceptance of the Budget proposals of 1913 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 317, of Session 1912–13)."—[Sir Daniel Goddard.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persia.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will abstain from expressing any desire on behalf of His Majesty's Government that Russian troops should be withdrawn from Persia, in view of the fact that the presence of a considerable Russian garrison alone preserves in the north of that country and in the centre peace, order, and opportunities for commerce, which in the absence of a similar occupation are wanting in the southern provinces?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this, question. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was returned to a question asked by the hon. Member for Burnley on the 8th instant, and to which I have nothing further to add.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland in how many eases since the 10th August, 1866, the widows and children of deceased contributors to the Irish Constabulary Force Fund have been paid out of that, fund less than their respective contributors have paid into it; and, since the refusal to close and distribute the fund is claimed to be in the interest of the wives and children of contributors, whether he will have a vote of the wives taken on the question of immediate distribution?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Inspector-General assures me that there has never been a case in which a widow has received from the fund less than her husband subscribed. As I have already stated, the grant can only be less than the amount subscribed when the subscriber only leaves unmarried daughters over eighteen years of age and no widow. I cannot say how many cases of the kind have occurred in the last forty-seven years.
  Mr. GINNELLasked (1) if the system of paying and promoting members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in proportion to criminal results, which produced agents provocateurs like Sergeant Sheridan, has been discontinued, at what date and by whose order; whether Sheridan was subsequently convicted of having himself maimed cattle and got a man named M'Goohan imprisoned for three years for that offence; what reparation was made to M'Goohan or his family; what was the total amount of public money paid to and for Sheridan while in the force, and how much of that money belonged to the Irish Constabulary Force Fund; what is the aggregate amount paid out of that fund for special services; and, such services not being among the purposes of the fund, whether that aggregate will be restored to the fund; and (2) under what designation were recorded payments made for the special services rendered by Sergeant Sheridan and men of his class, whether in the police force or outside it; and from what sources the money was obtained?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As regards the case of Sheridan and M'Goohan, I have nothing to add to the statement made by Mr. Wyndham in Debate on the 10th July, 1902. No system of paying and promoting members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in proportion to criminal results ever existed. Sheridan, while in the constabulary, received the pay and allowances of his rank and also a total sum of £6 10s. from the reward branch of the Constabulary Force Fund. The constabulary authorities know of no other case in which rewards were paid to a man who was afterwards proved to have procured crime. No payments have been made from the fund except as rewards for meritorious services, bounties, pensions, or allowances, as authorised by Statute.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that Sheridan was paid £5 for having accused a person of a crime committed by Sheridan himself?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The circumstances of Sheridan's case are perfectly well known to the House. The total award he ever received, and most atrociously, amounted to the sum of £6 10s.
  Mr. GINNELL: Did he not receive £5 for this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If he did, it was not because he was himself supposed to be
  564
  provocative of the crime, but in complete ignorance of the circumstances.
  Mr. GINNELL: Since the actuary cannot discover these cases, will he allow the accounts of this fund to be examined until it is ascertained by some independent person how much was paid out for the manufacture of crime?
  Mr. BIRRELL: All that Sheridan received was £6 10s., and there is no case for any inquiry.
  Mr. GINNELL: That is a mere assertion.
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is a fact.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the amount paid out of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund to men of Sergeant Sheridan's class who procured the murder of Mrs. Smythe, of Barbavilla, Westmeath, and the conviction and penal servitude of men since found to have been innocent of that crime; what reparation has been made to these men's families; and whether, in view of beliefs of this character held by contributors to that fund with reference to the administration of it, his promised statement will be issued before the close of the present Session?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is not a shadow of foundation for the outrageous insinuation that this terrible murder was instigated by the police with a view to obtaining rewards; nor is there the slightest ground for suggesting that any of the persons convicted of complicity in the conspiracy to murder Mrs. Smythe were innocent. I have no reason to suppose that any contributor to the Constabulary Force Fund shares a belief which, if really entertained by the hon. Member is, I am sure, peculiar to himself.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the Chief Secretary allow the accounts to be examined for this particular period when this particular crime was committed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.
  Mr. GINNELL: Of course not.

  Prison Warders (Ireland).
  Mr. BRADYasked whether a memorial has been presented to His Excellency on behalf of prison warders in Ireland, asking to be placed in a position of equality in the matter of scale of pay and emoluments with their colleagues in

  565
  English and Scotch prisons; and what steps the Irish Government propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The memorial referred to has been received and is under consideration.

  Irish Language (Teaching).
  Mr. BOLANDasked what changes, if any, have been made by the National Board in the teaching of Irish with respect to its position as an extra subject outside school hours or as an optional subject within school hours; the proposed abolition of the fee system and the proposed substitution therefor of a special fixed addition to the teachers' annual grade salary; and when such changes will be made?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that no changes have yet been made in their regulations regarding the teaching of Irish as an extra subject outside school hours or as an optional subject within school hours. Representations have recently been made to the Commissioners on the subject, and, having considered the question, they have decided to recommend that the payment of fees for the teaching of Irish as an extra subject be abolished and that the teachers of schools in which efficient instruction is given in Irish as an ordinary subject during school hours should receive a special addition to their ordinary salaries.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked whether negotiations for the purchase by the Congested Districts Board of the estate of the MacDermott, situated at Monasteredin, Ballaghadereen, county Sligo, have yet been completed; and, if so, whether the terms include the taking over of the untenanted lands adjoining this congested estate which are held by the landlord?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have recently made an offer for the purchase of the estate of the MacDermott at Monasteredin which has not yet been accepted, but negotiations are proceeding. The land referred to as untenanted in the adjoining townland of Stroove is let in parcels on lease. It has not been offered for sale through the Board.
  Mr. DUFFYasked whether agreements to purchase their holdings have been signed by the agricultural tenants of Lady Katherine Trench on her estate, situate at
  566
  Ruanmore, Ardrahan, county Galway; whether the agreements were signed contingent on the untenanted lands on the estate in the Ruanmore district being sold to the Estate Commissioners; and whether a request to purchase the untenanted lands has been served on the Commissioners by the representatives of Lady Trench; and have the agreements been filed with the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The tenants have entered into agreements for the purchase of their holdings direct from the owner under the Land Purchase Acts, and these agreements have been lodged in the Land Commission. They do not contain any condition such as that referred to in the question, but the owners have furnished the Estates Commissioners with particulars of the untenanted land, with a view to being furnished with an estimate of the sum which the Commissioners would be prepared to advance for it under the Land Purchase Acts.
  Mr. DELANYasked (1) when the Kirk estate, Castletown, Queen's County, will be finally dealt with by the Estates Commissioners; whether discontent exists amongst a large body of the tenants with regard to the proposed distribution of the bog, the allegation being that their rights have been usurped in the interest of one man; will the Estates Commissioners instruct their inspector to see justice done to the tenants on this estate, who have already memorialised them on the question of their turoary rights; and (2) whether Mr. Franks, the agent on the Kirk estate, Castletown, Queen's County, advertised the turf banks for letting on the 20th June last, and on that date attended with a bog ranger and let the turf banks at his own free will, regardless of the rights of the great body of the tenants on the property; and, seeing that agreements to purchase have been entered into between the landlord and tenants in which their turbary rights have been secured to the tenants, whether the Estates Commissioners are prepared to sanction this proceeding on the part of the agent?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903. Included in the lands for sale is a large area of turbary, all of which the vendor is willing to give free of charge for distribution amongst the tenants and small holders in the locality, but up to

  567
  the present the tenants have failed to agree to any scheme of allotment, and until this is done the Commissioners will not vest the holdings in the purchasing tenants. The Commissioners have no information as to the individual who is alleged to have usurped the tenants' rights. They have no power to interfere with any arrangements which the vendor may make or has made for the letting of the turbary in his own hands pending the completion of the sale of the property.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary the reasons why the Local Government Board decline to sanction a pension of 5s. weekly, granted by the Gort sub-pension committee at a meeting on the 5th December last, to Catherine Cussen, of Gort, notwithstanding the fact that the committee had before them the pension officer's report, from which it appears that claimant does not appear in the Census Return of 1841, and that a sister of hers named Bridget was three years of age in 1841, and that the claimant admits that she was the second next of the family who succeeded Bridget, and the committee were unanimous in the opinion that she was over seventy years; and why the Local Government Board did not comply with the committee's request to send down an inspector to investigate the case before deciding on the pension officer's report?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The facts mentioned in the first part of the question were before the Local Government Board in deciding this claim, but were not held to be sufficient to show that the claimant had reached the statutory age. On consideration of the evidence available, the Board were of opinion that no useful purpose would be served by sending an inspector to see the claimant.

  Intermediate Schools (Ireland).
  Mr. HORNERasked the Chief Secretary how many intermediate schools there are in Ireland; and of those about how many have refused to comply with the conditions of the scheme upon which the £40,000 Grant was promised last year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I stated in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member on the 30th of June, the number of secondary schools in connection with the Intermediate Education Board in 1912–13 was
  568
  337, of which 211 were under Catholic management. It would not be correct to say that any school has refused to comply with the conditions of my draft scheme, but certain objections have been made to it by the Catholic Headmasters' Association. These objections are fully stated in the correspondence, which will be published to-morrow.
  Mr. HORNER: Is it not the fact that no school under lay management, whether Protestant or Catholic, has refused to comply?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have not been in communication so far with anybody except the Catholic Headmasters' Association and the Secondary Teachers' Association. I have had no communication whatever, but I have no doubt the hon. Member is quite right.
  Mr. HORNERasked the Chief Secretary if a large number of intermediate schools in Ireland are not only willing, but anxious to accept the grant of £40,000 a year promised twelve months ago upon the conditions then laid down; and, having regard to the loss that secondary education in Ireland has already suffered from inadequate funds, will he recommend the Treasury to pay in the forthcoming school year the entire grant, or a proportionate part of it, to these schools?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already stated, I will give this suggestion the most careful consideration.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Was it not clearly stated at the beginning that the money was available for the schools which complied with the conditions, and that there would be no objection whatever?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I dare say the hon. Member may be right. I really cannot tell. I adopted a course with certain results, and if I adopted another other results would happen.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: If this money is not voted within the next two months, will it not be lost to Ireland altogether?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Not lost altogether; but lost for this year.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: If it is not given before next May, will it not be lost, assuming we get Home Rule?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I hope we shall manage it before May.

  County Kerry Magistracy.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to appoint Mr. David O'Sullivan, of Ballylongford, county Kerry, to the commission of the peace; whether Mr. O'Sullivan is the holder of a publican's licence in Ballylongford and was in June, 1903, fined £3 and costs at Ballylongford Petty Sessions for a serious assault committed with an iron bar on one Nicholas Mulvihill; and whether he will bring these facts to the notice of the Irish Lord Chancellor before the commission is issued to Mr. O'Sullivan?
  Mr.BIRRELLNo application for Mr. David O'SuIlivan's appointment to the magistracy has been made to the Lord Chancellor. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not the fact that the hon. and gallant Member who put this question on the Paper is himself a distiller and a Justice of the Peace?

  Police Protection (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on the 10th June last there were established in sixteen Nationalist counties of Ireland forty-three special police posts for the protection of individuals whose lives or properties are in serious danger as the result of agrarian, political, or other secret criminal conspiracies; whether at the present time the the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland finds it necessary to proclaim the counties of Clare, Galway, and Roscommon as being in a state, of disturbance which requires a special extra force of police to maintain order; whether a large portion of the cost of these extra police falls upon the local taxpayers; and whether he considered the position of the persons now protected by the forty-three special police posts, and the position of law-abiding people in the counties of Clare, Galway, and Roscommon, if the government of Ireland and the control of the police be handed over to an Irish Nationalist executive, as is proposed by the Government of Ireland Bill?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Forty-three protection posts are still maintained in sixteen counties, owing, in nearly every case, to agrarian disputes, which are gradually being brought to an end by land purchase. Extra police continue to be employed in three out of the eight counties which were
  570
  declared in 1907 to be in a state requiring an additional force. Half the cost of these extra police falls on the counties. The control of the Royal Irish Constabulary will, under the Government of Ireland Bill, be transferred after six years to the Irish Government, who will then be responsible for peace and order. There is no reason to suppose that they will fail to take any steps necessary or proper for the purpose.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that quite recently Lord Chief Justice Cherry said the state of Clare was satisfactory? Are not these charges the dying kicks of a discredited cause or the discreditable kicks of a dying cause?

  Limerick Disturbances.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary, whether he has been informed of the serious assaults committed in the city of Limerick upon a Protestant woman for putting up inside her house a scriptural text, which was in no way of a sectarian nature; whether these assaults occurred on the 19th and 20th of June, when a Roman Catholic demonstration was in progress in the city, and when the streets were decorated with Roman Catholic emblems, altogether sectarian in their character; whether he is aware that this woman was dragged about by the hair of her head, the windows of her house broken, and much damage done to the house and its contents; whether the police are now affording protection to this woman; and if anyone has been brought to justice for this outrage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The attack made on this woman was a very disgraceful one. It was made by two girls. I am happy to say that the injuries inflicted were not serious though outrageous. The woman is not protected by the police and is going about her business as usual. I am making further inquiries with a view to seeing whether a prosecution can be sustained.

  Ox Warble-Fly.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he realises the increasing damage to hides in Ireland, as well as in Great Britain, caused by the maggots of the ox warble-fly; whether his Department have the power of making it compulsory upon stock owners to squeeze out from the skins of their cattle and destroy all such maggots during the first four months of the year, and so

  571
  prevent their multiplication during the autumn through the deposit by the mature flies of thousands of eggs upon the legs and backs of cattle; and, if so, whether, in the interests both of the afflicted cattle and of the leather trade, he will consider the advisability of exercising such power?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In the absence of my right hon. Friend I will answer this question. The Department fully realise the damage done by the warble-fly. They have no power to compel the stock owners to act as suggested by the hon. Member. The Department have for several years been carrying on investigations into the methods of suppressing this pest, and have recently applied to the Development Commissioners for a Grant to extend and complete these investigations. When fuller information is available regarding the life history of this insect the Department will consider the question of seeking powers to compel stock owners to adopt measures for its eradication.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the description of the life history of this pest, as issued by the Irish Department, is entirely different to the life history as described by the English Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is often the case in biographies.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the use of unused oil out of motor engines when rubbed on the hides is very effective, and will he issue a circular embodying that information?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will see what can be done in that direction.

  British South Africa Company.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether some of the large land-occupying companies in Rhodesia holding from the British South Africa Company have just given the natives notice of an intention on their part to charge grazing fees at so much a head; and what steps, if any, does the Colonial Office intend to take to prevent this exaction, which is calculated to cause serious discontent and is in violation of the provisions of the charter of the British South Africa Company?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The answers to this and the two subsequent questions
  572
  are so long that I should be glad if the hon. Member will allow me to circulate them with the Votes.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Then I shall lose my chance of asking supplementary questions.
  Earl WINTERTON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the serious allegations contained in these questions? Is he aware that part of them form the subject matter of legal proceedings, and will he be careful in his replies not to say anything that may prejudice the case?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Certainly. I always exercise great care in my replies.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is it not the fact that the allegations contained in Question 23 are entirely repudiated by Rhodesians of all parties?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman under the circumstances to give the House the benefit of his replies.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am informed that certain companies have taken the action described in the question. I have no power to interfere with such action on private land, as it is not contrary to any of the provisions of the British South Africa Company's Charter. The administration of Southern Rhodesia will take steps to assist in the removal to the reserves of those natives who prefer to leave rather than to pay the fees demanded. The Administrator reports that there are no signs whatever of unrest among the natives who may be affected, and that in a great many cases they are voluntarily taking steps to remove to reserves which they have already inspected and found suitable, and in which there is ample room for them.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether it is stipulated by Section 14 of the charter of the British South Africa Company that careful regard should be had to Native laws and customs, especially with respect to the holding, possession, transfer, and disposition of lands, while Section 15 of the charter gave the Secretary of State for the Colonies power to dissent from the proceedings of the company towards the natives and laid it down that the company must act in accordance with his directions; how far have these provisions

  573
  of the charter been respected, if at all, in the recent alienation by the South Africa Company to the Liebig's Extract of Meat Company of 1,200,000 acres in Southern Rhodesia in the occupation of natives; whether his attention has been directed to the allegation that the chartered company have confiscated the lands and minerals of the natives; and what steps, if any, has the Colonial Office taken to prevent the establishment of a system of public robbery and initial slavery by the South Africa Company in Rhodesia1?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am well aware of the provisions of the charter and have no fear that the British South Africa Company intend to violate it by establishing a system of slavery. The interests of the natives are protected by the Southern Rhodesia Order-in-Council and by local legislation. I have not before me any evidence that these safeguards have been infringed, but as I am not fully informed of all the circumstances affecting the natives on the Liebig Company's lands I have, as already stated on 26th June, asked the High Commissioner for South Africa for a report.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary for the Colonies what was the sum which the Liebig's Extract of Meat Company undertook to expend in the development and stocking with cattle of the 1,200,000 acres of ranching land acquired by that company in Southern Rhodesia from the British South Africa Company at the price of 1s. an acre, which was credited, not to the administration, but to the shareholders of the British South Africa Company; was the Colonial Office aware of this transaction between the British South Africa Company and Liebig's Extract of Meat Company before its completion, and has the Colonial Office given any sanction, either express or implied, to this transaction; has the Chartered Company any right to alienate these lands without the consent of the Crown, regard being had to the fact that the original concession obtained from Lobengula in 1888 did not grant more than mining rights, as was explained to Lord Salisbury in a letter of Lord Knuts-ford, as Colonial Secretary, dated 4th December, 1891; and whether he can offer any explanation of the alienation by the British South Africa Company of 1,200,000 acres at the price of only 1s an acre, having regard to the fact that the Crown has agreed to pay 10s. per acre to buy back land of inferior quality in Nyasa-
  574
  land which had been rashly alienated some years ago?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am informed by the British South Africa Company that (1) the Liebig Company is under an agreement to stock the land with cattle and live stock, the cost of which, together with the necessary development, namely: Buildings, making roads, and sinking wells, is equivalent to an expenditure of at least £150,000. (2) The low price of 1s. per acre was due to several considerations,, namely, the large area involved, its comparatively remote situation, and the desire of the British South Africa Company to establish a new industry in Southern Rhodesia under the auspices of a company possessing a world-wide experience of ranching operations. In addition to the 1s. an acre purchase price, the Liebig Company will pay the ordinary annual quit rent of £l for every 1,000 acres. I was not informed beforehand of the intended sale, nor have I expressed either approval or disapproval. As already stated, I have no reason to question the validity of the transaction. In this connection I may refer again to my reply of 8th April, and observe that whatever may be the correct view of the company's right to vacant land in Southern Rhodesia, whether it has full rights of ownership or whether it must be held merely to act in a fiduciary or representative capacity in-granting land, the question of a right to land must be one for legal, not for executive, decision. With regard to the reference to Nyasaland, I should like to add that the lands were not rashly alienated as the hon. Member suggests, but formed the subsidy granted for the construction of a railway in Nyasaland by a private company. The price which is to be paid for the redemption of these lands is part of the arrangements for the extension of the railway to the sea through Portuguese territory, and was not fixed solely with regard to the market value of the land.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Ought not the right hon. Gentleman, as the representative of the Colonial Office, to have been informed of a great transaction of this kind, and to have given his sanction to a great transaction, involving the transfer of 1,250,000 acres of land from this company to another company?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I should not like to express any general opinion as to what I ought to be informed about at any time by any person.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that, in accordance with the terms of the charter, the Colonial Office is bound to protect the rights of the natives, and is he not aware that within the last few weeks Dr. Jameson, of the Raid, has been appointed chairman of this company?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think that arises out of the question. I have the same means of information in the Press which is shared by the hon. Member. If there is any further information I can afford the hon. Member I shall be happy to do so on notice.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any means of preventing this agreement from becoming effective until he has received the report for which he has asked?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think that is a question of which I might have notice.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Am I right in gathering that the right hon. Gentleman draws a distinction between his duties in supervising the interests of the natives in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, and that he has powers in Northern Rhodesia to protect the natives in regard to land which he has not in Southern Rhodesia?
  Mr. HARCOURT: As to the distinction which I draw the hon. Gentleman had better read to-morrow the answers I have given to the questions.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Arising out of Question 22, has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show that while the natives wandered over these lands, which are now occupied by the Chartered Company, there was no industrial, agricultural, pastoral development, and that the action of the company has rather tended to develop those three industries for the benefit of the country at large?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The hon. Member make a number of assertions which I think he might allow me to consider on paper.

  South Africa (Immigration from India).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received information of the law recently passed by the Union Parliament in South Africa restricting the immigration of British subjects from India; whether he is aware that, in the opinion of the Indian
  576
  community in South Africa, this law violates the provisional settlement made in 1911 between the South African Government and the leaders of that community, and is contrary to the principles laid down by the Imperial Government in their dispatch of 7th October, 1910; and if he can say when Papers will be laid?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the law and of the complaints made against it. I hope to lay Papers very shortly, probably next week.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that they will be laid before the Colonial Office Vote is taken, and will these Papers include a copy of the Bill as it has passed through the Union Parliament?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir, I believe they do include that.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ADMIRAL HENDERSON'S NAVAL SCHEME.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there has been any development of dockyard facilities since Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson's Report was presented; and whether the dockyards are suited to the construction of cruisers and destroyers; and, if so, are cruisers and destroyers being built in these docks at the present time?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information regarding any development of dockyard facilities in the Commonwealth of Australia since the presentation of Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson's Report. Arrangements have already been made by the Commonwealth Government for the construction, in the New South Wales Government dockyard, of a second-class cruiser and three destroyers which, I understand, are now being built.
    Sir G. PARKERasked whether the Australian Government has accepted Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson's naval defence scheme in its entirety or in part; and, in either case, what are the details of the scheme as to the construction of armoured, protected cruisers, destroyers, and submarines; what period the construction will cover; what will be the extent of the personnel; what will be the annual cost of maintenance; and what construction has been already entered upon and what, if any, completed?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I understand that the late Government of the Commonwealth of Australia approved the principles of Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson's scheme of naval defence and proposed to carry it into effect in due course. I have no information as to the views of the present Government with regard to this question. The scheme recommended by Sir Reginald Henderson contemplated the ultimate creation of a fleet of 8 armoured cruisers, 10 protected cruisers, 10 destroyers, and 12 submarines. The total period of construction was to be 22 years; when fully manned the fleet would require a personnel of 14,844 officers and men. The annual cost of maintenance when the full scheme was completed would be £2,226,000 for personnel, £1,226,000 for the maintenance of ships in commission. No construction has been specially undertaken under the scheme. There are at present being constructed in Australia, in accordance with the arrangements arrived at at the Imperial Naval and Military Conference of 1909, one second-class cruiser and three destroyers. None of these vessels have so far been completed. One destroyer which was shipped to Sydney in parts, was re-erected at the New South Wales Government Dockyard.

  CROMARTY FORTS.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty where and when it is proposed to house the garrison for the forts at Cromarty, and, if in a vessel, are landing stages being made; and what is the average number of days in a month that a landing can be made at present?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Sir, it would be most unusual to go into such details, and indeed I deprecate the putting of questions about the arrangements of fortified places. We have no similar means of informing ourselves as to the progress of foreign defensive works.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put the garrison three and a half miles from the forts concerned?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is already covered by my answer.

  Small-arms Factory (Australia).
  Sir G. PARKERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Aus-
  578
  tralian small-arms factory is in operation, and how many rifles were turned out in 1911 and 1912; and whether the naval college is in full operation, and who is in charge?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The Australian small-arms factory is in operation, but I have no information as to how many rifles have been turned out. The temporary naval college is in full operation, and is under the charge of Captain Bertram Chambers, R.N.

  Montreal (Naval Works).
  Sir G. PARKERasked whether the scheme, as was announced in 1911, for extensive naval works, including floating docks to be built by Vickers' Company at Montreal, has been carried out; and, if so, to what extent?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press on the subject, but I shall be happy to send this and other questions of the hon. Member out to the Governors of the various Dominions, and to ask if they will be so good as to supply me with any information which in their opinion can be afforded without detriment to the public interest. If and when such information is received, I shall place it at the disposal of the House.

  New Hebrides.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the inequalities in the administration of justice in the New Hebrides; and whether he would set up a Commission of Inquiry into the alleged abuses, or ascertain from the French Government whether they would be prepared to take part in a joint commission of inquiry with a view to a readjustment of the relations of the two countries in these islands, and the settlement of existing difficulties on an amicable basis?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The matters referred to by my hon. Friend have been for some time under consideration, and His Majesty's Government are now making proposals to the French Government with a view to improving the administration of the New Hebrides Condominium and settling the various difficulties which have arisen under the present arrangements on an amicable basis.

  South Africa (Strike of Miners).
  Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he has any information of strike breakers being savagely attacked at Benoni, by strikers on the Rand, during the recent rioting; and (2) if he can give a list of the public buildings and private houses either destroyed or looted, on the Rand or in Johannesburg, during the recent strike?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information at present on the points referred to in this and the hon. Member's other question beyond what has appeared in the Press, but I am expecting a full report on the rioting from Lord Gladstone.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. HENRY M'LARENasked the Postmaster-General what is the approximate average cost of the telephone to subscribers in rural districts in Switzerland and Norway; and whether the telephone service as a whole yields a profit in these two countries?
  The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The various rates in force in the two countries are given in the House of Commons Return, No. 316, of 1910. The accounts of the telephone service are not separated from those of the telegraph service in Norway. In Switzerland the telephone revenue allows of some provision for depreciation and for interest on capital, but the Government recently prepared an increased scale of charges, although it has not yet been put in force. Presumably, therefore, the present rates are regarded as inadequate.
  Mr. H. M'LARENasked the Postmaster-General how the sum payable by a subscriber in a country district for the installation of a telephone is calculated; what interest is charged on the cost of his line; whether the cost is defrayed by the subscriber, and, if so, over how many years; and whether the sum is calculated on the actual or estimated cost of the installation?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: All subscriptions for telephone service, whether in country districts or elsewhere, are based on the average cost of the kind and quantity of service required by the different classes of subscribers. The cost of the line connecting a subscriber's house with an exchange is only a part,
  580
  although an important part, of the cost of his service, and for this and other reasons it would be impracticable to base the charges to individual subscribers solely on the cost of such lines. In settling rates of subscription interest is charged on the capital expended on construction. In the Post Office service this rate was formerly taken at 3 per cent., but recently it has become necessary to take 3½ per cent., the rate actually paid for capital. Besides the cost of day-to-day maintenance, subscriptions also cover provision for the renewal of plant calculated according to the lives of the different kinds of which it is composed and the actual amounts expended.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: In regard to the putting up of a new telephone line, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to allow it to be done by the owners of property who can prove to the satisfaction of the telephone authorities that they can do it cheaper?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir. That practice has not been adopted on account of the friction to which it gives rise between the telephone administration and the owners of property, each trying to put the responsibility on the other for any defects in the service which may result from the provision of the plant by the subscriber himself.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to the proprietors making an offer to the telephone authorities to put up the line to their satisfacion and to pay the bill, if they can do it cheaper?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to have notice of that question. It raises an important question of principle.
  Mr. H. M'LARENasked what was the capital cost of the Post Office telephone service per subscriber on 30th December last, allowing for all expenditure that had previously been charged to capital account; what was the approximate corresponding figure for the National Telephone Company's service, valuing that service at the sum paid for it by the Government; and what is the corresponding figure in the United States of America?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The total cost of the Post Office telephone exchange

  581
  system including private lines and land and buildings on the 31st December, 1912, was £7,992,078. The purchase price of the National Telephone Company's system is £12,470,264, but that sum represents its depreciated value and not the original capital expenditure which, in accordance with the findings of the Arbitration Court, may be placed at about £16,000,000. I know of no corresponding figure for the United States where exchange expenditure is not separated from trunk line expenditure. In 1911, the total expenditure in that country on telephone plant of all kinds including long distance or trunk lines as well as exchanges was estimated by a competent authority at about £191,000,000. Owing to the varying number of lines and telephones rented by individual subscribers no average of capital expenditure per subscriber would have any useful significance and no statistics are kept on this basis either in this country or in the United States.

  Post Office (Dismissal and Suspension of Officials).
  Mr. H. M'LARENasked the Postmaster-General what powers he has of dismissing or suspending officials in his Department who are not capable of filling adequately the positions they hold, even though they may not display gross incompetence or negligence; and whether these powers extend to the higher as well as to the subordinate officials in his Department?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Under his Patent of appointment, the Postmaster-General is granted full power to remove any officer from his post if he considers such a course necessary in the public interest. This authority applies to higher as well as to subordinate officials.

  Telegraph Service.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now able to state whether he is prepared to establish a telegraph office at Ballymagee Street, Bangor, county Down?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I regret to find that the circumstances do not warrant the establishment of a telegraph office at Ballymagee Street Post Office. The office in question is only 720 yards from the Bangor head post office, and the telegraph business is not likely to exceed four telegrams a day.

  Galloway Sorting Tender.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a statement of the grievances of the officials of the Galloway sorting tender; and, if so, what reply has been made?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Representations have been made to me on the subject of the trip allowances paid in addition to their wages to the sorting clerks and telegraphists employed in the Galloway sorting carriage. I have informed the memorialists that I consider the present allowances to be adequate, and that I can find no ground for making an exception in their favour to the general regulations on this subject.

  Sub-Postmastership (Cookham).
  Mr. HUNTasked in view of the fact that a civilian was chosen for the sub-postmastership in the village of Cookham, Berkshire, instead of a colour-sergeant of twenty-four years' service, with war medals and with an exemplary character and highly recommended by one hundred prominent residents, whether soldiers of long service and the highest character are or are not preferred to civilians who have not served their country?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Under an arrangement with the War Office half the vacancies for postmen and porters are reserved for soldiers of long service and good character. For appointments such as that to which the hon. Member refers it is the practice to make the selection solely with regard to the merits of the various candidates, and the suitability of the premises in which they propose to conduct Post Office business.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is there no way but soldiering by which a civilian can serve his country?

  Belfast (Additional Police).
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked if the proposal to meet any difficulty as to the position of Ulster loyalists under Home Rule by the addition of a few police in Belfast represents the present policy of the Government for dealing with the matter; if any communications have passed with the Belfast authorities on the subject; and whether the additional expenditure involved by this policing policy will fall upon the ratepayers of Belfast?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member presumably refers to the addition of 200 men to the Belfast Police Force in August last, which was made solely to meet the police requirements of the city and had no connection whatever with the political situation either present or future. The matter formed the subject of correspondence between the municipal authorities and the Irish Government, who were unable to adopt the view that Belfast was entitled to a larger free force. The 200 men will, therefore, be an addition to the extra force in the city, and half of the cost will fall on the ratepayers.

  Delhi
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that eminent authorities have made representations that the building of the New Delhi forms a unique opportunity for a new departure in both the educational policy and the architectural methods of the Government of India; and whether this subject can be discussed on any other occasion than on the Indian Budget?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I understand that a memorial has been received by the India Office, and has been forwarded to the Government of India. With regard to the latter part of the question, I know of no other opportunity.
  Mr. KING: Can we be assured that there will be an Indian Budget?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. POINTERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need of open spaces in London in the interests of public health and recreation, he will appoint a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the best means of preserving and adapting the Royal parks for that purpose?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There has been a great increase in the use of the Royal parks of late years in the direction my hon. Friend suggests, and while it does not seem to me that any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee, I hope to see a still freer use of these open spaces in the future.

  Disloyal Leaflets (Ireland)
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been
  584
  called to a leaflet circulated in all parts of Dublin this week defining Home Rule as a bribe and urging all Irishmen to revenge themselves on England by refusing to join either the Army or Navy; whether the Government intend to allow these leaflets to continue to be circulated; and, if not, whether those responsible for their circulation will be prosecuted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been directed to the leaflet. No evidence is forthcoming at present to connect any one with the printing or publication of the leaflet. If such evidence is obtained the Attorney-General will carefully consider the course to be taken to bring the offending parties to justice.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing his best to find out who circulated the leaflet?
  Mr. BIRRELL: We are endeavouring by the best means we possibly can to identify this offensive document.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Try the Union Defence League.

  Education Bill
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked (1) whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce this Session, as promised by the Lord Chancellor, a Bill deal-dealing with education; and (2) when the President of the Board of Education will, as promised, make a full statement of the intentions and policy of the Government in regard to education; whether that statement will be made in this House or elsewhere; and, if in this House, whether full opportunities will be afforded to Members to discuss the Government' s intentions and policy?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education will make a statement on the education policy of the Government when he introduces a Bill on the subject at an early date.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea as to when we shall reach this Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think the week after next.

  Imperial and Local Taxation.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether he will ascertain and

  585
  inform the House, before the close of the Session, when the Report of the Committee on Imperial and Local Taxation will be available?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that no date can at present be named for the presentation of the Report of this Committee.

  Revenue Bill.
  Mr. FELLasked when the Revenue Bill will be printed; and what is the reason for the delay?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I hope that the Bill will be circulated very Shortly.
  Mr. FELL: That answer was given a fortnight ago. Can we have a more definite answer?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I indicated next week when the question was put a fortnight ago.
  Mr. CASSEL: A very long time has elapsed since the Bill was introduced.

  Indian Budget.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: asked when it is proposed to take the Indian Budget; and whether it is proposed to give an early date?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the answer which was given on Tuesday last to the hon. Member for East Nottingham.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Before the last week in the Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know when the last week in the Session will be.

  Suffragists (Letters)
  Mr. HUNTasked whether, in view of the fact that a letter posted on 3rd July and addressed to Miss Christabel Pankhurst, 4, Clements Inn, London, W.C., has not been received, the officials at the Post Office have had instructions to intercept, detain, or open letters addressed to prominent suffragettes?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir.

  General Post Office (Dismissal of Clerk)
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the date when Mr. Cardew, a higher division clerk in the Post Office, entered the service; whether he
  586
  entered as the result of examination; when he was retired and if the grounds for this step were his alleged inefficiency; his age at retirement; and the date when such inefficiency, if any, first became apparent?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Mr. Cardew entered the service by open competition on the 15th May, 1883. He was retired on the 16th May last at the age of 53, because he was unable to perform efficiently the duties of his office. His work came under unfavourable notice so far back as 1893.
  Mr. F. HALL: What was the nature of the inefficiency?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It was, I regret to say, a general inefficiency. He was not competent to do the work proper to an officer of his grade.
  Mr. F. HALL: Did it take thirty years in which to find that out? Were the political ideas of the gentleman taken into consideration?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have not the slightest notion what his political ideas were. It would not have had the slightest effect if I had. I do not know in the least what his party views are or if he has any. The hon. Member's insinuations are totally unfounded.
  Mr. F. HALL: Did it not take thirty years in which to find out the inefficiency of this gentleman?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think it very unfortunate that he was not retired some time ago. He was kept on out of consideration for him, though adversely reported on again and again by his superior officers.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say his inefficiency first came under official notice in 1893?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: He was adversely reported upon then.

  Wireless Telegraphy.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General if he is now able to give any definite information regarding the erection of a wireless telegraphic installation at St. Kilda; whether he can say who is bearing the cost of such installation; and what arrangement will be made to maintain the installation?
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether the St. Kilda wireless telegraph station has been erected; and, if so, under

  587
  what conditions it will be available for ordinary public communication with the mainland?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I understand that a wireless installation has now been sent to St. Kilda, and that its erection—under the licence granted for the purpose last January—will very shortly be completed. The cost of the installation and of its maintenance will fall upon the licensee. The service is to be used only in case of emergency—communication being effected via the Post Office wireless station at Loch Boisdale. The ordinary inland telegraph rate of ½d. a word, with a minimum of 6d. per message, will be charged.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will this be under the charge of the Post Office officials, or is it a private undertaking?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, it is a private undertaking.
  Mr. F. HALL: What system is going to be used?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have no information. It is not erected by the Post Office, but by a private licensee.
  Captain FABERasked the Postmaster-General whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Reports of his expert advisers in accordance with which he decided not to throw open the Imperial wireless contract to public tender?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The original Reports were made at a meeting of the Inter-departmental Committee on the Imperial Wireless Chain in August, 1911, when it was decided not to invite tenders. The Committee's discussions were of a confidential character, but the Report of them was submitted to the recent Select Committee of this House. The decision not to invite tenders was adhered to by the Government after the repudiation by the Marconi Company of the contract of July, 1912, partly as a consequence of the Report of the Scientific Advisory Committee presided over by Lord Parker. That Report stated that according to the result of their investigation the Marconi system is at present the only system of which it can be said with any certainty that it is capable of fulfilling the requirements of the Imperial chain.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Could not the objection to throwing this contract open
  588
  to public competition be overcome by requiring the parties tendering to give substantial financial guarantees for an efficient service?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, we want to be sure that the contractors will be able to perform the services which are required. A financial guarantee is not adequate. Actual tests are essential beforehand.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Are the Marconi Company giving guarantees beyond the tests which have been accepted?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The tests have been applied in their case and satisfactorily passed. They are not required to give guarantees because no payment is being made until the stations are completed.
  Mr. F. HALL: If there has been any considerable improvement since that Report was made will the right hon. Gentleman take it into consideration and allow demonstrations to be made to prove whether the Goldschmidt system is able to do this work?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have asked the representatives of the Goldschmidt system to allow me to send officers of the Post Office and of the Admiralty to watch any demonstrations which they may be in a position to make, but so far the company have not given me any such permission.
  Captain FABERasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the altered circumstances attending the arrangement of the Imperial wireless service brought about by the success of the Goldschmidt system in establishing wireless communication in daytime between stations situated apart the record distance of 3,600 geographical miles, his expert advisers have tendered him further counsel with respect to the desirability of throwing the contract for the Imperial service open to public tenders; and, if so, will he lay that counsel upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No such counsel has been tendered.
  Captain FABER: Have the Goldschmidt representatives expressed their willingness to tender for the Imperial service?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, but they have not yet expressed their willingness to submit their system to any test.
  Captain FABER: Have they signed any guarantee that they will do all the work of the Imperial service?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Many people would be quite willing to guarantee that.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether a person who, while negotiating a contract with the Government, confers a gratuitous favour on a Member of that Government, suffers any disqualification for negotiating a further contract with that same Government; and, if the rules governing other public bodies in this respect do not apply, under what rules the new contract for the construction of the Imperial wireless chain is now being negotiated?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The question put by the hon. Gentleman is a hypothetical one. It is the duty of the Government in any contract which it makes to do the best for the public inteest.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General if he has any information as to the nature of the agreement entered into between the Norwegian Government and Marconi' s Wireless Telegraph Company to provide a North Europe Transatlantic service; if the American Marconi Company will under this agreement erect any of the stations; whether under the proposed agreement with the Post Office any similar works would have been carried out by either the American or the Canadian Marconi Companies; and, if so, will he give the particulars of the same?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Norwegian Government entered into a contract with the British Marconi Company, subject to ratification by the Norwegian Parliament, for the erection of a long-range wireless telegraph station in Norway to communicate with America. The American Marconi Company was a party to the agreement and undertook to erect a corresponding station in the United States. The station to be provided in Norway was similar in character to the stations proposed for the British Imperial chain, but the price payable was £70,000 for the one station in lieu of the £60,000 for each of six stations payable under the contract of last July with the British Government. Proportions of the purchase money under the Norwegian contract were payable prior to the completion of the station, while under the British contract nothing was payable until the stations were erected and had proved their capacity to communicate. The same
  590
  percentage of the gross receipts was payable as royalty in both cases, but the Norwegian Government had the option of commuting the royalty payments for a lump sum of £30,000 at any time. The Norwegian Parliament has ratified the contract within the last few days. Under the contract with the British Government no work of any kind would have been carried out by the American or Canadian Marconi Companies.
  Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that does not prove the close connection between the English Marconi system and the American Marconi system?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It only proves that if you have Transatlantic traffic, you must have stations on both sides of the Atlantic. There is not necessarily any closer connection than between the British Post Office and the French Post Office who co-operate to carry communications across the Channel.
  Mr. F. HALL: May I ask whether the two companies are closely allied?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They work in co-operation certainly for the purposes of the Transatlantic service.

  Postal Staff (Temporary Labour)
  Mr. CASSELasked the Postmaster-General whether it is the practice in the Post Office to employ temporary labour through the Labour Exchanges to any and, if so, what extent; and whether in such cases independent inquiries as to character are made by the postal authorities or whether recommendation of the Labour Exchanges is accepted?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: By arrangement between the Post Office and the Board of Trade the temporary labour required by the Post Office to meet Christmas pressure has for sonic years been engaged through the Labour Exchanges. It has always been the practice to make full inquiry as to the character of applicants, including the taking up and verification of several references. Last winter, for the first time it was arranged for this work to be done by the Labour Exchange officials in lieu of the Post Office, but on the same lines as previously. The arrangement provided that the results of these inquiries should be submitted to the local postmasters to guide

  591
  them in making their final selection among the applicants. Apart from temporary Christmas labour, temporary labour of other classes is engaged through the Labour Exchanges from time to time. The arrangements made in these cases are variable according to local circumstances. I hope to be in a position on Monday to answer a question, of which notice has been given, dealing with a specific case which has lately arisen at Coventry.
  Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice of taking the recommendations of the Labour Exchanges without any further inquiry on the part of the Post Office has been the subject of adverse comment; and, in view of that, will he alter the practice?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Labour Exchange officials themselves take up the references as to character. In regard to the adverse comment in a case which was heard at Warwick Assizes not long ago, I hope to be in a position on Monday to make a statement. I am now investigating all the circumstances of the case, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Castlecaulfield Post Office, County Tyrone.
  Mr. HORNERasked the Postmaster-General if he will direct that the post office at Castlecaulfield, county Tyrone, be kept open on Saturdays, seeing that it is the postal centre of a large and populous district, and that the present arrangements for the weekly holidays of the office officials is against the wishes of every resident in the locality, and is not only extremely inconvenient but a loss to people engaged in business?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am having inquiry made and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Clyde and Lochs Navigation(Lights)
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now considered the practice of small yachts anchoring in the Firth of Clyde and lochs at night without displaying a light, in contravention of the Board of Trade Regulations; whether he is aware that they are encouraged to do so by a recent decision of the Glasgow Sheriff Court awarding damages against
  592
  the owners of the steamer "Marchioness of Breadalbane," which ran down a yacht, the "Marguerite," which exhibited no light; and whether, in view of the near approach of the Glasgow holiday season and of the danger that a collision with such a yacht offers to Glasgow passenger steamers, he has taken or will take steps to enforce the Regulations?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): Pending the hearing of the appeal against the judgment of the Glasgow sheriff in the case of the collision between the steamer "Marchioness of Breadalbane" and the yacht "Marguerite" it has not been possible to arrive at a final decision in regard to the matter to which my hon. Friend refers, but as at present advised I do not think there is any real danger to be apprehended to the Clyde pleasure steamers owing to what appears to be a long-established practice of small yachts anchoring in these shallow waters without displaying a light.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether these Regulations about showing lights on boats were made in order to secure the safety of life at sea, and, if so, does he not intend to enforce them as long as they are Regulations of the Board of Trade?
  Mr. BUXTON: Of course, they are Regulations of the Board of Trade, and they are enforced. This question is sub judice at present, and I would rather wait to hear the result of the case before any further action is taken.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT

    AMENDING BILL
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it will be possible, under the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment Bill for disabled members of approved societies, principally those of advanced age, who could not become insured persons owing to disablement, receipt of sick pay, and other causes on 12th July, 1912, to obtain medical benefit by means of the same payments as those made by ordinary insured persons even where their societies did not provide medical benefit prior to the passing of the National Insurance Act?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Clause 1 (2) of the Amending Bill is designed to enable the agreement between the doctors

    593
    and the friendly societies to be carried out whereby those members who could not become insured persons owing to age and disablement should be able to obtain the medical attendance and treatment to which they had hitherto been entitled; and is necessarily limited to that object.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will publish a transcript of the shorthand notes of the interview he had on 5th May, 1913, with the representatives of friendly societies on the proposed Amendments of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, Sir. As I have already stated in the House, the conference in question was confidential and no shorthand note was taken.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he said last week that an official representative of the Manchester Unity was present?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I said Parliamentary agent.

  COMMISSION FOR WALES (SECRETARYSHIP).
  Mr. O' MALLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the appointment of first secretary to the Insurance Commission for Wales was given to a gentleman who, although a native of Wales, was not able to speak the Welsh language; and whether this gentleman, because of his ignorance of the Welsh language, although otherwise a most competent man, voluntarily resigned his position?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The secretary to the Welsh Insurance Commission is, as I have previously stated in the House, a competent Welsh scholar, and no question of his resigning has arisen at any time since his appointment.

  PAYMENT FOR WORK (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked if the National Health Insurance Commissioners take any steps to see that the approved societies observe the Fair-Wages Resolution in regard to the remuneration paid by the societies in connection with the insurance companies to their agents for the work they do under the National Insurance Act; if the remuneration paid to these agents is approved by the Commissioners; whether any representations have been received by the Commissioners as to the inadequacy of the agent's
  594
  remuneration which is fixed by the insurance companies; and if any action is being taken by the Commissioners to secure that the workmen employed under the Act are not paid at a sweated rate?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As I have previously stated in answer to questions and to a number of representations on the subject, the Commissioners have no power to interfere in the rates paid to agents for such, work as they do for the National Insurance Act in addition to their normal work, as this is a matter to be settled between themselves and the societies employing them. The rates are not approved by the Commissioners, and the resolution referred to is not applicable.

  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
  Mr. STEWARTasked whether it is with the sanction of the Insurance Commissioners that certain approved societies, pay nothing to voluntary hospitals, towards the maintenance of their members without dependants; and is it within the power of approved societies to retain the sickness benefit for themselves and thus turn the sufferer into a source of income without doing anything for him?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Insurance Commissioners have no power to compel approved societies to make payments to hospitals. Societies have, in certain circumstances, discretion to retain the benefit in their own hands; but the Commissioners have issued a circular (of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy), which sets out the various ways in which the money can be expended (including payments to hospitals), and adds that societies are bound to exercise their discretion reasonably, and that the Commissioners do not suppose that they will find many occasions on which the benefit could properly be withheld altogether.

  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the fact that the National Insurance Act does not make it clear whether Sunday is to be counted as one of the three waiting days before sickness benefit is available, and that in practice some societies are treating Sunday as a waiting day and others are not, and that the handbook issued as a guide to approved societies does not make the matter clear, the Government will, in. compliance with a promise made some months ago to a deputation of representatives of the leading friendly societies, and

  595
  in order to ensure uniformity, add a Subsection to the National Insurance Act (Amendment) Bill during its Committee stage in order to make the law clear upon this point?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am aware that some difficulties have arisen in connection with the application of Section 8 (1) (c) of the National Insurance Act, and if the hon. Member would suggest an Amendment which he thinks would meet the point, it will receive careful consideration.

  Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment Bill.
  Mr. GOLDSMITHasked whether there is any prospect of the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill being proceeded with this Session?
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill is not a controversial measure, and is one which affects the interests of many of the working classes, he will take an early opportunity of obtaining a Second Reading for this Bill, with a view to passing it into Law during the present Session?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I fear I can add nothing to the answer given to the hon. Member for Huddersfield by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday.
  Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will make inquiry as to the chances of the Bill being allowed to go through with little or no opposition?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am making constant inquiries both in this House and outside, and I have very great hope that a great part of the Bill will pass without any controversy at all. There are one or two controversial Clauses.

  Government Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Dr. ADDISONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether in giving out stationery contracts the fair house list of the trades unions is consulted; whether he is aware that some firms not included in this list secure large orders; and whether, in future, preference will be given to those firms who are on the list of fair houses and fair in all their departments?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on the 29th May last. The fair lists of the trade unions concerned are constantly consulted at the Stationery Office, but omission from these lists does not necessarily disqualify a firm which satisfies all the requirements of the Fair-Wages Resolution.
  Dr. ADDISONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in cases where no agreement is in existence between a trade union and the employers of a particular trade and the employers refuse to agree to a uniform scale of prices to regulate piece-work conditions of labour, the contractor for work for His Majesty' s Government is permitted to fix his own scale of prices for his employes; and, if so, what method is adopted by the Controller of the public Department to see that the terms of the Fair-Wage Clause are being observed in order to prevent evasions by the piece-work system of employment; and what methods are adopted by the officials to obtain information on the comparative earnings of piece workers so as to secure that a fair rate of wage is paid to those employed?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to Stationery Office contracts. In cases where there is no agreement in existence between a trade union and the employers, the Stationery Office in dealing with a complaint in regard to piece-work rates ascertains the rate which in practice prevails amongst good employers in the trade in the district where the work is carried out. The Stationery Office also in such cases makes full use of the powers reserved under the conditions of the contract to inspect the wages books and time sheets showing the wages paid and the time worked by the workpeople concerned.
  Dr. ADDISONasked the Secretary to the Treasury what precautions are taken to distinguish work done in London by journeymen and apprentices from that executed by the cheap labour of women employed by contractors in provincial branches; whether he is aware that some contractors obtain tenders through the London offices, execute them in the provincial establishment, and then send them back to London to have the London label inserted; and whether, in order to prevent this being done, he will instruct His Majesty' s Stationery Office to see that in

  597
  future every book has a label denoting the address of the firm's works where it was bound?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In tendering for work for His Majesty's Stationery Office, every firm has to state exactly where it is intended to execute each job, and no tender is considered which does not contain this information. In a case where work is not carried out at the place specified on the tender, it is held to be an infringement of the conditions of the contract. The Stationery Office has no knowledge of the system of labelling mentioned.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the same principle applies to all the Departments of the Government?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot answer for any Department except that with which I am concerned. I think the Fair-Wages Resolution applies to all.

  Marconi Contract (Select Committee).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the total public expenditure, so far as ascertained, and the estimated amount of any not yet ascertained, of the Select Committee on the Marconi contract, the production of its Reports, or otherwise arising from that matter?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The cost so far as ascertained has been £1,427 on the Vote for the House of Commons, and about £1,750 on the Vote for the Stationery Office. I could not give an estimate of the amount of any charges which may be out standing. As was explained in answer to a former question, there is also expense on the Post Office Vote which cannot be separated from general charges to that Vote.

  Butlock's Heath School.
  Captain FABERasked the President of the Board of Education whether any inquiry has yet been made or begun into the Butlock's Heath school dispute; and whether Miss Watts has obtained another appointment as school mistress?
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can report, a settlement of the educational strike at Butlock's Heath, Hants; and, if not, whether he will now give instructions to hold an inquiry into the grounds of the discontent shown by the parents and inhabitants?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): No inquiry has been made by the Board other than the special inspection of the school made by His Majesty's Inspector at the request of the local education authority in February last, and I do not think that the occasion for an inquiry by the Board has arisen. I understand that the elementary education sub-committee of the authority have given the most careful consideration to all the facts of the case and that their recommendations will come before the education committee on 25th July next when I hope to be in possession of the decision of the authority. So far as I am aware, Miss Watts has not been appointed to the staff of any public elementary school.
  Captain FABER: Does Miss Watts' employment rest with the head master with whom she was employed and from whom she got her dismissal?
  Mr. PEASE: No. I do not think that that is quite correct. Miss Watts has been given a testimonial, I believe, by the local education authority of such a character as to enable her to obtain another position in another school should she apply for it.
  Captain FABER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only the other day she asked the head master for a character, and he refused it?
  Mr. PEASE: I am speaking of a testimonial obtained from the local education authority.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of this locality is looking for a solution of this difficulty, that he is the only man who can give it, and that the only way he can give it is by granting an inquiry?
  Mr. PEASE: I have looked into this matter, and I think that I am aware of the facts. As stated, one of the officials of the Board has been in communication with the representatives of the local education authority, and my colleagues at the Board of Education also saw Miss Watts; and I think that the hon. Member and the hon. and gallant Member opposite will probably find that this matter will be satisfactorily solved if they have a little further patience. There is going to be a metting on 25th July, when the sub-committee of the education com-

  599
  mittee will report to the larger committee, and then we shall be in possession of more facts.

  Bristol University.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Education whether professorial tenure at Bristol University is secured by Statute or Ordinance: if not, by what means; will he state the precise terms of the standing order of council or agreement under which professors hold office; whether such terms provide for the consideration of the case of any professor threatened with dismissal by the senate; and whether such terms are in accordance with the views expressed by his Advisory Committee in their Report issued in 1912?
  Mr. PEASE: I have no official information as to the conditions of professorial tenure at Bristol, but I understand that they are secured by standing order and also by a formal agreement with each individual professor under the university seal, and that they provide that after a probationary period of two years the professor cannot be deprived of office except by a definite procedure involving right of appeal to the University Court. The Board's Advisory Committee have expressed no opinion upon these conditions of tenure. As I have explained in reply to former questions, they propose that the tenure and status of professors should form the subject of special consideration before the next assessment of Grant in 1916.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business will be for next week? I understand that he has an announcement to make about the business for to-morrow?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Before the Prime Minister replies, may I ask whether his attention has been drawn to the question put down for Monday as to a proposed Vote of Censure on Lord Gladstone, and whether, in arranging the business for next week, he will keep an open mind with regard to that?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The matter cannot come on next week.
  To-day and to-morrow will, we hope, conclude the Report stage of the Plural Voting Bill.
  On Monday we shall take the Third Beading, and I trust that the Division will take place not later than 7.30. Thereafter we shall take the Second Reading of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill.
  On Tuesday we shall take the Second Reading of the Insurance Act Amendment Bill.
  On Wednesday we shall take Supply— the particular Vote will be announced later.
  On Thursday, Supply—Navy Estimates, Vote 8.
  As to Friday, I would rather make a statement in the beginning of the week.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the Prime Minister give us any indication as to when the Finance Bill will be proceeded with, and when the promised Revenue Bill will be introduced and submitted for our consideration?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already answered a question with regard to the Revenue Bill. With regard to the Finance Bill, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question for Monday.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Tuesday, the day on which the Insurance Act Amendment Bill is to be taken, there is a private Bill already set down for 8.15?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of it. In any case, I think that we must take the Insurance Act Amendment Bill, because it is very important that we should get into Committee.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will ask about both the Finance Bill and the Revenue Bill on Monday. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer only amounted to saying that he could not say.
  The PRIME MINISTER: No. It amounted to more than that.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: May I remind the Prime Minister that he promised that we should have a discussion on the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence before we took the discussion on Vote 8 on the Navy Estimates.
  The PRIME MINISTERdissented.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: I looked it up yesterday. There was undoubtedly a promise given that there would be a discussion on the Committee of Imperial Defence, and that that would be followed by a discussion not on Vote 8, but certainly a general discussion on one of the Navy Votes.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That may be. I have a perfectly open mind as to what Vote should be taken, but I do not think that any promise to the Committee of Imperial Defence should be discussed before Vote 8 was made on my behalf.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Before the right hon. Gentleman closes his mind as to Wednesday, may I remind him of the very strong desire in some sections of the House, that the Home Office Vote should be taken to enable us to discuss the Factory Inspectors Vote?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will bear that in mind.

PLURAL VOTING BILL.
As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Copy of Act to be Exhibited in Polling Stations.)
It shall be the duty of the Returning Officer to see that a copy of this Act is conspicuously exhibited in every polling station, but failure to comply with this requirement shall not avoid an election or affect the liability of any person for acting in contravention of this Act.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The Clause which I have placed on the Paper, and which I now move, is to carry out the pledge which I gave yesterday to the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Cassel) who moved a similar Clause. The only alteration which I have made in his Clause is to place the word "conspicuously" in a different position in the context. It simplifies the phraseology, and I have added at the end the words, "or affect the liability of any person for acting in contravention of this Act." These words appear to me to be necessary in order to make it quite clear that no one may escape liability for the offence in the event of the returning officer not fulfilling his duty by placing in a conspicuous position a copy of the Act, so that the electors may know what are the provisions of the Act which we are about to pass, I trust, into law.
Mr. CASSEL: The Clause which I moved yesterday the right hon. Gentleman has now accepted with certain modifications which really do not materially alter its effect. The alterations appear to me to be satisfactory. I cannot help thinking that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman did not at once accept the Clause yesterday was that we were really discussing the Bill in Committee at the time when it was already in print. Really it is rather a farce that a Bill should be discussed in Committee when it has already been printed as amended in Committee. If that was not the case, I can only congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the lightning rapidity of the printers in having printed the Bill within so short a time of the conclusion of yesterday's stage of the measure. Even if the
626
right hon. Gentleman did not accept the Clause as it was yesterday, I am glad he has done so to-day, and I am willing to agree to the alterations which he has introduced.
Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of the City of London.)
Nothing in this Act contained shall prevent a Parliamentary elector in the City of London from voting, or asking for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of so voting, in the City of London and in one other constituency.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
EARL of RONALDSHAY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
4.0 P.M.
The new Clause which stands in my name embodies a proposal on which a discussion took place on Friday last, and but for certain circumstances I do not think I would have ventured to put it down for further discussion to-day. There were two circumstances in connection with the discussion of this Clause last week which make it desirable that we should have a further discussion upon it this afternoon. The first circumstance is a somewhat personal one. The Solicitor-General, when he was dealing with this new Clause, made some very courteous though rather pointed remarks with regard to myself and the constituency which I represent. Naturally, under those circumstances, I desired to make a reply, more especially as I think the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General was suffering under a misapprehension, but I was not permitted to do so. No sooner had I risen in my place than the President of the Board of Education rose in his, and claimed "that the Question be now put." I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education thought that was a funny thing to do. If he did, I think he must have a rather strange sense of humour. The second circumstance which, I think, make it desirable that we should further discuss this proposal is that the speech made on that occasion by the learned Solicitor-General makes it quite clear that either he had not read the proposed new Clause, or if he had read it, he did not really appreciate its exact meaning. I quite believe that the interpretation of legal phraseology is past

627
all understanding, but if a common-sense justification of this proposed new Clause be given, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the greater part of his argument against it did not rest on any foundation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that this new Clause was to be inserted in the Bill for my special benefit. This is what he said:—
"If I am not mistaken, there is a booth in the Guildhall where voters have the privilege of electing the Noble Lord the member for the Hornsey Division of Middlesex. Does anyone think that is a fair principle?"
May I very respectfully point out to the learned Solicitor-General that he was there referring to those electors who by reason of freeholds in the City which they do not occupy, exercise their vote for the Hornsey Division of Middlesex. But surely this new Clause does not touch those persons at all. I will read the wording of the Clause:—
"Nothing in this Act contained shall prevent a Parliamentary elector in the City of London from voting, or asking for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of so voting, in the City of London and in one other constituency."
Surely the right hon. Gentleman must know that these men who possess a vote for the Hornsey Division of Middlesex by reason of their having freeholds in the City of London which they do not occupy are not, as a matter of fact, Parliamentary electors in the City of London at all. They have no right to cast their vote for a representative of the City of London, and surely, unless the legal interpretation of this Clause differs even more widely than usual from the ordinary interpretation, it only refers to those persons who have the right to exercise their franchise in the City of London for the return of a Member for that city to this House. If the right hon. Gentleman disputes my interpretation, I shall be very glad if he will point out to me in what respect I am wrong. Suppose the right, hon. and learned Gentleman is right, suppose that this Clause was designed to give these electors who have freeholds which they do not occupy in the City of London the right to vote in Hornsey, as they do at present—suppose all that is correct, the passing of this Clause would not, after all, really benefit me particularly to any very large extent. At any rate, if I may judge by what has happened in the past, it would make no very appreciable difference to my position in this House. There are, I think, some forty or fifty London freeholders who, under the
628
present system, do not vote in London but vote in the Hornsey Division of Middlesex. Even assuming that all of these electors are Unionists—I do not for one moment assert that they are, though I think the Solicitor-General rather suggested that they are—I, personally, should be truly graitfied by his suggestion that they would all vote for me, because we all know— it is admitted on all sides of the House— that these men are a particularly intelligent portion of the electors. And even supposing that everyone of those men recorded his vote against me it would really only reduce my majority on the last occasion from 3,400 odd to about 3,000, so that the hope which naturally underlay the Solicitor-General's opposition to this new Clause would, I am afraid, have been disappointed. But there is another aspect of this question. It is quite true, quite apart from the freehold voters to whom the Solicitor-General devoted the main part of his speech, that there are voters who reside in the City of London and have votes there and who also have votes in adjoining constituencies, that is to say, there is a very large number of out-voters not in my Constituency or in adjoining constituencies, but out-voters in the City of London. Unless this proposed new Clause passed those men would have to come to some decision as to whether they would exercise their right to vote in that part of the country in which they reside or in the City of London. The President of the Board of Education told us that last year he received a deputation from the Lord Mayor and ex-Lord Mayor and other representative officials of the City of London who had assured him that if those electors were presented with this dilemma of having to decide whether they would vote for a representative for that part of the country in which their home was situated or for the City of London, they were so attached to the City of London that undoubtedly most of them would record their votes in the city. That is an expression of opinion, but I venture to think it is very doubtful whether that would be the case. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that, no doubt, there would be great pressure put upon those men by the various party organisations in the constituency in which their homes were situated to record their votes there. I think also that at the present day their instinct would lead them to record their votes in the constituency in which their home was situated. You must remember that those men who have votes

629
in the city are, generally speaking, men who by their own industry have been successful in amassing, not much, perhaps, but generally a certain amount or, as my hon. Friend (Sir Harry Samuel) says, a modest competence.
Those men have been amazed and amazed at the recent tendency which has been observable in our public life of men in responsible positions preaching the doctrine of public plunder. They have become alarmed at the passage of Increment Value Duty and other measures which they regard as measures of spoliation, and so on. They are very much inclined therefore to see that the representative whom they send to the House of Commons from the constituency in which they reside is a man who represents their views. There is a very large number of those men. The Solicitor-General pointed out how extraordinarily the City of London differed from other constituencies. He pointed out that the residential population amounted to only about 19,000 odd, including, I suppose, men, women, and children. The total electorate as compared with that amounted to upwards of 31,000. It is quite clear, therefore, that a very large proportion of the city electorate reside not in the city, but in the surrounding districts. The question that we really ask is, is it desirable that the representation of the City of London as a corporate body should be left to the mere chance whether the electorate in the city should consist, as it has done in the past, of a vast body of men of great influence and great knowledge representing great interests, industrial interests, and financial interests. Is it desirable that it should be left to chance whether the Members for the City are representative of a body of men like that or whether they are merely to be representative of caretakers, and, I suppose, if the wishes and desires of many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite ever fructify, not only of caretakers, but of charwomen. That is really our point. We desire that the City of London, being as it is, so differently situated in circumstances to other constituencies in the United Kingdom, should continue to have as its representatives those who will represent all that vast and important body of men representing all those great national interests. We desire that that should be made certain by the Clause which we now propose should be inserted in the Bill, and which I have the pleasure to move.
Sir HARRY SAMUEL: I beg to second the Motion. The Noble Lord gave two reasons why he thought we were justified on this side of the House in reopening the question of the exclusion of the City of London which had been debated at some length the other day. I think there is one matter which we have the right to bring before the House. The Senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), who occupies a singularly high position in the House, delivered an able speech on this subject, in which he was very rightly pleading for his own constituency. There was no reply whatever vouchsafed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and all that happened was that the President of the Board of Education immediately moved the Closure. That alone justifies any action we may feel inclined to take upon this side, and, without wishing to say anything disrespectful, the action of right hon. Gentlemen opposite certainly showed a want of courtesy to a man who occupies that singularly high position. I think that the position of the City of London stands out as unique. I would like to put this argument forward with the idea of its acceptance by the Solicitor-General. We have heard from the other side of the House the expression oftentimes used that all their Franchise Bills, or I think I might say Franchise and Disenfranchising Bills, were with the desire to get the real, true opinion of the constituency. They tell us that the freehold voter and the plural voter have really debarred us from having as the representatives of the constituencies the men who are really desired by the majority of the voters. If that be so, I think I am entitled to ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite to choose the one course or the other, because it is perfectly impossible for them to stand on both. I think I can substantiate the fact that the City of London is the one exception in the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the effect of this Bill would be to deprive that great city of the power of putting forward and electing the man or men whom that constituency really desires to sit on these benches. First of all, it is the one constituency in which there are practically no residents. There may be a few resident clergy, and there are, as we know, caretakers and policemen, but there are practically no residents. The consequence of that is that it is a constituency almost entirely consisting of plural voters.

631
Under those circumstances I do plead that if you really desire to get the full sense of the constituency you should exclude the City of London, at all events to some degree, from this Bill. I ventured to plead the other day that it was very desirable that we should have the concentrated opinion of the electors of the City of London upon many very vital questions which could and would probably affect the whole destinies of this country. I do not think that even right hon. Gentlemen opposite desire that the whole of the influence of the City of London should be concentrated in the votes of caretakers, and, in certain eventualities, with the addition of charwomen to their ranks. I think right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are taking a rather mean advantage. They have perhaps confessed in a small degree to the fact that they know they are going to obtain party advantage out of this Bill. We have not the smallest shadow of doubt of the motives actuating them. In dealing with the City of London in the manner in which they propose they see that they are going to gain an advantage in one way or another. It may be that the advantage they are going to gain now they may desire to follow up with an even greater advantage. Let us take this case. Suppose, as the Solicitor-General said, that the greater number of those who do business in the City and earn a modest competency, vote in the City, then the Solicitor-General knows that there are going to be depleted from a number of seats on which the present Government has fixed longing eyes a number of voters. On the other hand, if the voters decide to cast their vote elsewhere there must, under those circumstances, be a very small pool for the City of London.
I can well understand the argument moving hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that if there is a very small poll of two or three thousand why give two Members to the City? This, therefore, might be followed up in the future by some other action in order to deprive the City of London of one of its Members, or why not disfranchise it altogether, or make it an out ward of Romford That seems to be an argument approaching very nearly to the ludicrous, but it is to the argument not on this side but on the other side that I refer. After all, the City of London is not only the property of the British Empire but it is really and truly the property of the whole world, it is the centre of the civil-
632
ised world. It is looked up to by foreign countries, and it is the centre mart and exchange and the centre of financial transactions. In every way and shape it occupies a position which is really and truly unique. Its past history has been alluded to, and there has been mention of exceptional privileges which it has enjoyed under various Acts. I do appeal, and I feel in making that appeal I am not going beyond that which I think is our right here, though I am not prepared to make it in the eloquent language of the senior Member, nor do I profess to have the feeling which actuated him, but still I do plead for something which is after all the possession not of a body, not of the Empire, not even of our country, but practically and truly of the civilised world. I ask that there should be some exception made in favour of the ancient City of London.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): On the Committee stage we had an extended Debate on this subject, and the question raised by this Amendment was then considered and decided by a large majority. I do not think that those who have listened to the two interesting speeches which have just been delivered would have very easily gathered exactly what the proposal of this Bill is in regard to the City of London. It is not proposed to disfranchise the City of London. It is not proposed to prevent a single person who is entitled to be a Parliamentary elector in the City of London from exercising his right to vote there. It is not proposed in any way to lessen the importance of the City of London as a great electoral constituency. All that this Bill proposes is that, so far as regards those persons who have a right to vote in the City of London, they should be dealt with in the same way as persons who have a right to vote anywhere else. The real way of judging this matter is to take the limiting case. Let us suppose that I am a voter in the City of London, and that if I exercise my choice of voting there my vote will turn that election. Let us suppose, further, that I am also a voter in some other constituency, and that there also, if I exercise my vote there, it will turn that election. That is the real limiting case. The question is: Is there any reason on earth why I, in those circumstances, should be entitled to turn two elections when no other elector in the United Kingdom who is not a voter in the City of London can turn more than one? I submit very confidently that there is no reason whatever

633
in common sense why such a state of things should remain.
I have always had some difficulty in understanding how those who have the honour of representing the City of London could possibly bring themselves to urge this Amendment in the House. So what does it mean? It is nothing less than a reflection upon their own constituents, because it suggests that their constituents cannot be trusted to vote for them if they have only one vote, and that therefore it is necessary they should have two votes, and, at any rate, vote for them as second choice. I had the pleasure of telling the hon. Baronet in Committee that if I could be sure that the giving of my vote in the City of London would decide whether or not he would be elected for it, I should certainly exercise my choice in the City of London— in what direction I need not explain. Whatever may be the unique character of that constituency, and no one doubts its overwhelming importance as a great radiating centre of population and trade, that is, the only one reason the more why there is no danger whatever in trusting that its voice in our Legislature is not likely to be silenced, and that its influence upon the course of the history of the world is not likely to be affected by what we propose. The Noble Lord who moved the new Clause referred to a speech which I made in Committee. That speech was principally concerned, so far as it was concerned with persons at all, with the two distinguished Gentlemen who represent the City of London. The Noble Lord seems to think that I said something about him. I made a casual reference to the Hornsey Division—
EARL of RONALDSHAY: Not in the least about me. I said that the Solicitor-General had really misread the new Clause, because a large part of his argument was devoted to dealing with those who have freeholds in the City of London, but do not occupy them.
Sir J. SIMON: It was not a very important part of the discussion, and I am quite content to leave it. Everybody who owns a freehold in the City of London and does not occupy it, has a vote in respect to that ownership, not, indeed, in the City of London, but in the Hornsey Division of Middlesex. A similar arrangement obtains in regard to freeholders in any other great town, such as Birmingham or Manchester. This Bill proposes to stop that in the City of London, as in all other
634
big towns, to this extent, that if a man chooses to exercise any other of his qualifications, he will not be able to exercise that qualification as well. I do not quite understand the Noble Lord when he thinks that what I said before was not apposite. Every single person who owns a freehold in the City of London and does not occupy it, if he is also a freeman or a liveryman of the City of London, or occupies some other premises, has two votes, one in the City of London and another in the Hornsey Division. I took that as an illustration, and it seemed to me to be a very good one. There are some hundreds of persons who vote in the Hornsey Division because they have property in the City of London. I argued that there was really no reason for making a special exception in the case of a plural voter, one of whose votes was in the City of London and another in the Hornsey Division. It is surely much more natural and right that we should deal with that class in the same way, when we are dealing with the City of London, as when we are dealing with any other large town. I do not think that anything I said was incorrect. Certainly it was only intended as an illustration of the general argument which I put forward. The broad argument is this: Accepting, as for the purposes of this Debate we must accept, that plural voting is going to be stopped, and that it is going to be stopped not by limiting a man to one kind of franchise, but by compelling him to make a choice between his different franchises, is there any justification at all for saying that that rule should cease to operate if one of his franchises happens to be any sort of franchise in the City of London? It is only natural that some hon. Gentlemen opposite should take a different view. We all recognise that they have put their views with great moderation. But the view that we take is that there is really no justification for drawing a distinction between one case and the other, and after the arguments which have been put forward, both on the Committee stage and now, we invite the House to decline to make this distinction.
Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I listened to the Solicitor-General, as I always do, with interest and admiration, but I think he must have been hard put to it for argument when he suggested, as a possible case, an elector in the City of London who could by his single vote turn the election in the city and also in the constituency in which he lives. There is a well-known

635
saying that hard cases make bad law. I think one might fairly say that an impossible hypothesis is the basis of a bad argument. I cannot help thinking that the Solicitor-General and I differ somewhat profoundly as to the purpose of the franchise and the object of the representative system. The Solicitor-General seems to regard the vote as a boon conferred upon the elector by a benevolent Parliament at the instigation of a wise Government; he thinks that everybody should be served alike, and that the votes should go round like buns at a school treat, the great object being that every child should have one, but that no child should have more than one. My idea of the representative system is that it should be a means of obtaining the opinion of the people on important questions, and of obtaining it in such a way that it should be a guide to Parliament and to the Government, and not merely a means of supplying a number of voters to follow patiently one side or the other through the Division Lobbies. That being my view, I hold that certain constituencies have a definite character, and their Members are channels for the supply of information and opinions to this House which it is important that we should obtain. I urged the same point in the matter of university representation. I urge it again, and I think with as much or even more emphasis in the case of the representation of the City of London, inasmuch as London is the heart and the nerve centre of the finances of the Empire, if not of the world. It is extremely important that we should hear the voice of London on the great commercial, financial, and industrial questions which come before this House, and will come before it with increasing frequency as time goes on. Shall we get it? The Solicitor-General says, with a great deal of force, that the voter in the City of London, if he has a vote elsewhere, has an option as to where he shall vote. But we do not know what the political exigencies of a General Election may bring forth or what disfranchisement may come upon the voter who has votes in more than one place, as many of us have, and it ought not to be left to chance whether London speaks with the voice of a great commercial and financial community or with the voice of caretakers. Surely it is a matter of concern to the Government whether constituencies represent great interests or whether they represent nothing more than good, substantial
636
votes in the Division Lobby. I maintain, on the ground of the value to this House and to the Government of a strong representation of a great body of opinion on subjects of momentous importance to the community, that this Clause ought to be accepted and added to the Bill.
I would like to supplement something which fell from the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus) the other day as to the historical position which the City of London occupies. I will not go back to the history of the five Members. I would rather take up the history of London at a later period. I do not know whether a book called "The History of Representative Government'' has been studied by many Members of this House. It was a Radical publication, or what passed for Radical in the year 1816, strongly advocating a reformed Parliament. This is what it said:—
''The city has distinguished itself in the pages of history for the uniform defence of the rights and liberties of the people."
I am not sure that the rights and liberties of the people do not need as much defence from the arbitrary action of the Government now as they did in the reign of George III. But we know how manfully the city stood forward in the reign of George III. for the liberty of the Press and the liberties of the people. To come to a later date, the city was the first, I believe, to return a member of the Jewish persuasion to assert religious freedom in this House. The City returned for many years Lord John Russell, a prominent member of the Liberal party, a great figure in this House, who had sat in Parliament for eighteen years before he sat for the City of London, and during that time he sat for six different constituencies. The City of London was faithful to that eminent man. I may add that the City of London was the means of introducing to public life the late Lord Goschen, who came into Parliament as a young man, was promoted to office very early in life, and sat for sixteen years for the City of London. But apart from what I may call the abstract reasons for supporting this Clause for securing to this House a full and adequate representation of great commercial interests, I say that, if for nothing-else, the great part that the City of London has played in the political history of the country and its political character demands respect, and I would urge most earnestly that the proposed new Clause should receive the favourable consideration of the House.
Mr. BUTCHER: As I understood the first argument of the Solicitor-General, it was a fantastic and impossible hypothesis which has been already exploded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford, and I therefore shall not refer to it further. The Solicitor-General's second argument was that this was an exception to the main principle of the Bill, and, therefore, could not be admitted. Yes, but it is an exception under wholly exceptional conditions, and that is exactly a case in which an exception ought to be made. I venture to think this is really a very modest demand. It might very fairly be said that if a man occupies business premises in an urban area and has a vote for those premises, and you have him also having his residence in a constituency outside where he also has a vote, that, as a general proposition, it is to the interest of the community that he should be allowed to exercise his vote in both places: for this reason, not because of the advantage to the man himself—that is not the principle on which you give votes—it is not the principle on which a franchise ought to be based—but because in the interest of the community it is desirable that the voice of the business community should be expressed in this House. It should not be left to chance, as it would be if the Bill is allowed to stand in this form, as to whether or not business premises send Members to this House to express the views and desires of their owners. This proposition does not go so far as it might. What it says is that the case of the City of London is certainly an exception, not only to all the cities in this country, but to every business community in the world, and, therefore, the exception should be made. Thereby we shall be enabled to secure continuity of business representation for the City of London. I have heard no argument in this House, either upon this occasion or upon the former occasion when this proposition was before the House, giving any reason why this proposal should not be adopted. Will the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill give us any reason whatsoever how the community will be injured if this Amendment is accepted? Will he tell us how it will destroy the Bill? He cannot do so. On the other hand reasons have been given— unanswerable reasons to my mind—to show why this Amendment should be accepted and why a temporary, halting makeshift measure like this, alleged to improve our representation, should not be
638
allowed to go to some distance, maybe all the distance, to destroy the representation of the City of London, which has had a great historical past and has played a very important part in the character and Debates of this House.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Solicitor-General is usually charming and delightful, but is sometimes exceedingly subtle and deluding. To-day he has been subtle and exceedingly deluding. I do not think in his heart of hearts the Solicitor-General would really like to disfranchise the great City of London He tells us, in respect of this Amendment, that the House is doing nothing to disfranchise the City of London. I am perfectly certain that it does not require the great acumen and great ability of the Solicitor-General to know that this is a halfway House towards disfranchising the City of London. If this Amendment is not accepted, if this new Clause is not accepted, and if the Bill passes in the form in which it is defended by the Solicitor-General, it cannot be many years before the City of London will be disfranchised and loses that special privilege which we are anxious to maintain, and which we plead for good cause, shown in the arguments advanced in the course of this Debate and in the course of the Debate-which took place last Friday. The Solicitor-General seemed to be profoundly affected by the most fantastical hypothesis which was ever advanced even by one of his great ingenuity. This was to the effect that it might, in the course of a million years, so happen that some voter might be able by his vote actually to turn two elections, one in the City of London and one in some other place. That seems to have profoundly affected the judgment of the Solicitor-General. It seems to be a very great shock to him that it should ever by any possibility occur! Does he think it ever will occur? If he is so shocked that one man should have that power, possibly once in a million years, why is he not shocked that 40,000 electors should only return one Member to this House and another 40,000 electors, equally qualified to exercise the franchise, should return eight or even ten Members to this House? We have not got to wait a million years for that. That happens to-day. That will happen at the next election, because the present Government do not propose to remove those great hypotheses which are real, which are effective, and which really make weight in our Con-

639
stitution. He was terribly shocked that it might possibly occur once in a million years that somebody might actually exercise the vote and by that power ensure the return of two Members to Parliament instead of one.
The Solicitor-General was subtle in his arguments. He sees well the great power which will be exercised over the electors in the city to vote in a particular constituency! The election agent will come and say, "Your vote is sadly needed in the other place in which you exercise a vote," and the consequence of that will be that the man will be seduced, quite contrary to his natural sentiment, to vote in the other constituency. That is exactly what we have been urging all along, that in these days, when wire pulling has been brought to a very fine art—as the President of the Board of Education very well knows, for nobody has exercised that art more frequently and more subtly than he has—in these days when wirepulling has been brought to that state, you will find the election agent will go to anybody who has a vote in the city, and in another constituency, and he will say to that person, "You need not give your vote in the city, the city Members are safe, but you can give your vote in that constituency in which you reside or in which you have the other vote." It may happen that, however great may be the sentimental desire on the part of a voter to vote in the City of London—the very best of the voters in the City of London: the best, I mean, for financial influence and those who hold a very strong position in the city; the best because of their businesses, and because of many other qualities—those men will all exercise their franchise, not in the city, but in the place whore they reside. The consequence will be that nobody will be left in a few years' time in the city to vote except the resident caretakers, a few clerks, and people of that kind. When the next Redistribution Bill that comes along—for a Redistribution Bill comes once every quarter of a century on an average—the Government of the day will say, "Why should we continue this representation of the city? Why should the city have this perpetual franchise when it no longer represents the collective voice of the City of London, but only caretakers and clerks, for only 4,000 or 5,000 voters have voted in the City of London during the last few contests?" That very likely will have happened. That
640
argument, will be adduced to disfranchise the city, and to take away from the city that representation which it has exercised so wisely and so well through so long a period. With all these subtle distinctions on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman there is no doubt whatever that the effect of this Bill is to disfranchise the city. The effect of this Bill is undoubtedly to put the argument I have named, I think an overwhelming argument, into the hands of any other Government which succeeds this Government, when the next Redistribution Bill comes, to take away the representation from the City of London.
What a loss! What a loss to the world! Anything that diminishes the prestige of London is a real loss not only to the civilisation of this country, but a real loss to the world. It is an international loss. The city is international. It is cosmopolitan. Anything that diminishes its prestige is a great blow, I believe, actually to the advancement of civilisation throughout the world. London is the centre of many great beneficent movements, not only here but in the world generally. I believe that any single thing that takes away from the prestige which attaches to the City of London, is a loss to the world. We ask, we plead, that this exception may be made. I know we cannot alter your determination that nobody shall, as a rule, have more than one vote, but we ask you to make this one single exception. We say that the city is in a different position to any other city. Edinburgh could not claim the same rights and the same privileges. Neither could Glasgow, nor Liverpool, nor Manchester, and I am quite certain that no other town would be jealous of the City of London in that particular privilege being left to the city. We plead, therefore, that this exception should be made. We believe that there will be no loss from any party point of view. There may be two votes perhaps; though why you should always think the city will always be on our side and might not sometimes be on yours, I do not see. After all, these great changes occur, sometimes very rapidly; but I do not think we ought to argue these questions of franchise from the point of view as to how they are going to affect parties at the present time.
We should take a wider outlook and a broader forecast. I am strongly in favour of a very great reform in our franchise system. Whatever reforms we may make, I do say it is well to consider that we

641
should not merely make systems of one size, containing ugliness, and containing nothing that is good; but that we should, to a certain extent, consider the idiosyncrasies, particular qualities, and particular habits even, of the electors who reside in certain constituencies. I remember very well Mr. Gladstone's argument that Ireland should have a greater representation than her population entitled her to on what he called the "centrifugal theory," which was that Ireland was further from the seat of Government. He put forward magnificent and splendid arguments for the franchise being given to some constituencies, and other constituencies being allowed to retain their representation, although they did not come up to the standard of population, because they had certain characteristics, certain historical traditions, and so on. I myself am a great believer in that, and that we should at all events throw these conditions into the balance wherever we are redistributing electoral power. We ought to look at all those things. We ought to look at those old historic traditions. We ought to look at the position of this great constituency. I ask the present Government to recast their thoughts, to think of what they are doing. If they pass the Bill in its present form, they will be going a long way to disfranchise this great historic constituency, the City of London. If they would make this one concession, if they would make this one exception, and allow a man to vote for the city and for somewhere else at which his residence was, they would at least do something to preserve the rights of this great centre of cosmopolitan and international influence; they would do something for the good of the country, of the Empire, and I would add, of civilisation.
Sir F. BANBURY: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, has rather forgotten what took place in Committee, because on that occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman throwing aside, the secrecy of the ballot, informed me that in the event of my being in distress, he would come to my rescue and support me with his vote. My right hon. colleague, the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), speaking after me, was rather concerned as to the further results of the Bill. At any rate I understood we should have the support of the right hon. and learned Gentleman if ever we were in distress, but I was sorry to notice that on this occasion he did not
642
repeat that assurance. Now, I understand, the secrecy of the ballot is to be allowed to intervene. I hope, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has apparently changed his opinion with regard to one statement which he made in the Committee stage, he will also change his opinion with regard to the whole thing, and will support the new Clause proposed by my hon. Friend, and reverse the opinion which he expressed on the last occasion. I quite agree with the proposition which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has laid down. I quite recognise the rule that the Bill having been read a second time, the principle of the Bill should be accepted, namely, that no man should have more than one vote, although I do not myself agree with that principle, or as my right hon. Friend (Sir William Anson) has put it, that each man have one bun and not more than one bun. But what we have endeavoured to show is that there may be a possible exception which may prove the rule. This, I believe, is the exception which proves the rule, and it is an exception in this particular instance of a very strong character. I think there are very strong grounds for this exception. These grounds are very simple. It has been said that the City of London is the only constituency in which there is an enormous majority of plural voters.
Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: There are the universities.
Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend reminds me that I ought not to forget the universities. I shall never forget the universities. Like my right hon. Friend the senior Member for the City of London, I have supported the universities. But that does not affect my point. At the present moment, I was dealing with the City of London alone. The City of London is composed, to a large extent, and with the possible exception of the universities, to a far larger extent than any other constituency, of plural voters. The right hon. Gentleman opposite read to us a statement showing that the residential population of the City of London consisted of 19,000 people. That is quite true, but I read on a previous occasion, from a statement which I had prepared, the figures showing that the floating population of the City of London consists of 1,000,000 people, and the rate-able value is nearly £6,000,000. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any single instance where there is a city with a

643
residential population of 19,000, which has a floating population of 1,000,000? What sort of population is that floating population? It is the best sort of population which any city in any part of the inhabited globe could have. They are all practical, hard-working, industrious and well-educated people with a great stake in the interests of their country, which, after all, even in these days, is something. What is it that we ask? We say, "Here is a constituency which occupies an exceptional position. We recognise that the principle of the Bill, that there should be only one vote for each voter, has been accepted by the House. We do not for a moment ask to reverse that principle. What we do ask is that in one isolated case, which has great historical interests, which has returned distinguished men to this House, and which has, as its floating population, a class different from any other constituency in the Empire, should be the place in which this one exception should be made." We are told that the Bill will preserve intact the representation of the City of London, but whoever will succeed, my right hon. colleague or myself, if this Clause is not carried, though he may sit as representative for the City of London, will sit not as the representative of the financial, commercial, and industrial interests of the greatest city in the world, but as the choice of the caretakers and the few residents and the small number of people who will be induced to vote in the city, instead of voting in any other constituency. The President of the Board of Education told us that he was quite certain that a. large number of the electors of the city were so enamoured of their vote for the city that they would still vote there, instead of for any other place.
Mr. PEASE: I think what I did say was that a deputation representing the city expressed that view. It is not a view which I altogether share, but that was the view of the representatives of the city who waited upon me last year.
Sir F. BANBURY: I think the representatives of the corporation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman, but that is only one part of the city. He knows that. They waited upon him in rather exceptional circumstances. They thought they were going to be done away with altogether. They said, "Half a loaf was better than no bread." They said, "Let those electors remain on the register; do
644
not take away our vote altogether." I think the circumstances are now very different. Be that as it may, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), who has had very great experience in electioneering, is right, and although possibly the corporation were right in their view as a whole, I agree with my right hon. Friend as to what would be the effect when the election comes. What takes place in that case? Say there is a voter who lives in Croydon, and is also a voter in the City of London. The Conservative agent for Croydon goes to him and says, "You know that in the city we are going to have a large majority, and, therefore, it is useless for you to vote there. In Croydon the majority will be small, and you ought to vote here." I think that is one of the reasons why hon. Gentlemen opposite do not support this Clause, because after all, what will the voter say? He will say, "I am only one. Why should I not vote in Croydon, and not in the city. I shall not jeopardise the city, and I may save Croydon." He may be only one, but it will be put to a great number of voters individually, and each will not know that the same argument has been put to many others, and the result will be that a very great number may choose to vote for the constituency in which they reside, instead of for the city.
Hon. Members opposite may say, "What does it matter?" I admit, according to the principle of the Bill, that it would not matter very much if the City of London were an ordinary constituency, but the City of London is not an ordinary constituency, and it does matter in that case, because you are going to change entirely the representation of the city, to give it different qualifications and different Members from what it has had in the past. The senior Member for the City of London, when the University Amendment was under discussion in Committee, pointed out that after all there was one advantage in university representation, and that was that where you had a man who perhaps did not enjoy strong health and at the same time had great political experience, and was a most useful man in this House, it was desirable that he should have a place where he could expect to have a more or less quiet election, and where when he was elected he would be able to devote his time to his duties in this House, and not have to attend smoking concerts, bazaars, and the other

645
varied entertainments, which every hon. Member knows the majority of the Members of this House have to attend to the detriment of the work of this House. He said it was desirable that there should be at least a few constituencies where men of that sort might be returned. Does not that apply to the City of London?
The Member for Oxford University (Sir William Anson), has pointed out that Lord John Russell, during the the thirty-six years when he was a Member of this House, sat in eighteen years for six different constituencies, and then he became Member for the City of London, and for the last eighteen years during which he was in this House, he sat as Member for the City of London. Is not that a good thing? If you can get men like Lord John Russell or my right hon. colleague (Mr. Balfour), men who have done great service to their party and to the State, is it not desirable that there should be an opportunity for them to represent a great constituency like the City of London, where they may be quite sure that, so long as they carry out the wishes of their constituents—I do not say their small wishes, but the general aims of their party—they will be certain to have a seat in this House without going through the turmoil which is necessitated by a General Election. Is it not wise and right, that some few constituencies of the kind should be left? My right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher) has said that you ought not to go upon the opinion that the City of London is always going to be Conservative. It probably would be Liberal if hon. Gentlemen opposite would go back to the old traditions of their party. I can remember when the City of London was a strong Liberal constituency, even in my own day, when I was a voter. I will not go into the reasons why this change has taken place; it would not be in order to do so. But I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite should run away with the idea that because the City of London, at the present moment, is a Conservative stronghold, it is always going to be the same. I think the electors for the City of London are really the most single-minded electors in the whole country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] They are really. They are actuated by a general desire, according to their lights, to do what is best for the country as a whole. They are not actuated by one particular motive as individuals. They do not think, "Here I am going to get something." They take a broad view of what is best, perhaps for their party,
646
but what they believe is best for the country. They ask themselves which is the best party to govern the Empire, and they vote for the person whom they think will support that particular party. That is a sort of constituency I think which ought to be maintained, and I have not heard a single reason advanced by any hon. Gentleman against it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education said a few pleasant things about the two present Members, and added a few other generalities, but he did not in any way make out a case against the acceptance of this new Clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General attempted to show a case, but I do not think he succeeded. Not a single Member on the other side, except those two right hon. Gentlemen, has had a word to say about it. It is quite true that on a previous occasion the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire (Mr. Morton) voted with us, but for some unknown reason he is not here to-day. He told me yesterday that he was only too desirous to speak in favour of the Clause. I can hope that the Government have changed their views, but even at the last moment I do venture to ask that something will be done, and that what has been said may induce the right hon. Gentleman opposite to change his attitude of absolute opposition.
Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY: The hon. Baronet who represents the City of London claims that his constituency is more intelligent, richer, and possesses more historical associations than any other constituency.
Sir F. BANBURY: I did not say it was more intelligent, but I said it had more historical associations, and that the vote of the electors taken together were more intelligent, because they consisted mainly of educated men, whereas this was not so in other constituencies.
5.0 P.M.
Sir F. CAWLEY: I deny that the intelligence in the City of London is any greater than it is in any other part of the country. If I were asked the question I should say that the ordinary business man in the City of London who has an office there and lives in a villa in Dulwich, or any other suburb, knows less about the working classes than any other man in the country. As far as intelligence goes, I would prefer the artisan in Lancashire or Yorkshire, rather than the ordinary City of London man. Even under this Bill I think the

647
hon. Baronet said the agents of the different London constituencies would put their heads together and the City would continue to return Members of the same political complexion.
Sir F. BANBURY: That applies to the next election.
Sir F. CAWLEY: The whole argument amounts to this, that the people who have their businesses in the City of London must have more political power than other people. I do not think that that is right. Why should the same principle not apply to all other large cities, and why should we put forward a special case for the City of London? In this Bill we are going to have one man one vote, and I do not think any case has been made out why individuals who happen to have a business in the City of London should be treated differently from other people in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Major MORRISON-BELL: I am not going to debate the question of the intelligence of various constituencies. The point that can be urged in favour of this new Clause is the fact that the City of London is totally different from anything else in the country, and it is exceptional in every way. I do not mean in intelligence, but in its history, wealth, and accumulation of business, and in those respects there is no city in the country to compare with it.
Sir F. CAWLEY: But we do not give votes to wealth.
Major MORRISON-BELL: The hon. Baronet the Member for Prestwich (Sir F. Cawley) argued that if you do this for the City of London you would establish a precedent for doing the same thing in the case of Manchester or any other great city. It is absurd to put forward that argument, because nobody ever compares Manchester as it is with the City of London, and nobody would put any other city in the country on the same plane. It is purely on the argument as to the exceptional position of the City of London that this Clause can be justified. The Government will find that they make no mistake by treating the City of London as an exception. It is true that the population in the Census is about 27,000 and the electors 30,000, but the fact that you treat by this proposal the City of London as an exceptional case will not prejudice your position later when you come to treat it in a Redistribution
648
scheme, because even then the Government will be obliged to treat this constituency as an exception, and they will also find that they will have to treat one other constituency, namely, Orkney and Shetland, in the same way, and those two seats will balance one another, and you will lose nothing by treating the City of London in the way which is suggested by this Clause. I know the right hon. Gentleman opposite can appreciate the point of view of the historical interest, and I hope he will not close his mind and shut the door to this very reasonable Clause.
Sir P. MAGNUS: I should like to use one argument in favour of this Clause in addition to the many arguments that have been used. It does not seem to me necessary to add arguments in this matter, because those already adduced have not really been answered. The Solicitor-General made a sort of attempt to answer some of the arguments, but I think it will be generally admitted that he signally failed. The hon. Baronet who has just spoken is the only hon. Member opposite who has attempted to support the Government in the opposition which is being taken to this Clause. The real argument in favour of the Clause we are now considering is that the City of London affords an exception different to every other city in the United Kingdom. One reason only is sufficient to mark its exceptional character, and it is that the number of electors is greatly in excess of the whole population of the city, and I do not think that is true of any other city. A large proportion of them are plural voters. The number of plural voters in the City of London is enormously in excess of the number in any other city. The Solicitor-General, in his arguments, both as regards university representation and the City of London, pointed out that the electors were men of considerable position and of great influence, and he said that was certainly a reason for not giving them an additional vote, because by that influence they had more political power than those who had less influence. I need not say that if that argument were carried to its legitimate conclusion you would take away from anybody with any education the vote already given, and leave the votes entirely in the hands of persons who were uninfluential, and at the same time unintelligent.
I want to draw attention to one fact which has not been brought out in any of the speeches made by my hon. Friends on

649
this side, and it is that there is no doubt whatever in my mind that at a General Election very great pressure would be put upon the electors in the City of London to vote in the constituency in which they reside rather than in the city itself, on account of the fact that it will be said the candidate; for the city is perfectly safe, and therefore the vote might be given for a candidate in some other constituency which is not considered safe, with the result that the Members for the City of London, at the General Election, might be returned by the caretakers and the small clerks and other persons who are the only residents in the city. What will happen at a by-election when every voter in the City of London will be able to vote? On that occasion every one of the 30,000 voters would be able to vote, and it is more than probable that the elect of the caretakers and clerks at the General Election would not be the elect of the 30,000 at a by-election. The result of the General Election might be altered at any time by a by-election, not on account of the change in the political opinions of the electors, but because a different set of electors would vote. Where you have a constituency such as the City of London or university constituency, where the number of plural voters is out of proportion to the other voters there is a case for exceptional treatment which ought to be considered by the Government. The City of London is one of those cases, and I trust that this Clause will be carried.
Sir FREDERICK LOW: I agree that it is a blot on this Bill that it does not apply to by-elections, and if the hon. Member opposite had proposed an Amendment to extend the Rill to by-elections I should certainly have endeavoured to give him what support I could.
Sir P. MAGNUS: Why does the hon. Member not propose such an Amendment himself?
Sir F. LOW: Because I think the hon. Gentlemen who has just interrupted me could do it much better. My object in rising was not altogether to refer to that part of the Bill. No doubt this measure does not go as far as some of us would like. But the principle, as I understand from the observations from the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London, that plural voting should be abolished has been accepted on the Second Reading of the Bill, and, that being so, I am entirely
650
unable to follow the argument that, having accepted the principle of the abolition of plural voting, you are to select the most plural voting places there are, and exempt them from the operations of the Bill. It may be an argument having great force, but it is certainly an argument I am totally unable to follow. There is another aspect of the case which has been presented and pressed, and it is this: In some way the electorate of the City of London is different in quality from the electorate of any other place. I can speak with some experience in this matter, because for some years it was part of my duty to make out the list and assist in revising the list, not as revising barrister but in another capacity, for one of the important wards in the City of London, and I venture to say that it is a total misapprehension to say that, on the whole, the electorate of the City of London is different in quality from the electorate of any other place.
The vast number of the great interests of the City of London are represented by corporations and by companies who get no vote at all. The vast number of the great interests in the City of London are vested in corporate bodies who get no representation. That may be a wrong thing, and it may require remedy—I say nothing about that—but it is a fact that, they do not got representation on the electoral roll. On the other hand, a very large number indeed of the electors of the City of London consist of comparatively very small people who represent various country business houses, very often having one room or the share of a room up several flights of stairs, and who are in no sense to be distinguished either for education or for anything else from the bulk of the electors in the other great constituencies of the country, or in any of the other great constituencies in the Metropolis. It is true, of course, that among the electors of the City of London, there are big people, but there are also a great many small people, and, besides that, there are a great many barristers in the Temple. The result of this Amendment would be to give those barristers in the Temple two votes, but the barristers in Grays Inn who vote, I believe, in the Holborn Division, and the barristers in Lincoln's Inn, who I suppose are equal in education and political aptitude to the barristers in the Temple, would be still left with one vote. One could go on pointing out anomalies which would arise from this Amendment for a very long time, but the gist of what I want to put

651
before the House is that there is really no sound foundation for saying that the electorate of the City of London is by education or political aptitude of any different quality from the electorate of other great cities and constituencies, and, therefore, I shall use every endeavour to oppose this Amendment.
Mr. MORTON: The Liberal Association of the City of London, of which I have been a Member for many years, are in favour of the City being treated differently from other constituencies. It is well known that there is no district in the country comparable with the City of London. People cannot possibly reside there because the ground and the buildings are wanted for business purposes. I should have thought myself that the Government would have been only too glad to recognise the importance of the City of London, and would not simply hand it over to two or three thousand caretakers. It is quite true that under this Bill the plural voter can keep his City vote by giving up his other votes, but under the Bill brought in last year they would very likely have lost it altogether, and in any case I should like to ask the House to consider the greatness of the City of London in business and in trade. Everybody in this country ought, in my opinion, to be proud of the City of London. There is not much of party politics in the City at all; it is more a question of business and business arrangements than anything else, and the City Members are not asked to pledge themselves to anything except the preservation of the ancient rights and privileges of the City. It is most extraordinary, but the Liberal party have coolly handed it over to the Tory party, because it is really a Liberal constituency. They have done so because they want to destroy all those old privileges, which really constitute Home Rule and are democratic. We Liberals consequently have lost the City as a Liberal constituency. It is very clever, no doubt, of the Tory party to have granted everything to the City of London that they have refused to everybody else. It is a curious thing that while the City Members have pledged themselves to support the ancient rights and privileges of the City of London, they have refused similar rights and privileges entirely to any other constituency.
I do not suppose it is any good my speaking or trying to represent the Liberal Association of the City of London in this matter, but the Government ought
652
to remember that the deputation which waited upon the right hon. Gentleman last autumn and asked him that the city should be exempt was quite united. The Liberal party in London are as anxious as the Tory party to see this old and valuable constituency preserved. The City mainly represents, of course, the money interest and the trade interest of all the world, and I should be sorry, as a Liberal, to refuse to acknowledge the great position of the city in trade and commerce all over the world. It is a constituency that you might fairly treat in a different manner from any other district in the United Kingdom, and I trust the Liberal party will give up its policy of destroying all that is democratic in the City of London. If Ireland had been able to get the same privileges as the City of London enjoys there would be no question of Home Rule, because we have had it in the City of London for many years. I do trust that the Government will try and realise that it is a democratic constituency. The people, the little shopkeepers if you like, have made the City of London what it is. It has been made by the people, and it is not simply an English district, because Scotland has had as much to do as any other nationality in making the City of London. My hon. Friends seem willing for some reason to destroy the City of London and everything that is democratic about it, but I do not want to do so. I want to keep everything that has worked well for the last six hundred years, and consequently I shall have pleasure in again voting for this new Clause.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but on this occasion I am glad to follow him, and to express my concurrence in much of what he has said. I do not think that there has been any attempt made to answer the case which has been put by the hon. Gentleman and by several of my hon. Friends. The defence put forward by the Government and their supporters, as far as I can gather, is twofold. In the first place, they say that this, by its title and on the face of it, is a Bill to prevent any man from voting more than once at a General Election, and, that being so, they cannot make any exceptions. One man is as good as another. Men, as my hon. Friend beside me said, are treated like children at a school treat; they must each have the same amount of the good things that are to be distributed. That

653
is the line of the Solicitor-General. Is that really the ground that ought to be taken in this House? The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Cawley) and the hon. Member (Sir F. Low) carried it a step further. They attempted to show that neither in political nor any other form of intelligence did the electors of the City of London surpass the intelligence of those of their own constituencies. I do not believe that it would be a very fruitful subject of inquiry to ascertain who has the most intelligent constituency. In such a case, each of us would plump for himself.
Sir F. CAWLEY: I said that it was a plea put forward on that side of the House.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon. The plea which has been put forward from this side of the House has never been answered, and nobody has attempted to answer it. The plea is not that the elector in the city is more intelligent than the elecor elsewhere, but that the City of London has a corporate existence deeply rooted in our history, that it has contributed much to our history, that it is historically distinct from, any other electorate community within the country, and remains so distinct to-day. Is there a man who outside this House would not recognise, in almost any respect in which it might be claimed for it, the peculiar position of the City of London? I do not think there is a man on those benches who, if asked to compare the City of London with other places, would deny that the city holds a position which no other constituency and no other town in the Kingdom holds. It is only within this House, and when we are discussing this particular Bill, that we pretend the City of London is nothing but a chance aggregation of men, having no peculiarities, no special relation to our history, and no corporate or continuous existence of its own. What we ask you to recognise is not the special intelligence of a particular elector, or the higher average intelligence of the electors of one constituency rather than of another, but the great historic fact of the position which the City of London holds in this country and, indeed, in the world. Can anyone think that if, as a result of this Bill, you got what is called a representation of the caretakers of the City of London, as distinct from the great financial interests which centre there, you would make any improvement in our electoral system or any improvement in this House? Would you not be making both poorer? Would you not be sacrificing
654
something which it would be your desire to retain? The city has so strong a corporate feeling that I believe if you disfranchised everybody in the City of London except the caretakers, my two Friends who now represent that city would still be returned. But that is only because of this corporate feeling in the city, and of the special feeling which your whole argument denies, that the city holds a peculiar position to which I invite the House to pay attention.
The other answer we have received from the opposite side was given by the Solicitor-General, who admitted that, if by refusing this Clause you were to alter the character of the city representation, and if you were to put it in the hands of people who are indeed resident in the city but who in no sense are representative of the great affairs which centre there, it would be a misfortune. But he consoles himself and us by saying that there are so many that there will always be found a majority who will prefer to give their votes in the city so as to keep up the character of the city representation. If that is your consolation and your hope, why leave anything to chance? Why not recognise that which everyone outside this particular discussion does recognise, that the city stands by itself and that it has no parallel elsewhere. We should make our House poorer and our electoral system less representative if we did not have special representation of that historic corporate body of people. However you manipulated the electorate of the City of London that feeling would still find expression. After all, it is but a comparatively short time ago that men engaged in business in the city to a very large extent, lived within its boundaries. My own great-grandfather lived and died over his warehouse in Milk Street, Cheap-side. It is the aggregation of business which has made it no longer possible for a man now doing business in the City of London to live within its boundaries. He has to look elsewhere for his home. But the corporate character of the City of London is still maintained, and I say with the Solicitor-General that it ought to be represented here, and we ought to make certain that it is represented. One of my hon. Friends has said that the proper time to make an exception to your Bill is when you are dealing with an exceptional case. Does anybody seriously pretend that if you make an exception in the case of the City of London you would be unable to resist an appeal from Birmingham, or Manchester, or Glasgow for like treatment. I have great pride in the city of my

655
birth, but I venture to say that whether one comes from Birmingham, or Manchester, or Liverpool, or Glasgow, one can find nothing which rivals or compares with the historic position of the City of London. Our representative system ought not merely to count heads. It ought to look for representation of that which makes the life of the nation or of a community within the nation. If you look only at the number of heads, if you count only the number of voters, if you take no count of the communities with which you are dealing and to which you are seeking to give representation, then you will not get an actual representation of public opinion, and, in consequence, you will have a poorer House of Commons.
Mr. J. ROWLANDS: To my mind the whole arguments of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherlandshire (Mr. Morton) and other speakers are absolutely fallacious. This question has nothing whatever to do with the corporate existence of the City of London. It is quite true that last year that corporate system was in danger, and that was the time when the Liberal Association of the city sent a deputation to the Prime Minister.
Mr. MORTON: We went to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education.
Mr. ROWLANDS: I gave you credit for going one step higher. Under the Bill of last year there was a different principle at stake. By it it was proposed to give the right of selection to persons as to where they would vote. We have heard a, great deal about that. I am myself a freeman of one of the largest and wealthiest city companies, which takes a great deal of interest in the well-being of the city. I say that those who have pride in the historic continuity of the city will give their votes in the City of London. But this Resolution says that not only are they to be at liberty to give their votes in the city, they are to be enabled to vote in some other constituency that has nothing to do with the corporate existence of the City of London. Hon. Members who support this proposal are asking the House to make an exception in favour of those who have a dual qualification; who have a vote in the City of London and who also have a vote for a residence outside. It
656
is claimed on behalf of the liverymen of the city that they shall have the right, not to vote in the City of London, because they already have that right, but that they shall also be able to vote in one of the constituencies in the Home Counties within twenty-five miles of the city. This is an endeavour to give them exceptional rights in constituencies just outside the city; to enable them to vote in one of those constituencies, and then come up. to the city and vote there. That is the result of the arguments used by those who have pleaded so strongly with regard to the exceptional position of the city. I endorse all that the hon. and learned Member for Norwich (Sir F. Low) has said about the bulk of voters in the city. But there is not one of the right hon. or hon. Gentlemen who have spoken who can say exactly where the boundaries of the city are, and when they are crossing the boundary line between the City and a neighbouring constituency—the overflow of industry and the extension of the business of financial houses has forced so many beyond the one square mile which constitutes the City of London. If this Bill had been on the same lines as that of last year, if it had insisted on a residential qualification which took away the right of selection, the whole arguments to which we have just listened would be pertinent. But under this Bill they are not pleading that they shall have the right to vote in the city. What they want is the power to vote in the Home Counties where they reside. I think the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of this Bill and the Government would be acting unjustly to the rest of the country unless they resisted this proposal.
Mr. DENNISS: It seems to me that the natural and inevitable consequence of this Bill must be that the Corporation of the City of London will be affected, because if plural voting is wrong in principle in political affairs, it will not be very long before the principle of this Bill is brought into operation with regard to municipal affairs, and those who are interested in the Corporation of the City of London and in the local affairs of the city will have to choose between voting in municipal matters in the places where they live or in the City of London, where they carry on their business. Therefore, it is not right to suggest, as an hon. Member has just done, that the Corporation of the City of London cannot be affected by the Bill. It must be only a question of time, if this Bill is carried.

657
when the City of London will be placed municipally in the same position as it is now proposed to place it politically. I have had a vote for the City of London for the last thirty-five years, as well as a vote in my own constituency, and I do not think it can be said that because Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn happen to be without the city while the Temple happens to be
within the city, that that is any reason why the proposal before the House should not be carried.
Question put, "That the Clause be read: a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 280.
Mr. SPEAKER: The next Clause, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. Charles. Bathurst)—(Onus upon Defendant to Prove Innocent Intent) —ought to come as an Amendment to Sub-section (3) of Clause 1.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Names of Plural Voters to be Ascertained by Local Government Board.)
The officer responsible for the printing of the Parliamentary register in each constituency shall, as soon as such register is printed, send a copy of the register to the Local Government Board, and it shall be the duty of the Local Government Board to forthwith compare all such registers, and to mark the names of all plural voters with a distinguishing mark The register so marked shall be sent on or before the thirty-first day of December in each year to the returning officer of the constituency for which it was compiled.
New Clause brought up and read a first time.
Mr. BARNSTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
Although this Clause embraces a matter of some importance, I only propose to detain the House for a few moments while I endeavour to point out its advantages. I may say, perhaps, without offence, that while the name of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board is on the back of the Bill, we have hardly seen him in the House during its discussion, and I think he might have been present when a Clause is proposed concerned with the office he represents. I advocate this Clause for these reasons: So far as I know, if the Bill is passed as it now stands, no one will really know how many effective electors there are in any one constituency at a General Election. There is another point, which is a question of expenditure. If this Clause were passed, it would enable us to limit the expenditure in proportion to the number of effective voters, and not have it swollen by sham electors. By sham electors, I mean electors who are on the register but who are not able to vote. If the Bill passes as it now stands, there must be obviously a great confusion, and there will undoubtedly be a great scramble among all election agents on all sides. So far as this Clause decreases that confusion and scrambling, I recommend it to the House. Work of this sort, which inevitably will have to be done in every constituency, should be done by some official public authority, and should
662
not be placed, as it will be, on the backs or in the hands of private individuals.
Mr. HOHLER: I beg to second the Motion. The new Clause will greatly strengthen the Bill. At present the Bill provides that the presiding officer may put a question to the voter as to whether or not he has yet voted. That provision will lead to hopeless confusion, which this Clause will tend to remove, for the presiding officer will have before him a register properly marked, which will show at a glance who are the plural voters, and he will, therefore, have the material which will at once direct his attention to the fact that the man was likely to be transgressing an Act of Parliament which involves serious responsibilities and penalties. As at present drawn, the Bill contains nothing to attract the attention of anybody as to whether or not an offence has been committed. Therefore, this Clause would improve the Bill. It will not involve much trouble to the Local Government Board, because these voters will generally, or almost invariably, be found among the ownership class, consequently a comparison can easily be made and the register easily marked. It would be of value to the voter himself, because this Bill in principle simply provides that he is only to vote once, and as elections are not held all on one day, a man might be quite ignorant as to where he was registered. He might be registered in regard to ownership, and be quite ignorant of it until within a few days of the election. If he could easily ascertain that he was registered twice, he could easily make up his mind where to vote.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. PEASE: The hon. Member who moved this new Clause dwelt upon the importance of an accurate knowledge of the numbers who can vote in each constituency, and he alluded to the possibility of political agents and candidates scrambling after the plural voters. I suggest to him and to the House that this difficulty will be far better overcome by the simplification of the qualification in some such way as was suggested in the Bill I introduced last year. I think that the time cannot be long deferred when all anomalies connected with qualification will disappear, and the difficulties which the hon. Member has pointed out will disappear at the same time. The proposal the hon. Member makes is, in the opinion of the Government, outside the whole idea of the Bill, and, in addition, we regard it as

663
quite unworkable. It seems to us to be much more associated with the reform of our registration laws, and it would be really quite impossible to carry it out without a very large and wholesale reform and alteration of our existing registration laws. May I just give the House an instance. First of all, it is proposed that the official responsible for the printing of the register should send the register, when printed, in the first instance, to the Local Government Board. That, of course, need not involve great expense. The very fact that some alteration has to be subsequently effected, and certain names starred, would involve further printing and further delay, and would be inconvenient, as well as possibly somewhat expensive. The new proposal is that the Local Government Board should be called upon to distinguish between individuals who have the same name and to ascertain whether the individuals who possess the same name in different constituencies are one and the same person. In addition to that they would always have to verify an individual whose name appeared on the register not quite accurately. A name sometimes does not appear accurately printed. Sometimes an initial is left out and sometimes the individual who has the right, to vote goes by a different name from that which actually appears upon the register. All these are points which have to be ascertained.
It would be impossible for John Robinson who lives in Tynemouth to be proved to be the same John Robinson who lives, say, in Teignmouth, at the other end of the Kingdom, or that John Smith, who perhaps is on the register in Camborne, is the same John Smith who is on the register in the Cleveland Division. If I take Scotland let me take the name of Donald Lamont, who might be a voter for the University of Aberdeen, and there blight be another Donald Lamont at St. Andrews, or Sandy Macpherson with a vote at Dunbar, and another Sandy Macpherson with a vote at Dunblane. Take the case of Ireland. Is Timothy O'Brien, of Ballybunnian to be distinguished from Timothy O'Brien, of Ballina, or Patrick Murphy, of Wexford, from Patrick Murphy, of Waterford. If we come to Wales the difficulty would be still much greater. How can the staff of the Local Government Board be expected to distinguish between the John Jones at Abergavenny, and John Jones at Aberys-
664
twith, or Robert Roberts, or Thomas Thomas, or all the other Welsh names and the unpronounceable Welsh places in which they live? Heaven help the Local Government Board staff if they are to try and make the register an accurate reflection of the plural voters in the country by merely comparing their names! There is no appeal from the Local Government Board under the Clause, and undoubtedly great injustice will be created in the event of the Local Government Board endeavouring to carry out this direction. They would have, in order to do the work properly, to increase their staff. It would be, in my judgment, a further public charge, and on that ground I should have thought the Amendment might possibly be out of order. It seems to me it will be absolutely impossible to do it without a very great increase in the staff. Hon. Members opposite are always complaining against us for increasing the public staff in order to carry out legislation, and they are making a proposal which will very largely increase the staff of the Local Government Board if this work is to be effectively done. It cannot, under the provisions of this Bill, be effectively done. It is quite unworkable in our opinion. If it was passed it would be no help to the various officers concerned. The registration officials under the provisions of this Bill can carry out their work without any such help as is suggested by this new Clause. For these reasons the Government must resist the Amendment, and I trust, after what I have said, hon. Members opposite will not think it necessary to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has waxed very eloquent in showing the House what immense difficulties there would be in carrying out the terms of this new Clause, but what creates these difficulties? He said in the early part of his speech that those difficulties would be removed when some further legislation was introduced, which could not be much longer deferred. Does it not strike the right hon. Gentleman that it is better not to pass Bills of this kind which create difficulties until you are prepared at the same time to introduce Clauses to the notice of the House which will deal with the difficulties which are thus created? It would certainly be difficult to carry out the provisions of this Clause, but it simply means that by the Bill those very difficulties, or difficulties very much akin to them, are

665
thrown upon agents and candidates. Private expenditure and private efforts, I suppose, will have to trace these voters, and to identify them, whatever their names may be. I do not know what is the standard of education at the Local Government Board, but I should not think it would be very difficult, even for the officials of the Local Government Board, to distinguish between Tynemouth in Northumberland and Teignmouth in Devonshire. If that is a specimen of the insuperable difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman brought before the House it was rather thin.
Mr. PEASE: The point is that the individuals have the same name. It was only a, coincidence that I took Teignmouth. It was not necessary for my illustration that the places should have the same name, but that the individuals should have the same name.
Mr. PRETYMAN: This Amendment may not meet the difficulty altogether—I do not think it would—but the excuse for that is that it is the best which can be suggested to meet the chaos which the Bill is creating. The right hon. Gentleman says very truly that the Amendment rather deals with Redistribution—and that is why it has to be a new Clause, because it is, to a certain extent, outside the Bill—than with the question of actual voting. Why is it in order? Because the Bill, although it only actually deals directly with the question of voting, indirectly very much affects the question of Redistribution; therefore it is impossible to consider the Bill without being obliged also to consider new Clauses which will endeavour, to some extent, to remedy the confusion in the methods of voting and in the cost of elections which will be introduced by the Bill. Is not the fact that the limit of election expenses allowed to any candidate is directly proportionate to the number of voters upon the register? Are you going to let that stand? What will be the real number on the register under the Bill for the City of London? There are 30,000 voters now, and out of those you have no certainty that there will be more than two or three thousand who will vote. They have all the right to vote there now without leaving their vote anywhere else, but the real number of voters who will probably exercise the franchise in many constituencies will be very largely affected by this Bill. Why do you introduce it if it is not that? Let us put it on another
666
ground. I believe it is merely a matter of arithmetic that over half a million voters are going to be disfranchised by the Bill. They will all have their names still upon the register and will all count in the matter of the calculation of the limit of election expenses. That appears to me to very much affect the Amendment. Is there to be no machinery to deal with that point at all? Are these 500,000 voters still to remain on the register from the point oil view of the expense entailed upon candidates, while they are to be removed from the register from the point of view of giving an effective vote? But the Government do not seem to care. They care nothing as long as they can get a certain number of votes, which are now presumably given against them—as long as they can get them all, let the incidental consequences be what they may to other people. Some Bill is going to be brought in at some future time which will put all these things right. Is that the way to legislate, to bring in a one-Clause Bill simply to meet the exigencies of the situation, a Bill which is admittedly dealing only with one small feature of the problem, which is going to make the problem more difficult, more complicated, more intricate from every single point of view, but which will simply meet the Government's necessities for the moment, both as to the time to be allowed for discussing it and as to its results when passed? When we introduce a Clause to deal to some extent with the difficulties which they are creating we are held up to ridicule as proposing something which is quite impracticable. That really does not seem to me to be the fair way of dealing with the House of Commons. We admit that this new Clause is imperfect. You point out that it is very difficult to carry it out. We are not responsible for the trouble which the Bill is going to create. You are responsible for it, and, if you do not like this Clause, take it merely as representing a difficulty which you have created, and propose some other Clause of your own which is better and which will put the trouble right.
Under this Bill the most savage penalties are going to be inflicted on every plural voter who asks for a ballot paper twice. Surely it is the bounden duty of the Government to reduce that risk to the smallest possible proportion, so that the name of every plural voter may be starred. The Clause simply means that plural voters shall be starred exactly in the same

667
way as the names of voters who have qualifications in different wards of the same borough. That would obviously make an immense difference to the voter and to the returning officer and to the officer in charge of any polling station. He will have his list of names, and if he sees that a particular voter's name is starred as a plural voter, when the voter comes in he will have an opportunity of cautioning him and letting him know that he may only vote once. The actual results of a Bill passed in this way cannot be known to everyone, and it may have the result of frightening people so that they will not dare to vote at all. We want to minimise that risk and make the path of the plural voter as easy as possible, instead of making it as difficult as possible. The answer which has been given from the Front Bench is really no answer at all, and the only possible means by which this Amendment can be resisted, imperfect as it is, is that the Government should propose a better one themselves.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite is under a misapprehension as to the proposals of the Bill. He told the House that under it 500,000 voters are going to be disfranchised. As a matter of fact, there is no disfranchisement at all. Not one of them is removed from the register. Every man, wherever he has a qualification, remains on the register as a potential voter and an effective voter until the last moment in any constituency where he may happen to have got his name on the register, and the intention of this Bill is to leave the elector his free choice up to the last moment. The hon. Member said it should be the desire of the House to make the path of the plural voter easy. It is our desire to make the path of the plural voter easy up to the time of a General Election, just as it is our desire to make the path of any voter as easy as possible. Really the suggestion in this Clause is the most impossible that could be put before Parliament. Just imagine the clerks at the Local Government Board comparing 650 registers in the case of every single name! Even with an army of archangels you could not really attempt to arrive at a decision as to whether Mr. Brown in one constituency is the same gentleman as the Mr. Brown in any one of the other 599 or 600 volumes. You would have to search through all the
668
other registers until you came to the name of Mr. Brown. Again, when you came a few lines lower down to the name of Mr. Jones, you would have to search the 600 registers as before, and then, upon the information accidentally ascertained in this way, one of the clerks at the Local Government Board has to give his decision as to whether Mr. Jones is to be starred in any or all of the other registers. That interesting information is demanded from a Government office. The hon. Member says it was not found difficult to star the duplicate voters in the large towns. It is not easy in the large towns, but it is rendered possible by the fact that the register is revised by a single revising barrister. If you can get a clerk at the Local Government Board to perform for the United Kingdom what one revising barrister can perform for a large borough, you put the staff of the Local Government Board on a higher plane of brilliancy and intelligence than ever their devoted chief would claim for them. We hope that the House will not think it necessary to waste, or, I should rather say, employ, any more time in discussing' the Clause.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: I agree that the Clause woul4 not at all be an easy one to work, and I am glad that I am not the only one who objects to it on that ground. If the Clause is so absolutely impossible, how did the President of the Board of Education arrive at his estimate of the number of plural voters in the United Kingdom? He must have made a calculation of some sort. He must have had some reliable facts and figures to go upon. Has he counted the Browns and the Jones's in the different parts of the United Kingdom? He must have had some ground for this estimate, and I wish he were here to explain how he arrived at it. If the Government, through one of their departments, do not make it possible to ascertain who are plural voters, somebody has got to do it. How are you going to detect plural voters? You may accuse a man of being a plural voter, but how are you to know that he is? What will happen will be that the party agents in each division will try to make out lists of the plural voters, so that you are really putting all the expense and labour of getting these lists on the backs of the different parties. I thought it was the ambition of hon. Gentlemen opposite that poor men should get to the House of Commons. By passing this Bill you are

669
not only depriving many people of votes, but you are also imposing great expense in connection with the work of registration. Although the Clause may not be perfect, I say it is the duty of the Government to make this a workable measure, and to bring forward some Clause which will produce an authoritative list of plural voters without imposing a heavy charge upon Members of Parliament at elections. I think the point raised by my hon. Friend as to election expenses is a very important one. There, again, the Bill does not make it easier for a poor man to get into the House of Commons if you say that his opponent may spend up to the limit allowed for the total number of voters on the register. I believe the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) spends a large sum of money in trying to persuade the electors of the City of London to vote for him—quite legitimately—and, so far, he has been successful. It does not make it easier for a poor man to oppose him in the City of London if he knows that my hon. Friend may spend several hundred pounds in putting his views before the electors, while the poor man can only spend £200. Both these points are very germane in the passing of an effective Plural Voting Bill, and even if this Clause is not perfect, I think a Clause of a similar nature will have to be put in to make the Bill workable.
Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I think this Debate has shown some of the absolutely ridiculous results which will accrue from the passing of this Bill. I do not support the Clause with anything like enthusiasm, for I think if it is passed, it will not improve the working of the Bill. Therefore, it does not appeal to me. I see the difficulty of distinguishing between the Browns and the Jones's and the Smiths, but surely that difficulty could be got over if you forced a man to give intimation of the places in which he has a vote, or to say whether he is a plural voter or not. You must do something of that kind for this reason: If you do not give the officer in charge of the polling booth some list of the names which will help him to know whether those who ask for ballot papers are plural voters or not, this is the sort of thing that is going to happen. A question has to be put to the would-be elector under Section 2. A gentleman goes in to register his vote. Very often electors are hard of hearing, and this is the sort of conversation that will take place. The officer says: "Have you already voted?"
670
"What?" says the voter. "Have you already voted?" shouts the gentleman in charge, and the voter replies, "That is what I have come here for." "No, no," says the officer, "have you already voted in any constituency during this General Election?" and so the shouting will go on, until, at the end of a long period the poor voter will be allowed to vote, saying "I do not know what the gentleman means." Unless you put this Clause or some similar Clause in the Bill, a great deal of time and temper will be wasted in the case of those who desire to record their votes. I do hope that some machinery will be provided by the Bill to avoid the inconveniences I have described.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I would like to offer my congratulations to the Secretary for the Colonies on the speech which he made. It is the first speech I have heard during any of the proceedings on the Bill which has attempted to meet the arguments advanced from this-side of the House. Not only is it the first speech which has attempted to meet the arguments, but it did meet them conclusively. Therefore, I take the opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on having more or less disposed of the Clause as it stands at present. While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, I was thinking over the course I should have to take. It is not often that speeches in this House turn votes. I was almost inclined to believe that I would form the one exception during recent years, but on thinking the matter over quietly while my hon. Friends were speaking, I came to the conclusion that I must not act hastily, and that it would be perfectly wise and proper to vote for the new Clause for this reason: Though I still think that the right hon. Gentleman has completely demolished the arguments for the Clause, he in his speech set up another obstacle which I cannot surmount. He has shown that some Clause of this sort is necessary, and yet he has not shown what would be the proper form of Clause to put in its place. He has shown that there are great failings in the Bill, and, therefore, I think that the simplest plan would be to withdraw it and bring in another Bill which will be workable when it becomes law.
Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 281.

Division No. 190.]

AYES.

[5.43 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Mount, William Arthur

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Forster, Henry William

Newdegate, F. A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Gibbs, G. A.

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

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Baird, J. L.

Goldsmith, Frank

Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Baldwin, Stanley

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Grant, J. A.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington),

Barnston, Harry

Greene, W. R.

Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Gretton, John

Perkins, Walter F.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

Pretyman, Ernest George

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bird, Alfred

Harris, Henry Percy

Rothschild, Lionel de

Blair Reginald

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Sandys, G. J.

Boyton, James

Hills, John Waller

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Stanier, Beville

Burgoyne, A. H.

Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Starkey, John R.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Horner, Andrew Long

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Butcher, John George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

Hurne-Williams, William Ellis

Swift, Rigby

Campion, W. R.

Hunt, Rowland

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Cassel, Felix

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Cautley, H. S.

Ingleby, Holcombe

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

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

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kerry, Earl of

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

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Touche, George Alexander

Clyde, J. Avon

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

Valentia, Viscount

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Lewisham, Viscount

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

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

Welgall, Captain A. G.

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Dairymple, Viscount

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

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

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Denison-Pender, J. C.

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Denniss, E. R. B.

Mackinder, H. J.

Wolmer, Viscount

Dixon, C. H.

Macmaster, Donald

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Duncannon, Viscount

M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

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

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Falle, Bertram Godlray

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Fell, Arthur

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

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Earl of Ronaldshay and Sir H. Samuel.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Boland, John Pius

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Agnew, Sir George William

Barnes, George N.

Bowerman, Charles W.

Alden, Percy

Barton, William

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Brace, William

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

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Armitage, Robert

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Arnold, Sydney

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

Bryce, J. Annan

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Bentham, G. J.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

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

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Chancellor, Henry George

Jowett, Frederick William

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

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Joyce, Michael

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Clancy, John Joseph

Keating, Matthew

Pringle, William M. R.

Clough, William

Kellaway, Frederick George

Radford, G. H.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kelly, Edward

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Cotton, William Francis

Kilbride, Denis

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Cowan, W. H.

King, Joseph

Reddy, Michael

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Crooks, William

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Crumley, Patrick

Lardner, James C. R.

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Cullinan, John

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

Leach, Sir Charles

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Robinson, Sidney

Dawes, James Arthur

Lundon, Thomas

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

De Forest, Baron

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Delany, William

Lynch, A. A.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Rowlands, James

Devlin, Joseph

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Rowntree, Arnold

Dickinson, W. H.

McGhee, Richard

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Dillon, John

Maclean, Donald

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

Donelan, Captain A.

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

Scanlan, Thomas

Doris, William

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

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Duffy, William J.

Macpherson, James Ian

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

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sheehy, David

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Shortt, Edward

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Elverston, Sir Harold

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

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperay, N.)

M Micking. Major Gilbert

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Manfield, Harry

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim. S.)

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Snowden, Philip

Esslemont, George Birnie

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Meagher, Michael

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Ffrench, Peter

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Field, William

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

Sutherland, John E.

Fitzgibbon, John

Menzies, Sir Walter

Sutton, John E.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Millar, James Duncan

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Molloy, Michael

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Molteno, Percy Alport

Tennant, Harold John

Ginnell, Laurence

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Thomas, J. H.

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Mooney, John J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Glanville, Harold James

Morgan, George Hay

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morrell, Philip

Toulmin, Sir George

Goldstone, Frank

Morison, Hector

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Muldoon, John

Verney, Sir Harry

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Munro, Robert

Wadsworth, John

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Murphy, Martin J.

Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Walton, Sir Joseph

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wardle, George J.

Hackett, John

Nolan, Joseph

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Hancock, John George

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Nuttall, Harry

Webb, H.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Doherty, Philip

Whitehouse, John Howard

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Donnell, Thomas

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

Wiles, Thomas

Hazleton, Richard

O'Grady, James

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Malley, William

Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

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

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

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

O'Shee, James John

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

Higham, John Sharp

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hodge, John

Outhwaite, R. L.

Wing, Thomas Edward

Hogge, James Myles

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Parker, James (Halifax)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Parry, Thomas H.

Young, William (Perth, East)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

John, Edward Thomas

Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

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

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Pointer, Joseph

Division No. 191]

AYES.

[6.28 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gardner, Ernest

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Goldsmith, Frank

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Astor, Waldorf

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

Baird, John Lawrence

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Perkins, Walter Frank

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

Grant, J. A.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greene, Walter Raymond

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

Gretton, John

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts. Wilton)

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

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

Rolleston, Sir John

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Harris, Henry Percy

Rothschild, Lionel de

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Blair, Reginald

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Sandys, G. J.

Boyton, James

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Bridgeman, William Clive

Horner, A. L.

Stanier, Beville

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Starkey, John Ralph

Butcher, John George

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Staveley-Hill, Henry

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

Ingleby, Holcombe

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Campion, W. R.

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Cassel, Felix

Kerr-Smlley, Peter Kerr

Swift, Rigby

Cautley, Henry Strother

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

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

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

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lewisham, Viscount

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Touche, George Alexander

Clyde, James Avon

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Valentia, Viscount

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

Weigall, Capt. A. G.

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Macmaster, Donald

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

Dairymple, Viscount

Magnus, Sir Philip

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Malcolm, Ian

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Denison-Pender, J. C.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Winterton, Earl

Denniss, E. R. B.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Wolmer, Viscount

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Duncannon, Viscount

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

Worthington-Evans, L.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

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

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Mount, William Arthur

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Fell, Arthur

Newdegate, F. A.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Barnston and Mr. Hohler.

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

Forster, Henry William

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Bryce, John Annan

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Dawes, J. A.

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Burke, E. Haviland-

De Forest, Baron

Agnew, Sir George William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Delany, William

Alden, Percy

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

Devlin, Joseph

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

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Dickinson, W. H.

Armitage, Robert

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dillon, John

Arnold, Sydney

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Donelan, Captain A.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Doris, William

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Chancellor, Henry George

Duffy, William J.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Chapplie, Dr. William Allen

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Barnes, George N.

Clancy, John Joseph

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Barton, William

Clough, William

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Beale, Sir William phipson

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

Cotton, William Francis

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Bentham, George Jackson

Cowan, William Henry

Esslemont, George Birnie

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Boland, John Pius

Crooks, William

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Booth, Frederick Handel

Crumley, Patrick

Ffrench, Peter

Bowerman, Charles W.

Cullinan, John

Field, William

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

Fitzgibbon, John

Brace, William

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Brocklehurst, William B.

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

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

672

673

Glnnell, Laurence

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Glanville, Harold James

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

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Goldstone, Frank

Manfield, Harry

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Robinson, Sidney

Greig, Colonel James William

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

Meagher, Michael

Roe, Sir Thomas

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rowlands, James

Hackett, John

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

Rowntree, Arneld

Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Hancock, John George

Millar, James Duncan

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Molloy, Michael

Scanlan, Thomas

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridget

Hardie, J. Keir

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Mooney, John J.

Sheehy, David

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

Morgan, George Hay

Sherwell, Arthur James

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morrell, Philip

Shortt, Edward

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Morison, Hector

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Hayden, John Patrick

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Hazleton, Richard

Muldoon, John

Smith H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Munro, Robert

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Murphy, Martin J.

Snowden, Philip

Henry, Sir Charles

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Higham, John Sharp

Nolan, Joseph

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

Hodge, John

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Hogge, James Myles

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Sutherland, John E.

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Nuttall, Harry

Sutton, John E.

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Tennant, Harold John

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

O'Doherty, Philip

Thomas, James Henry

John, Edward Thomas

O'Donnell, Thomas

Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

O'Dowd, John

Toulmin, Sir George

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Grady, James

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

O'Malley, William

Verney, Sir Harry

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

Wadsworth, John

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Walters, Sir John Tudor

Jewett, Frederick William

O'Shee, James John

Walton, Sir Joseph

Joyce, Michael

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Wardle, G. J.

Keating, Matthew

Outhwaite, R. L.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Kelly, Edward

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Parry, Thomas H.

Webb, H.

Kilbride, Denis

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

King, Joseph

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Whitehouse, John Howard

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

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

Whyte, Alexander F.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wiles, Thomas

Lardner, James C. R.

Pointer, Joseph

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Leach, Charles

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

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

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

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lundon, Thomas

Pringle, William M. R.

Wing, Thomas Edward

Lyell, Charles Henry

Radford, George Heynes

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

Lynch, A. A.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Young, William (Perth, East)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

McGhee, Richard

Reddy, Michael

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

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

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

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Macpherson, James Ian

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Commencement of Act.)
This Act shall come into force on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and
sixteen.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: I beg to propose, "That the Clause be read a second time."
No date is mentioned in this Bill on which it is to come into operation, and we
674
are entitled to assume that unless rejected by another place it will come into operation on the occasion of the next General Election. The discussion which we had upon the last Clause has been quite sufficient to prove that the Bill in its present state is by no means a workable measure for getting rid of what is known as the anomaly of plural voting. But my great objection to this Bill coming into force is that it attempts to deal with only

675
one of a great many of what may be Called anomalies. Hon. Members on both sides have described plural voting as an anomaly. For myself, I do not consider that plural voting is an anomaly, so long as you have representation of localities as the system by which we elect in this country. I quite admit that there are a great many anomalies in the plural voting system, but I do not admit that the actual system of plural voting is itself of necessity an anomaly, but there is no doubt that whether it be an anomaly or not, there are a great many other anomalies which are of a much more glaring description. The first one that comes to my mind is the unequal representation of the voters of this country. Glaring examples of over-representation and under-representation have been brought before our minds, but it is admitted on both side of the House that the question of representation and redistribution is one which very seriously needs the attention of this House. As long ago as 1902 the Prime Minister said:—
"I think that we are all agreed that the existing state of our representation as regards distribution is anomalous and indefensible, and calls for a speedy remedy."
The President of the Board of Education, in taking part in the Second Reading Debate upon this Bill, himself alluded to the anomaly of misrepresentation in this House, and his excuse for urging the House to go to a Second Reading of the Plural Voting Bill then was that it was the intention of the Government at an early date to deal with other anomalies. He went into the question at considerable length, and told the House what some of these anomalies were. He said that there was a question which the right hon. Gentleman alluded to, the question of returning officers' expenses:—
"I welcome cordially the general support which he has given to the proposal"—
and so on. Then he goes on—
"There is the question of alternative voting, the question of holding all elections on one day, of the closing of public houses, and of making the day of the General Election a general holiday. There is also the question of the Corrupt Practices Act, and the use or rather the abuse of conveyances at elections. There is the question of the extension of the hours of polling; so I might go on. All these matters are matters which the Government really regard as of importance. It is their intention to deal with these subjects in a Bill before the next General Election. If there are anomalies left in connection with plural voting, we believe that, as soon as the franchise reform is introduced, these anomalies will disappear."
Then he goes on to say—
"I hope the House will accept my word when I say it is our intention before the General Election to intro-
676
duce a measure of this kind to deal with Franchise Reform. We intend to deal with that, and we also intend to deal with Redistribution upon a basis which I believe will command the general assent of the whole country."
The right hon. Gentleman said clearly and unmistakably that in the opinion of the Government there is a large number of anomalies to be dealt with in our electoral system, and that it was the intention of the Government to deal with those before the next General Election. If that is the real and deliberate intention of the Government, they ought to accept this Clause, because it will insure that this Bill will not come into operation until these other anomalies have been dealt with. I mention the date, 1st January, 1916, because the House knows that under the Parliament Act, this Parliament must come to an end in the summer of 1915. Therefore, this Clause will enable the Government to carry out their pledge to bring in an Omnibus Bill which will deal with all these distinct matters with which they have declared their intention of dealing before the close of the present Parliament. When other Reform Bills were passed—although this is rather a pettifogging Reform Bill, yet I suppose we must call it a Reform Bill of some kind—there always followed upon any electoral reform a measure of Redistribution. I think that in 1832, Redistribution was tacked on to the actual Bill. In 1867, there was also a measure of Redistribution at the same time as there was reform, and although in 1894 Redistribution was not in the same Bill, yet a Redistribution Bill was passed before the Reform Bill of 1884 came into operation. Before you bring about any reform in regard to the electors you ought to make certain that a redistribution of scats is effected as rapidly as possible. But what is the Government doing? So far from carrying the reform of the redistribution of seats in this country, it is only making matters much worse. For instance, take Scotland. At the present moment that country is represented by a certain number of Unionists, including the university seats. The President of the Board of Education states that in Scotland there are about 55,000 plural voters, and he adds that the majority of those plural voters are Unionists. I believe they are. If you withdraw those 55,000 plural voters from the various Divisions in which voters have more than one vote, you are reducing the number who will be able to vote for Unionist candidates. The ordinary consequence would be that when an

677
election takes place under conditions exactly similar to those in which the last election took place, you will have fewer Unionist Members returned for Scotland than you have at the present moment. In the name of common sense, is that really what you mean? I believe that at the present moment Unionist electors are grossly under-represented by the number of Unionists in this House.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman's observations are not relevant to the Clause which he is now proposing. He is going too deeply into the question of what would be the result of Redistribution, or what would be the result of passing this Bill without a measure of Redistribution. The hon. Member is entitled to go into the question of this Bill being passed without any Redistribution, but he is not entitled to go into the merits of the whole question of Redistribution.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: The Government have openly enough shown their belief that the Plural Voting Bill, when passed, will give something like forty more seats to the Liberal party. They have not shown any sign of shyness about that. If they pass the Bill in its present form, without any Bill to reform other anomalies, they are really making the position very much worse than it is now; they are making it very much worse in Scotland and in England than it is now. I want the Government to bring in their scheme of reform of other anomalies before this Bill is allowed to come into operation. Of course they are in a great hurry to get the Bill through at this particular period of the Session, because they want it to become law under the Parliament Act. That of course is quite right from their party point of view; I quite appreciate their object in doing so; but it is not treating the House of Commons fairly. When the House of Commons has been told that it is the intention of the Government to deal with other anomalies, a Bill of this sort ought not to be passed until a measure dealing with the other anomalies has been also passed. It is to enable the Government to live up to their pledges that I move the Clause which stands in my name.
Mr. JAMES MASON: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sure the House will admit that in seconding the Motion, and in maintaining the view that a measure of Redistribution should be passed before the Plural Voting
678
Act comes into operation, I am certainly not acting on any selfish motive, because I should undoubtedly be one of the first victims of Redistribution. I think it is fully admitted that Redistribution is at least as great an anomaly as plural voting. The Solicitor-General represents electors, the value of whose vote is ten times as much as the value of the vote in the constituency which sends me to Parliament. I do not think anyone will deny that the value of a vote can be worth ten times as much as it is in another place.
Sir J. SIMON: By the abolition of plural voters there will be a larger reduction in my election than you will have in yours.
Mr. J. MASON: Of course the hon. and learned Gentleman will have a bigger loss out of 39,000 than I shall have out of 3,000, but whether the proportions are larger or not, I cannot of course discuss. The point I wish to make is that the value of the vote is a point which we ought to consider carefully when we are dealing with the question now before the House of one man one vote. Under the present position it is quite possible for a man who has only one vote to have actually greater voting power than a man who has several votes in different constituencies. If the plural voter happens to hold his qualification in very large constituencies it is possible that the plural voting power is of greater value than the voting power of the man with one vote in a very small constituency. The fact that these questions are so intimately bound together seems to me to support the argument for dealing with the two reforms at one and the same time. I really cannot understand what is the objection to dealing with them together. I am perfectly certain that if the question of Redistribution and plural voting had been dealt with in one and the same Bill there would have been very much less resistance to the proposal than at present. The fact of the Plural Voting Bill being proceeded with suggests that there is a purely party advantage to one party, while it continues the anomalies which affect all parties in this House. I think the greater part of our objection to dealing with the matter of plural voting is that we think that the Government propose to pass this measure for a purely party advantage, while they do not attempt to deny that there are other anomalies of an equal and greater kind which are left untouched by this Bill. But I admit that there is one

679
argument which may be used against the Amendment, and that is, if a Redistribution Bill were passed during the next year, it would come into effect before the Plural Voting Act, if this Amendment were carried—that is to say, that at an election in 1915 the Redistribution Bill, if passed next year, might possibly come into effect, while, if this Clause were carried, the Plural Voting Bill would not come into effect until 1915. But, of course, it would be perfectly possible to move an Amendment to the Bill providing that in the event of other anomalies being dealt with by another Bill that the Plural Voting Bill should come into effect at the same date as the other Bill. I think that is a possible way of dealing with the matter, and I, therefore, need say nothing more in seconding the Clause.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Clause as printed on the Paper gives no reasons for the postponement of the Act. But I think it has been sought to justify the postponement, not by most of the reasons given by hon. Members who have spoken, but on the hypothesis—shown by the attitude of the party opposite—that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like the abolition of plural voting. The attitude which they have revealed during this Debate is surely this: That they are shocked by the fact that we Liberals desire to do away with plural voters, who are mainly Conservatives, and they show that they are shocked at this outrage against political morality by doing their best to protect the plural voter. That is the issue between the two parties. They like the plural voter; we do not. They regard the plural voter as an advantage to our electoral system; we regard him as an unfair factor in our electoral system. This Clause provides that the Act shall not come into operation until 1916, but the party opposite would like to postpone it, not until 1916, but for ever. I am astonished, indeed, at the moderation of this new Clause. When I depart from those reasons for supporting the postponement of the Act to the others which were given by the hon. Member who moved this Clause, I am bound to say that I find myself most completely at a loss to understand them.
It is very noticeable in this House, and I think it is one of the testimonies to the excellence of our legislation, that the party opposite oppose our proposals, not on what is in the Bill, but on what is not
680
in the Bill. On the question of old age pensions, the subject was discussed of people who had obtained pauper relief, and when the Insurance Bill was before the House, there was a discussion about the treatment of the Post Office contributors. And, in this instance, save for the junior Member for the City of London, there has hardly been an argument in favour of plural voting; all the arguments of the Opposition have been directed to showing that we have no business to deal with one anomaly when we do not deal with a large number of others. In defence of many of the. Amendments put forward on the other side they have used the argument that half a loaf is better than no bread. I need hardly remind the House that there has been an attempt made to deal with two anomalies in this Session. A Bill which received universal assent from all parties to prolong the hours of polling has been passed through this House. And this on which we are engaged is the second Bill which was referred to by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury as one of the things that ought to be done.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: I said it was mentioned by the President of the Board of Education as one of the things which ought to be done.
7.0 P.M.
Mr. MONTAGU: Yes; and we are now proposing to abolish plural voting. It does not require the argument of the hon. Member for Windsor, or the more elaborate argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Honiton (Major Morrison-Bell) to convince the Government of the necessity of Redistribution, and as something that ought to be done; but because we cannot do everything today, why should we not do something? One of the great obstacles in the opinion of those who sit on this side of the House to carrying through a proper scheme of Redistribution, is the Act of Union, and the first step towards Redistribution has been taken by the passage of the Home Rule Bill through this House. The argument is used that until we have dealt with Redistribution we have no right to abolish the plural voter at all. It is not as if one electoral anomaly corrected and altered the other. They are wholly independent anomalies. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury talks about Conservative votes cast in Scotland, and the number of seats. There is no guarantee that when Redistribution occurs, the minority in Scotland will have more seats. His

681
argument ought to be directed at the proper time in favour of proportional representation; but it has nothing to do with this question. In fact, I am one of those who believe that the party which has most to gain from Redistribution is the party to which I belong. In the particular case quoted by the hon. Member for Windsor, we would have four Solicitor-Generals for Walthamstow, and another Member for Windsor, a clear gain of five seats to the party by Redistribution, accepting the analogy of the hon. Member. Very soon the hon. Member who has so much to do with the organisation of the Conservative party, will have an opportunity of testing whether he is right or wrong; very soon, as, the history of this country goes—[An HON. MEMBER: "How soon?" and Another HON. MEMBER: "The sooner the better"]—a short time in the history of a nation. I believe it would be impossible for anybody to mention a single electoral anomaly now existing in our system, which does not work in favour of the party opposite and against the party on these benches. Therefore, the contention that we should wait until we can deal with all of them loses its force from the fact that they cannot be held one to correct the other. The motive behind this new Clause is that the Conservative party do not desire that the abolition of plural voting shall take place before the next General Election. We believe that the plural vote has acted unfairly to the electors of this country. We never know how many voters are in favour of either side of political principles; we only know how many votes. We do not consider that is a fair way of ascertaining the opinion of the people in this country. We desire to sweep away what we consider to be one of the earlier and longest lived of our electoral injustices. I would remind the hon. Member that the inequalities of Redistribution are a far more recent injustice than that of plural voting. We desire to sweep away the injustice of plural voting as quickly as we can, and for that reason I ask the House to reject this proposal in order that the passage of this Act may not be delayed.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member who has just spoken has rather invited a Second Reading discussion by his excursions into the past history of the questions of old age pensions and insurance. I hope he will not think I fail to meet his argument fairly if I decline to travel over so wide a ground. I
682
should be in fear of incurring your displeasure, Sir, if I attempted to do such a thing. I propose only to speak about the particular new Clause which is now under, or supposed to be under, discussion. As far as the hon. Member had anything to say about that, I must say that he was delightfully frank—I think I might even say he was amazingly so. He said, "Here is a class of voter whom we dislike, whom the Liberal party dislike, as they have the audacity to cast their vote against us, and are you surprised, or is anybody surprised, or do you pretend to be shocked that under those circumstances we use every effort to sweep them off the register at once?" That is the right hon. Gentleman's idea of statesmanship and equity and fair play. By common consent of all parties we have a great number of anomalies, of which he is pleased to think that this is the worst because it has existed the longest. I think a new anomaly is always worse than an old one, and on that point, therefore, I take a view exactly opposite to that taken by the hon. Member. He thinks this one is the worst because it has existed longest, but he admits there are others, and other Members of the Government have admitted there are others which equally require our attention, and which we on this side of the House think require it even more urgently. The hon. Member said, "Do you expect us to take, a general survey of the position of the franchise and to deal with the whole subject at once? Could anything be more unreasonable?" What he recommends to be done is that they should pick and choose, and that they should redress those anomalies which tell against themselves, and that they should be indifferent to the existence of those anomalies from which they may derive advantage or not.
That is a different line from the line taken by other Members of the Ministry on previous occasions, as shown by the Mover. They have given us the assurance that though they are not prepared to put any date on that Bill, or to make any fixed date for dealing with the question, that it was their intention, before another General Election, to deal with the wider anomalies of which I have been speaking. What does the hon. Gentleman say about it? A chance word of his happened to be cheered. He spoke of the question being shortly dealt with. My hon. Friend, he said, will have the opportunity very shortly, "very soon," of finding out

683
whether, if a constituency was divided into four constituencies, we shall have four Solicitor-Generals and all of the Liberal faith. The hon. Member, surprised by the cheers which greeted the announcement that we should very soon be able to test the question, hastily corrected himself and explained that when he said "very soon" he meant a short time in the history of a nation. Do you wonder when the hon. Gentleman himself and when the Government express these pious intentions of dealing with those other anomalies very possibly in a short time, and when he explains that by "short time" he means a short time in the history of a nation, he is surprised that under those circumstances we prefer to have a date put in the Bill? Perhaps you would allow me to make a passing reference to previous legislation, not dwelling more upon it than the hon. Gentleman opposite has done. We had exactly the same pious intentions expressed at the time of the passing of the Parliament Act. There the pious intentions were even embodied in the solemn form of a Preamble.
What are such intentions worth? What effect has the Government given to them? They express them to grease the wheels of the Parliamentary machine to assist the particular proposal which they are at the moment advancing in its passage through the House. Once they have done their work they pay no further attention to them, and they are not worth anything for any practical purpose. So it is with the pious intentions now expressed that this question will be dealt with at some period not far distant in the history of the nation. The hon. Member himself, much younger than I am, may have gone to another sphere long before a promise of that kind becomes due for fulfilment. We are anxious to get to the country as soon as we can, but if these anomalies are to he redressed before we get there we would like that redress to be complete. We would suggest that, at any rate, it is a moderate claim to make that some effort should be made by the Government to do even-handed justice to both sides of the House, and that they should not attempt to seek mere party advantage by a partial and incomplete reform.
Earl WINTERTON: I happened this afternoon to read a speech of Mr. Gladstone in introducing a franchise reform Bill in 1884, and I came across a sentence in that speech in which he was dealing
684
with very much the same kind of subject matter as is contained in this Amendment. It is in such striking contra distinction to that of the Under-Secretary that I quote it. [The Noble Lord quoted a passage from the speech referred to.] That view taken by Mr. Gladstone in 1884 is, as far as I know, the view that is always taken by successive Governments of both parties in the passing of Franchise Reform Bills. They have always endeavoured to ease the gradient with which they were altering the franchise, and to remove the anomalies which they sought to remove in the least violent manner possible. The attitude of the present Government, as expressed by the Under-Secretary, is perfectly simple and plain. He has none of that regard for justice which was shown by Mr. Gladstone and by other Governments when amending the franchise. The attitude he takes up is this: That it is perfectly true that there are other anomalies such as Redistribution which he, seemed to feel quite as strongly as any of us on this side. "But," said the hon. Gentleman in effect, "what we care about is not anomalies, but how to win the next election. It does not matter how many anomalies there are, what we are here for and what we have passed the Parliament Act for, and what we are passing this Bill for is to win the next election. We are not concerned with anomalies. We only want to win elections. We want to perpetuate ourselves on the Treasury Bench in order that this country may enjoy a Government of the high model and intellectual level which the present Government has attained." That is a very simple and concise attitude heartily supported by hon. Gentlemen behind. I do not propose to waste time in dealing with that, because it is perfectly clear to the country and to the people at large that that is the only object of introducing this Bill. The hon. Gentleman says he feels strongly about Redistribution, and he made a most extraordinary statement that they were going to have four Solicitor-Generals if my hon. Friend was going to be disfranchised. He has been a Member of a Government that has been seven years in office, and during that time they have never attempted to deal with the anomaly of Redistribution. Why have they not? It is because the Government at large have not yet been convinced that it is going to help them electorally. They think this Bill is, and, therefore, they refuse to postpone its coming into force. I do not think

685
it is to the advantage of myself or anybody else to waste any time in the discussion of such a proposal, although in our history, when Governments have attempted to make violent, sudden, and quite unjustifiable changes in our electorate machinery and our franchise, they have generally come to a bad end in a very short time. I hope the Under-Secretary, with that great knowledge of constitutional history which I am sure he possesses, will study the history of the Government that came into office after 1832. He will find that many of those who supported reform then supported it on the same cynical grounds as those upon which this Bill is supported, and that that Government came to a more sticky end than almost any other Government in the last hundred years. The truth is that when we are dealing with electoral machinery cynicism does not pay.
Sir WALTER ESSEX: The charge made against us is that out of a large number of electoral anomalies we are dealing with only one—the greatest of them all—
Earl WINTERTON: Not the greatest.
Sir W. ESSEX: We think so, at any rate, but I will not quarrel over the word. That we are dealing with only one of these anomalies is not a fair argument to come from the other side of the House. The Franchise Bill of last year did attempt to correct a number of anomalies, but, unfortunately, for reasons which are within the memory of all of us, we were unable to get forward with that measure. The clamour has been that this Bill, which is a sweetly innocent and mild measure, ought not to be brought into force unless accompanied by a Redistribution Bill. Members cannot have thought out the facts of the case when they make that claim. I doubt whether Members opposite are more enthusiastic in their desire to see satisfactory even-handed Redistribution proposals carried into law than we are on this side. But you cannot have that until you have settled with the Home Rule Bill, which will affect a considerable number of the present Members of the House. You cannot have that until you know what alteration is made by the proposals of this Bill. You will have to count noses, and until you know what to subtract from the voting strength of the different constituencies you cannot deal on any satisfactory basis with Redistribution.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: How will you know that by this Bill?
Sir W. ESSEX: We shall know it by the compilation of the register.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: But all the names will remain on the register. The only thing altered will be the right to vote.
Sir W. ESSEX: At any rate, when this Bill is carried we shall be much better able to deal with the matter on a satisfactory basis. The right hon. Gentleman stated that we propose to wipe out all these voters. Nothing of the kind. This Bill will not disfranchise a single man who now has a vote. It only says that he shall enter the electoral lists on a fair and equal footing with any other man. That surely cannot be objected to by anyone. The whole thing hinges on this fact: The party of progress which we claim to represent cannot by any conceivable readjustment ever hope to fight on equal terms with the Opposition. Whether you deal with the constitution of the House of Lords or whatever you do, you cannot possibly in the nature of things ever bring us into the battle line on level terms. What do hon. Gentlemen opposite say? "When you ask us to submit to this amendment of the electoral law you are doing us a grave injustice." Are they forced to use an argument of that sort? Are they able, as fair-minded men, to ask us to sit down to the electoral game with the dice loaded against us? What right have they to say deliberately that we are to be handicapped for ever by an abuse of this kind?
Earl WINTERTON: How are you handicapped?
Sir W. ESSEX: According to the statements of the Noble Lord's own Friends, the majority of these persons vote for the party opposite; therefore, if this abuse were swept away, they would lose so much of their voting strength. This demand for an unfair advantage in the electoral struggle is not creditable to the great Conservative party, who, after all, always claim to stand up for justice, equality, and level dealing.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The hon. Member opposite has displayed a great absence of knowledge of the subject with which he was purporting to deal. He was actually under the astonishing impression that if this Bill were passed it would necessitate an alteration of the voting lists. Nobody can have read the

687
Bill without seeing that it does nothing of the sort. It is merely a restriction on the power of certain individuals to vote. Several very good reasons have been given why this Clause should be accepted, and so far we have not heard a single reason against it. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill—I think it must have been a slip on his part—rsferred to its coming into operation before the next General Election, whereas the first words of the Bill refer to the occasion of a General Election. The Bill can come into operation only upon a General Election taking place. The object of this Clause is that if a General Election takes place before the proposed date the Bill shall not apply to it. That is the real meaning of the Clause. We would prefer that at the normal end of the present Parliament, if the Parliament so long continues, then and then only, when the Government will have had an opportunity of carrying out the pledge distinctly given by the Prime Minister, this Bill should come into operation. The idea at the basis of the proposed Clause is that in the event of some contingency arising under which the Government thought they would have a good chance of winning a sudden General Election they should not have the power of applying the privileges given to them by this particular measure, as they had not availed themselves of the opportunity of removing other electoral anomalies even more serious than plural voting.
This Bill will not create any confusion whatever in the voting lists, or necessitate any work being done in connection therewith. Therefore we do not support this Clause on the ground that it would create a mass of work and difficulty for the officials who have to compile the voting lists. But there are other people even more interested in the constitution of the voting lists than the officials who have to compile them—I mean the Members of Parliament themselves and those who have announced their intention of contesting the seats which we hold. They are keenly interested in knowing what sort of constituencies they are going to have at the next election. Hon. Members on both sides have admitted that. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill has referred to the difficulty of the seat held by the Solicitor-General, and he has spoken in somewhat contemptuous terms of the seat held by the Seconder of the proposed new Clause. It is a very serious matter. If we passed this Bill without inserting any
688
date, and it came into operation immediately it received the Royal Assent, not a single Member of this House would know with any certitude what the extent of his constituency would be. It would create, from the point of view of the political organisations in every division in the country, a very difficult situation necessitating a large number of inquiries. I submit, therefore, that as a matter of common justice and convenience we are entitled to have a reasonable time given to us to ascertain how our constituencies would be affected. The Government are not entitled without some reasonable interval to force upon the whole of the constituencies a measure which would cause considerable trouble and difficulty to every Member of the House. That applies to Members opposite equally with Members on this side. The arguments which have been used would not affect me personally, because I have no plural voters in my Division. I made a present of them to the other Divisions of Liverpool on the occasion of the last election; therefore, I should not be affected to any extent.
The hon. Member in charge of the Bill, when he stated that Redistribution was quite independent of this question, was radically wrong, for a very simple arithmetical reason, which I will put before the House. Supposing you have got a voter who is a plural voter in two equal constituencies of 30,000 voters. It is quite clear that the electoral value of that man, if he exercises both votes, is one in 15,000. But you also have a man with only one vote in an ordinary constituency of, say, 9,000 voters. His electoral value, therefore, is one in 9,000 voters. Is it not perfectly obvious that under those circumstances even the plural voter with his two votes has not got as much representation as the man who has got a single vote only? Therefore, I respectfully submit—I would not have been betrayed into this line of argument, which I do not think has anything to do really with the merits of this particular Clause, if it had not been for the astonishing statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill—that the simple arithmetical means I have suggested clearly refutes his point. There is no date in this Bill. The Clause proposes to put a date in. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to that point was that he wanted the Bill to become operative before the next General Election. This is evidently en-

689
tirely beside the mark, because if he had only thought about the subject for the moment, he would have seen on the very face of the Bill itself that it cannot come into operation before the next General Election. What we are anxious to do as a matter of fairness is that if this Bill is passed, and the plural voter is to be abolished—and my own view is that he ought to be—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] I have always advocated that. It has been in every one of my election addresses. I favour one man one vote. But I say if this has to be done, it ought to be done in a proper manner, and at the proper date. We are entitled to have some reasonable notice as to exactly when it has to come into operation. I respectfully put this before hon. Gentlemen on the Front Government Bench. If they will agree to put this date into the Bill, and not leave it so that they can spring this new scheme upon the public, and upon the House of Commons, at any moment which they think by means of a sudden General Election, I suggest that the Bill will have a good deal more chance of being passed by the other place when it arrives there. It will give their advocate there, if they have one, an opportunity of pointing out that it is not intended to suddenly spring upon the electorate this matter, but that it is intended that the law really shall come into operation at a future date, so that its provisions may be reasonably anticipated and provided for. If the Government refuse—and I take it that the right hon. Gentleman's advice will be taken by the Government and that they will refuse to insert this Clause—then why should the other House accept the Bill instead of automatically postponing it to this very date by throwing it out, at all events on the present occasion. For these various reasons I think the Government would be well advised in their own interest to accept the Clause.
Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend who has just sat down. Hon. Members opposite are always complaining that we on this side of the House do not put forward enough reasons for the retention of the plural vote. I think one of the strong reasons is the very great number of questions of local interest that have to be dealt with.
Mr. SPEAKER: The question before the House is that the coming into operation of the Act should be postponed till 1916.
Sir R. BAKER: I was only, Mr. Speaker, answering the argument put forward on the other side. However, I will not pursue that subject any further. There is a very strong reason indeed why this new Clause should be passed at once. It is in order that the electorate should clearly give their opinion as to their real views of this measure. Hon. Members opposite are always anxious to point out how plural voting is the greatest anomaly and the one to be removed swiftest. I do not think that they realise the other anomalies that exist. An hon. Member who spoke on the other side stated that we were endeavouring to fight unfairly against his side. He forgets other things, that are doing harm at the present time. We wish that when one thing is dealt with, the whole should be dealt with. We do not wish that one anomaly, which hon. Gentlemen are very pleased to think is the one that harms them most, should be dealt with first. The whole question, the great anomaly of the electoral law, should be dealt with. At the present time there is the question of the soldiers and the sailors. I cannot go into it now, but there are other disadvantages every bit as big as the one under discussion. We ask that you should not bring this Act into operation until you endeavour to deal with other anomalies quite as great and serious as the one you are endeavouring to deal with in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was perfectly frank in the matter. It is going to give his party an advantage to get rid of the plural voter, and for that reason he wants it. We say, if you are prepared to deal with these other anomalies which are just as great, to deal with the electoral laws in a big, comprehensive measure, and with Redistribution at the same time, then we will do our best to assist you. But to endeavour to carry, purely as a matter of party advantage, the passage of this Act, seems to me one of the most cynical proceedings that has been seen in this House for a great many years.
Mr. RADFORD: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has advanced an argument which I have heard advanced against every reform that has been before us in this House. It is proposed to remove an anomaly, an injustice, and the hon. Baronet says that unless at the same time you remove some other anomaly his side will not listen to it for a moment. He knows perfectly well that in the state of the business of this House it is quite im-

691
possible to do more than one thing, and one small thing, at a time. If you are to connect the measure before us with some other measure it will be impossible to pass the measure at all. Therefore, the hon. Baronet will attain his desire to frustrate the present proposal. I will not suggest that that is his motive, but he knows that will be the case. The hon. Member for Liverpool, who preceded him, advanced the only argument that I have heard in favour of this dilatory new Clause—that is, that it would be a convenience to Members of this House and candidates to know well in advance what their constituencies were. That reason appeals to me. But I think it is a very small matter compared with the rights of the electors. It is more important, I think, that right should be done to an electorate amounting to eight or ten millions than that the convenience of 670 Members of this House should be respected. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool stands in a proud preeminence amongst the hon. Gentlemen who sit around him, inasmuch as he has always been opposed to plural voting. He points to his election addresses as evidence of his faith and of his practice. In view of this, I hope that on second thoughts he will give his support to defeat this Amendment. He said that ho had heard no argument adduced against it. I submit that the onus is upon him to prove his case, and not upon us to rebut it. I do not think that he said what the hon. Baronet did, that the Government, in bringing forward this measure, is actuated by a desire to promote the interests of their own party. That has been said by all the speakers to whom I have listened.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: No.
Mr. RADFORD: I make an exception in the case of the hon. Gentleman. For my part, I acquit the Government of any such desire. The simple motive that actuates me is this: Whereas a General Election is rather an intricate means of ascertaining the opinion of the people—we all know it, for we have found it so—an error has crept into the process, inasmuch as a large number of the electors, which I think has been computed at nearly half a million, vote not only once, but two or three or a larger number of times. I say that in ascertaining the opinion of the people of this country it is desirable to eliminate that error, and that
692
is what this Bill proposes to do. That being the case, a dilatory Amendment does not appeal to me in the least. If this Bill be a good thing, as I honestly believe it is, quite regardless of its effect upon party politics, let us have it, and let us have it as soon as possible. Let us, too, reject this Amendment, which would deprive the electors of this country at the next election of the opportunity of voting according to their true numerical force.
Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: This Debate is one of deep and great interest, because for the first time, I think, we have heard it clearly stated and understood that it is not the intention of the Government to introduce any scheme or measure of Redistribution before this Bill becomes operative. Several times when the earlier Bills were before the House, and even during the earlier discussion on this Bill, I myself made attempts to try to ascertain whether it was the intention of the Government to pass this Bill before Redistribution was introduced, or whether, at any rate, Redistribution was to be introduced contemporaneously with this Bill. Up till now we have never had a definite answer to that question. Now we know it is not. I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench opposite on the wonderful cynicism and frankness with which he has stated the proposition in this discussion. He quite frankly said, "I conceive the object of those who sit on the opposite side of the House to be to postpone the operation of this Bill as long as they can, because they think it will minimise the number of people who will support them. We on this side want the Bill to pass as quickly as possible, because we want to minimise the number of people voting against us." Quite frankly and honestly, it has been stated that the object of this Bill is to do away at the next General Election, or before the next General Election, with an anomaly which hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House admit is detrimental to their political interests. Surely, however, you are going by this Bill not to disfranchise men. You are going to produce this result that in a country, the electoral system of which is that Members are returned to represent constituencies in different parts of the country, a great number of people who hitherto have been allowed to be registered to vote in one part of the country will not be able to do so in the future, for that particular part.

693
At the same time you are disorganising an electoral system which it has taken centuries to build up. All those ownership voters and occupation voters have only succeeded in obtaining the vote after a struggle which often has lasted for many years. You are going to alter the very foundations of the whole of this system, and yet you are not going to do what you ought to do, you are not going to remedy what you admit to be a glaring existing anomaly, namely, that some parts of the country are over represented and others are under represented. But, putting aside this argument, let us take one test of the bona fides of the Government. Putting aside this question whether the change will be an advantage to one party or the other, let us ask, and this is the real point, what is the justice or the injustice of the proposal? From that point of view, on what principle of common sense can you justify leaving the next election to take place, when this alteration has been carried out on the existing register, and all the other anomalies and injustices, all these things of which you complain so bitterly and glibly, are left untouched? Do either one thing or the other. Leave things as they are or sweep away all those injustices and anomalies at the same time, or at any rate attempt to remedy the very gross anomaly of under representation and over representation before you carry through the political scheme which is comprised in the pages of this Bill. Do not leave the next election to take place after merely abolishing the votes of those who are opposed to you. Leave it to take place on the existing register, and if you do not, I submit you stand condemned as political pretenders of the most barefaced kind.
Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and learned Gentleman used an expression at the beginning of his speech which indicated that he thought that some variation had been made in the declaration of our intentions which from time to time have been made from this Bench.
Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Not a variation. We have at last got the declaration we have so long been seeking.
Sir J. SIMON: It is just as well if the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks he has made a discovery that we should make it quite clear what the discovery is. He cannot have been in the House when previous declarations were made, as they have been made very clearly, by the President of the Board of Education. What he has
694
said more than once is that it is the intention of the Government in the course of this Parliament, if this Parliament runs its normal course, to introduce proposals for Redistribution. That is what we say. It has not been said for the first time to-day, and more than once it has been commented upon and criticised from the other side. It is perfectly open to hon. Gentlemen opposite to say, if they like, that, however honestly meant that declaration may be, it is only a declaration of intention, and intentions are not always realised. I do not complain of that criticism; it is a criticism which naturally arises upon such a declaration. But there is nothing novel about what has been said this afternoon, and nothing in what the Under-Secretary for India said disagrees with it. What happened in the course of his speech was that he made a reference to the next General Election as something that was going to happen very soon. There was some jeering and interruption, and he made some observations about a thing being a short time in the history of a nation. That does not in the least affect the declaration of the Minister of Education. That is how the matter stands. On the merits of the present proposal the House will observe that it is not a proposal in any way to condition the change made by this Bill with the amendment of another anomaly. It is simply a proposal that the Bill shall not come into force for some years to come, whereas in the ordinary course it would come into force this year and would be ready whenever a General Election takes place. That is our intention, and we make no secret of it. I am quite unable to understand how it is that those who defend the record and share the opinions of the late Unionist Government can possibly complain of the proposal of this Government. How does this matter of Redistribution—I will not argue its merits—really stand in relation to this Bill?
This Government in the course of last Session and this Session has indicated that it intends to carry into law a Blil, which, amongst other things, is going to remove from this House sixty Irish Members, most of whom are supporters of the present Government, and it is this Government which is criticised, because it is said that we are afraid that Redistribution would adversely affect our party interest. Really, if there is this enthusiasm for Redistribution, what is the explanation of the fact that for the best part of a generation when the Unionist party were in control of Government legislation in this House, they never produced

695
during the whole of that long period of power any proposal to redistribute the representation in this House until they came to their very dying moments in 1905, and when they did so, their proposal was so preposterous that their supporters in the Press, in the country, and even in this House, found it was more than they could swallow, and it was abandoned by universal consent and amid universal derision. And yet we are told, because we desire to deal with a definite injustice here and now and as soon as ever a General Election may take place, we are told, forsooth, that we are actuated by selfish motives and that hon. Gentlemen opposite have a higher view of public duty. If we are to go into motives, their opposition to this Bill is just as open to criticism as being due to their anxiety to preserve an advantage, as the supporters of the Government are, who are anxious to remove an injustice. Ultimately we get back to the question, which is right? You say we seek to gain an advantage. You want to keep your advantage as long as you can, and therefore you spend your time asserting that the Bill should be postponed. There could be only one justification in reason for the proposal put forward by the other side, and that would be if it could be shown that while plural voting is one injustice which works in a particular direction, the present electoral inequalities are an injustice which works in the other direction, and that so long as the two things exist side by side, they each side by side tend to correct one another. If that could be shown, there would be some real force in the suggestion that you should not deal with one injustice without touching the other. But that is not true. There is no relation between these two anomalies which tends so long, as they both operate, to produce a perfect balance.
It may be quite true, as the Under-Secretary for India has said, that the plural voter on the whole operates to secure a larger representation for the Conservative party than they would otherwise get. Be it so. That does not prove it is right that the Conservative party should have a larger representation. It is arguable that the plural voter secures a larger representation for one party where they are in a minority, or where they would be in a minority if there were no plural voters. But that is no reason why the plural voter should not be abolished. The two things have no relation. It may be per-
696
fectly right, I think it is, to urge that Redistribution is urgent and ought to be proceeded with at the earliest available moment. But at this time of the Session and in this Session, nobody really believes that this Bill is going to have a better chance of passing into law if we tie on to the Bill a Redistribution proposal. If these declarations, which my right hon. Friend has made, have an opportunity of being realised we shall be glad to welcome the co-operation of hon. Gentlemen opposite in our Redistribution proposals, and we hope their view of the way to do it will be a little fairer than it was in the year 1905.
8.0 P.M.
Major MORRISON-BELL: I do not intend to follow the Solicitor-General over all the points which he has covered. He seemed to think that the Government should take some credit to themselves, because, by the Home Rule Bill, they are going to take away from this House sixty Irish Members. But it is only by the fact that there is a surplus of Irish Members, more than Ireland by her population is entitled to, that they are able to produce or carry a Home Rule Bill at all. The object of this Clause is to say that the Government are not entitled to do away with one anomaly which happens to suit them, and to leave the grosser anomaly unredressed. The only way in which all these anomalies can be redressed is by a scheme of Redistribution. The right hon. Gentleman says, "We are going to do that, we have announced and the Minister of Education has announced, that a Redistribution scheme would be brought in." I thoroughly appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman means what he says if possible, but it is only an intention, and the reason why we want this limiting Clause put in is that the Government may not be able by some accident, quite apart from their intention, to carry out that intention. They may be, to use an expression well understood in this House, caught short and unable to deliver their goods. That is a very important consideration to the Opposition. A General Election may be sprung upon the country by some accident. It may come, as Lord Haldane said, like a thief in the night, and the plural voter will not be able to vote whilst the Government will not have redressed the other gross anomalies. The Under-Secretary for India in his speech seemed to take it for granted that this side of the House agrees

697
that Ireland should be over-represented in this House, but it is purely from the fact that Ireland has these extra Members that the Government have been able to exist on that bench, and that is the real point. An hon. Member who recently spoke on the other side said he thought there was a real anomaly as between the two sides. What is that anomaly? In my opinion it is this, that England, which is equally interested in all the legislation now before the House, has something like forty Members short of its real quota, and Ireland, which is not more interested in any of the legislation before the House, has forty Members too many, counting eighty votes on a Division. It is absurd to say it is a question whether Ireland should not first be put into her right position. I believe that we shall never get proper representation until everybody is put upon an equality in this House. When that has teen brought about, then those hon. Members sitting on this side of the House will be perfectly ready to accept one man one vote, but it is begging the question to say that the Government are entitled to pass legislation to bring about one man
one vote without bringing about, at the same time, one vote one value. It is only by adopting this limiting Clause that the Opposition can feel quite safe that they will not be put at a disadvantage should a General Election come, because they are quite unable, after what we have seen in regard to the Preamble of the Parliament Bill and other Acts, to feel confident that the intention of the Government will necessarily be carried out. It is for these reasons, and not for any small anomaly between seat and seat, that I support the inclusion in this Bill of this limiting Clause. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Under-Secretary for India have given to the Opposition any arguments to justify us in not pressing this proposal with all the force we can. It is impossible for the Government or anybody else to ensure that they will really put the whole question upon a fair basis before the appeal to the country comes. The Government would lose nothing by putting in this limiting Clause.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 240.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of Act.)
This Act will not apply to Ireland.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
Probably my proposal looks a very modest one, but I suggest that it contains one or two rather important principles. I am very much surprised that the Government, which desires to give Ireland control of her own affairs, should try to pass this Bill in its present shape and take away from Ireland the opportunity of deciding the method in which she desires that the electorate should vote. So far as representation in the Imperial Parliament is concerned, the Government have very strictly tied Ireland up as regards, the United Kingdom Electoral Laws. In Clause 13, Sub-section (2) of the Home Rule Bill, it is provided—
"That the Election Laws and the Laws relating to the qualifications of Parliamentary electors shall not, so far as they relate to the election of Members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, be altered by the Irish Parliament."
That is more or less consistent with their attitude, although I do not agree even with that for reasons which I shall state. Their attitude as Home Rulers is not at all consistent so far as the Irish House of Commons is concerned, because in Clause 45, Sub-section (2) of the Home Rule Bill, it is provided—
"That all existing election laws relating to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Members thereof shall, so far as applicable, and subject to the provisions of this Act, apply to the Irish House of Commons when the Home Rule Bill passes into law"
It is perfectly true that under the Home Rule Bill, Ireland may change the Electoral Laws of the United Kingdom in three years' time after the passing of this Plural Voting Bill, that is to say, so far as the Irish Parliament is concerned under Clause 9, Sub-section (4) of the Home Rule Bill. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is really the good of going through the whole of this trouble to pass a new law for Ireland, which you are deliberately giving Ireland the power of
702
repealing in three years' time. Surely, it would be very much better, acting on the principles which are in favour by the Government, and more consistent to allow Ireland to decide for herself, and in what manner her electorate is to vote in the future for the Irish House of Commons. I suggest that the Members of the Nationalist party have absolutely no mandate for jerrymandering the future Irish constituencies. They may have a mandate for Home Rule, but so far as I know, in their election addresses, there is absolutely nothing whatever to say that they intend to alter the Electoral Laws, so far as future Irish constituencies are concerned. It is perfectly true that you restrict the power of the Irish Parliament from altering those laws for three years only, but after three years they will be able to alter them, and I do not see in the least why you should restrict this power to three years. I do not see that there is the slightest reason for doing it, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will really give us some reason why the Government have put down a period of three years in respect of this particular question. It is quite on other grounds that I am especially anxious to see my new Clause accepted by the Government. I really believe that it would be a most valuable addition in the Bill to save the Irish plural voters from extinction as such. Take, for a moment, the question of the illiterates in Ireland. I do not want to be in the least offensive to Ireland. Nobody admires Ireland or the Irish people more than I do, but everyone knows that the proportion of illiterates in Ireland is very large at the present time. I am sorry that there should not be a single Member of the Irish party here when this Clause affecting Ireland is being discussed in this House.
Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: There are not many of you.
Mr. BARNES: I think that it is only fair to say that the Irish party have a function of some sort upstairs.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does that come in front of their public duty?
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If the Irish party have got an important engagement I will not pursue the point further. If you take the General Election of January, 1910, you will find that out of 220,529 voters in Ireland no less than 22,515 were illiterates, compared with only

703
17,151 English illiterates out of 5,770,000 odd voters; and, if you compare Ireland with Scotland—I believe that Scotland and Ireland have more or less the same population—as against 22,515 Irish illiterates, there were in Scotland only 2,344 out of an electorate voting of 660,442. If hon. Members below the Gangway were present, I know what their argument would be. They would say that those figures are not complete or reliable, because a good many seats in Ireland were uncontested at the last election and at various elections in the past.
Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether the hon. Member suggests that the illiterates are all plural voters?
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, I do not suggest that at all, and, if the hon. Member will wait just a moment, I will show him why I mention the matter. I think really that it is an advantage to hon. Members below the Gangway from the point of view of the statistics that a good many of these seats were not contested, because, taking the character of those constituencies, especially from the very fact that Home Rule was uncontested, they would probably find that the proportion of the "illiterate" would be even greater than in the Divisions that were contested. Take, again, the illiterates over nine years of age in Ireland in 1911. After all, this shows the sort of proportion of illiterates, in Ireland. In the county of Donegal, in 1911, 20 per cent, of all persons over nine years of age could not read or write. This being the case, it is all the more important that the addition of the plural vote, that is the addition of the educated vote, should be left intact in Ireland in order to counterbalance this very large proportion of the uneducated and illiterate vote. That really is my answer to the hon. Member's interruption. It would, to my mind, have the effect of somewhat lessening the fear that property is to be specially aimed at in Ireland by the Nationalists when the present Home Rule Bill passes into law. If hon. Members below the Gangway really wish to show their bona fides in regard to the protection of the minority in Ireland, I do not think that they could better do it than by supporting this Clause. After all, the Government have already shown that they are not averse to the principle of the protection of the minority in spite of the famous and somewhat indiscreet statement of the Chief Secretary several years
704
ago. They have recognised this principle in their own Home Rule Bill. They have recognised it by introducing the principle of proportional representation for the protection of the minority in the Irish House of Commons, and the Clause which I propose aims at doing exactly the same thing, not only for the Irish Parliament, but also for the representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament.
I may say that the Government have also recognised the principle of plural voting in the Home Rule Bill, because they are giving Irishmen two votes, one for Westminster and one for the Irish Parliament, although—and this is an important point—there will be many overlapping questions which will be discussed in both places. The Government may argue that the provisions of a Franchise Bill brought into this House ought to be uniform for the whole of the United Kingdom, but, after all, the law at present is not uniform in England, Scotland, and Ireland. The franchise is not the same in Ireland as it is in Scotland and in England. There are a great many differences. I looked up these differences this morning, and they are put very concisely on page 423 of Whittaker's Almanac, and hon. Members will quite easily sec that there are a great many differences existing in these various countries. The scale of expenses at elections is also very different. In addition to this, hon. Members know quite well that, in the past, Reform and Franchise Bills that have been introduced into this House have not always been uniform for the whole of the United Kingdom. The great Reform Act of 1832 contains different provisions for Ireland and England, and, if you take the great Reform measures of 1867 and 1868, you will find that the 1867 Act was for England, and that it was not until the following year that Reform Acts were passed for Ireland and Scotland. But I need not go back to 1867. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the Extension of the Polling Hours Bill—only the other day. In the course of that Bill, I myself put an Amendment down on the Paper cutting out Ireland and Scotland from that Bill. It was argued by the hon. Baronet for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), and the Government readily accepted it, practically without any controversy whatever. If they readily accepted the cutting out of Scotland and Ireland from the Bill which dealt with the electoral law, I cannot see for the life of me why they should not be equally ready to cut Scotland and Ireland out of

705
this Bill, which, after all, is only a very partial alteration of the electoral laws. I hope I have given sufficient reasons—I might give many more—for the favourable consideration of this new Clause by the Government, and I trust that they will accept it.
Mr. NEWMAN: I regret the absence of hon. Members from Ireland below the Gangway, but I readily fall in with the suggestion that the reason for their absence is known to everyone in this House. I am an Irishman myself, and I trust hon. Members will believe me when I say that in Ireland this Bill creates very little excitement. I do not suggest there is no plural voting, but I do say that the plural voter in Ireland is a rara avis. You have in England many other classes of voters of whom in Ireland we hear little if anything. Even if we have a plural voter, he is not very harmful. What makes the plural voter a danger is the restaurant car and the motor, but we have very few really good restaurant cars and not many motors in Ireland, and the plural voter, consequently, does not exercise his dual qualification to any great extent. There is, therefore, no particular outery against him, and this Bill does not interest Irish public opinion at all. What does excite Irish public opinion is the question whether or not we are going to have a new Irish Parliament, set up. I am convinced that the general feeling of those who are opposed to an Irish Parliament is that the one thing which is wanted is Redistribution—one vote one value. I admit that in the province of Ulster there is a majority of one Member in favour of Home Rule, but if we have one vote one value, things would be very different, because the Unionist Members represent more electors than the Nationalist Members. As to those who are in favour of Home Rule, what they want, they say, is to give the Irish Parliament as full powers as possible for the management of its own concerns.
The Government of Ireland Bill which has been introduced is an experiment, and it embodies, as far as Ireland is concerned, a novel experiment—that of proportional representation. It is not novel on the Continent or in other countries, but it is a great experiment for this Kingdom. I do not suggest that proportional representation does not involve the abolition of plural voting. It may or it may not. But that is a matter which should be settled
706
by those who are going to elect the new Parliament. We are going to have an Irish Senate elected on a system of proportional representation. It is open to question whether an elector qualified to vote in Munster and Leinster should not be allowed to vote in each province for the election of representatives to the Senate. I do not think that that would be considered a very great hardship by average Irish opinion. If we have a Parliament in Ireland at all, and if the Senate is to be elected by proportional representation, that point as to whether a man qualified in more than one province should be allowed to exercise his right to vote in each province, will certainly require to be considered. Although proportional representation is only in an experimental stage as far as the Irish House of Commons is concerned, it will assuredly develop, and we ask that those who have worked so hard to get it introduced shall be allowed to work out the experiment in their own way. What is going to happen in Ireland? No man can tell. After three years' time the Irish Parliament is to have power to alter the method of election, and surely Irishmen should be allowed to choose what they will or will not have.
It is conceivable that the Government of Ireland Bill may be withdrawn or modified. It is conceivable that to safeguard the interests of the minority something in the nature of plural voting may be introduced. I saw the other day a suggestion made by a well-known Nationalist Member in this House that the Irish minority might be given the cumulative vote. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) said he was quite willing that the Irish Protestants should have half the representation one way or the other. I ask the House, therefore, not to tie our hands. I suppose the reason why Mr. Gladstone left plural voting in the Franchise Bill of 1885 was because he recognised that it was to a certain extent a safeguard for property, which, being in a minority, ought to have an extra safeguard. What he thought good for England it is conceivable that Irishmen may deem good for their country. They may think it necessary to have a safeguard for the minority, and, therefore, it would be well to leave this question open. As my hon. Friend has suggested, it is a very common practice for Bills dealt with in this House not to be applied to Ireland. There have

707
been several instances of that lately, and my hon. Friend cited the Extension of Polling Hours Bill.
Mr. BOOTH: There is also the Mental Deficiency Bill.
Mr. NEWMAN: We have no mentally deficient in Ireland, and we do not want that Bill. I ask the House to exclude Ireland from this very small, irritating Bill, and I heartily second this new Clause.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The two hon. Members who have commended this Clause to the House, although they have done so in very fair terms, can hardly expect that it will be accepted by the Government. They recognised that, in urging this point, the burden of proof was on them, and, if I understood the Mover aright, his main contention was that we should allow Ireland to manage her own affairs. There was an undercurrent of the same suggestion in the speech of the Seconder. We are attempting to give Ireland that power, and we should be glad if both hon. Gentlemen will co-operate with us on future occasions, when they have the opportunity, so that our Bill may pass more speedily and more effectively. I hope I shall show it is not possible by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman to separate Ireland entirely from the United Kingdom in this Bill. The Bill has been framed to deal with the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and that is a factor which requires serious consideration. There are many objections to this proposed new Clause, but, if there were no other, there is the objection that, as moved, it is so full of ambiguity that it is, as I think, entirely unworkable. I see no one predominant rational construction that can possibly be put upon it. What do hon. Members mean by "Ireland"? The word "Ireland" naturally is a geographical expression and applies only to a particular area. If that is the meaning of the hon. Member, if he is using the word "Ireland" in a purely territorial sense, then I ask him, "Does he realise what the consequences of the Amendment will be?" The consequences will be that anybody who happens to be in Ireland at the General Election will be exempt from the provisions of the Bill, and anybody who is not in Ireland will not be exempt. He complained that there was an exces-
708
sive number of illiterate voters in Ireland. Let him remember this, that, if this Clause were passed, any Oxford graduates, who have the university vote, who happen to be resident in Ireland at the time of a General Election would be exempt from the provisions of this Bill. I think he has there brought in an element to counterbalance the illiterate element in Ireland. If the hon. Member does not mean that, and I am bound to think that is the only natural and reasonable interpretation of the words, "This Act shall not apply to Ireland"—if he does not mean that, and if he means Ireland, not as a geographical or territorial expression, but Irish constituencies, I ask him if even then he realises the entire consequences of this proposal?
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is what I mean.
Mr. BAKER: Does the hon. Member mean that if there is a plural voter in Ireland, who has two votes in Ireland, he shall have both votes? What about the case of the plural voter who has one vote in Ireland and one vote in England? Does he mean that he may vote first in England, and then will commit no offence by voting in Ireland; whereas, if he votes first in Ireland and then votes in England, he will be committing an offence under the Bill? What does he mean in the case of a voter who has two votes in Ireland and one in England? May he have all three on the one condition that he is lucky enough to be able to secure his first vote in England, and then go over to Ireland and give his two Irish votes? The fact is, although several possible meanings can be attached to this Clause, they are so many and so conflicting that it is not really intelligible as a part of this Bill. All the alternatives I have suggested to the hon. Member—and he apparently accepts all of them—are to us and the Government equally impracticable. Even if the Clause had been put in a reasonable and plausible form the Government would not have been able to accept it. The House in Committee decided, I do not say finally, but implicitly, that this Bill should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. The principle which condemns plural voting, and we do condemn it, is a principle which is not conditioned by local circumstances and local considerations at all. Plural voting is a principle which is objectionable, quite apart from the particular circumstances of time and

709
place with which we are likely to be immediately concerned. The principle of the Bill is of general application, it is believed in by the Government and by hon. Members who support it, and for that reason, even if the hon. Member's Clause had been differently framed, it would have been impossible for the Government to accept it.
Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I cannot regard the speech to which we have just listened as either convincing or, in fact, applicable in any way to this new Clause. The hon. Member put to us various impossible conditions, and asked whether they were what we accepted. He said that if a man happens to be a resident in Ireland, under this Clause, supposing it to become part of the Bill, if he has two votes in England, will he come, over to England, having voted under the electoral law of Ireland, and expose himself to the penalties of registering a vote in the United Kingdom? I suppose such an absurd proposition never occurred to anybody in the House.
Mr. BAKER: The hon. Member repudiated the natural and proper meaning of "Ireland," and said it was not a geographical expression. If it is not, it applies to Irish constituencies, and the consequences I stated follow.
Sir W. ANSON: I certainly understood the hon. Member to suggest that if a man is resident in Ireland and has two votes for English constituencies he could, under this Clause, come over here and register them both.
Mr. BOOTH: Two Irish votes.
Sir W. ANSON: I thought this was a matter for the Irish Parliament to settle under the Home Rule Bill. The distinction has already been drawn, sharply and clearly, in the Home Rule Bill, because whereas the Irish Parliament is allowed to alter its electoral conditions after a lapse of time, it is not to alter the conditions under which Members are to be sent here to serve in what remains of the English Parliament. The Home Rule Bill contemplates a difference between the electoral conditions of Ireland and the electoral conditions of England. Ireland is provided under that Bill with two sets of electoral conditions. There is the method of election for the Irish Parliament, which is alterable after three years at the pleasure of the Irish Parliament and the Irish electorate, and there is the method of election of those
710
Irish Members who are sent here to serve in the English Parliament, which is not alterable by the Irish Parliament, and is to be subject always to the conditions imposed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore we already have, admittedly by the action of the Government, two different sets of electoral law. Having made that distinction, would it not be much more reasonable to say that our electoral law in this particular matter is not to apply to Ireland. This is a new law. As has been constantly urged, it does not alter the law of registration or of the franchise, but only imposes heavy and severe penalties upon persons who act in a particular way at elections. Is it desirable that we should impose that on Ireland when we are in other respects leaving Ireland free to legislate for itself? I would ask the hon. Member and the President of the Board of Education whether they have considered the effect of the Bill upon Ireland? Under the Home Rule Bill, Ireland is required for the next three years to conform in all matters appertaining to elections with the English electoral law and English electoral conditions. After the expiration of the three years the Irish Parliament is set free to legislate, under Clause 9, Sub-section (4) upon certain electoral conditions—qualification and registration of the electors, the law relating to elections, the constituencies, the distribution of Members, and so forth. Does that give the Irish Parliament the power to repeal this Bill if it so pleases? I doubt it very much.
We are setting free the Irish Parliament to deal with its electoral law in a great many ways, but we are not, when we pass this Bill, setting it free to alter this, because this does not relate to qualification or the registration of electors. It does not, I think, relate to the law concerning elections, but only imposes penalties upon persons who act in a particular way at elections. If not certain, at any rate, it is arguable that this Bill is an Act of the Imperial Parliament, and under Clause 1, Subsection (2) of the Home Rule Bill could not be altered by any Act of the Irish Parliament. I do not anticipate that Home Rule will ever become law. I hope it may not. But are we not in any dealings with electoral law at the present time bound to consider the conditions which we have ourselves created in the Home Rule Bill and imposed upon Ireland? Are we justified, when for so many purposes we are

711
setting Ireland free to legislate for herself, and when under Clause 9, Sub-section (4) of the Home Rule Bill we ostensibly set Ireland free in three years to deal with its electoral law as it likes, in imposing upon Ireland these penalties against plural voting or the attempt to exercise a qualification which you possess in two different constituencies, in such a way that they are not alterable by any Acts of the Irish legislature? There is, no doubt, an inconvenience in having two different electoral laws in Ireland, but that has been contemplated by the Government. It has been provided in the Home Rule Bill that the Members who are to represent Ireland in the Parliament of Great Britain are to be elected under the conditions of English electoral law and that no Irish Act can alter that. But the members who are elected to serve in the Irish Parliament are to be elected under such law as after three years it pleases the Irish Parliament to make. Under these circumstances ought we not to leave the Irish Parliament perfectly free to legislate as it pleases for its own electoral conditions? The Irish Parliament cannot alter the electoral law as regards the Irish Members who are sent to the House in the Imperial Parliament. The Acts of the Imperial Parliament prevail in Ireland in so far as the Irish Parliament is not competent to alter them, and I doubt very much if, under the Clause which gives Ireland power generally to alter its electoral conditions, it will be given power to repeal or amend or modify the Bill now before us. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pease) may be able to convince me that this Bill, or an Amendment of this Bill, is within the Subjection to which I have referred, but until cogent reasons are advanced I doubt it very much.
Then the Irish Parliament may have a reason for wishing, if not to repeal, at any rate to amend in certain respects the Bill with which we are now dealing. University representation is said not to be popular in England. I believe it is more popular than is represented, but at any rate the settled opinion on that side of the House is against it. But it is said to be in favour in Ireland, and, as I heard the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell) say, Ireland is the one place where university representation is undoubtedly possible. It is very difficult to combine university representation with a Bill of this sort, which imposes very heavy penalties on the
712
plural voter, because university representation and plural voting go hand in hand. It is no discredit to universities. Plural voting has been imposed upon universities, whether they would or no, by the Act of a Liberal Government and the Imperial Parliament, and I have nothing to say against it. But Ireland may very likely wish that an exception to this Bill should be made in the case of university representation and it will be powerless to do so. Again, the penalties are admittedly extraordinarily severe. A person who asks for a voting paper, with the presumed intention of voting twice, is not merely subject to pecuniary penalties but is disqualified, beyond the possibility of modification of the penalty, from voting for a number of years. The Irish Parliament might think, as I hope this Parliament may think before it is done, that these penalties are unduly severe and may wish to modify the law in that respect. As the Bill now stands, and as the Home Rule Bill stands, it will be impossible to modify it.
Again, the hon. Member who moved the Clause called attention to the great number of illiterate voters in Ireland. I do not believe in the illiteracy of the Irish people as represented by the illiterate vote. If you do not wish to have it clearly known what your voting strength is it is not inconvenient to be an illiterate voter, and I have always had my suspicions as to whether the number of illiterate voters in Ireland represented any very substantial lowering of the standard of education in Ireland below the rest of the United Kingdom. But assume that they are illiterate. They come rather helpless to the poll and though they may not really understand the conditions under which they are voting, they will clearly understand the person for whom they want to vote. The Irish Parliament might consider that the penalties, having regard to the prevalence of illiteracy, were extraordinarily severe and might very much wish to modify them in that respect. I should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he thinks the Irish Parliament can modify them, but I have very great doubt whether they can. It is very important, in dealing with these measures which concern England, Ireland, and Scotland, to take care that the Bill carries out precisely what you mean. Do you mean to make this Bill unalterable by the Irish Parliament? If you do, you are doing an injustice to the Irish Parliament.
Mr. BOOTH: We are listening to an ultra-Home Rule speech.
Sir W. ANSON: If you are going to give Home Rule, give it honestly. If you are giving powers to the Irish Parliament, take care that the powers mean what they profess to mean, and, having given the powers with one hand, do not take them away with another by passing legislation with which the Irish Parliament cannot deal, when you have already passed a Bill giving it ostensible power to alter the whole electoral law. If you call that ultra-Homo Rule, I do not. I call it honest legislation. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make this clear. If Ireland is to have the power of altering this legislation it will be very much better to keep Ireland outside the Bill altogether. Great inconveniences arise and have arisen in the past from doubt whether election law concerns the whole of the three Kingdoms when it was plainly intended to be applicable to the whole of the three Kingdoms. I do not know whether it is within the recollection of hon. Members that the 1867 Representation of the People Act for England provided that the demise of the Crown shall not affect the duration of Parliament. There were two successive Representation of the People Acts passed for Ireland and Scotland and in neither of which was that provision repeated. The English Act was specially confined to England, and on the demise of Queen Victoria a serious question arose as to how far the Scotch and Irish Members were affected by the English Act. Happily, the Law Officers were at one, and the matter was settled in accordance with the dictates of common sense. But I draw attention to that because it shows the importance of taking care when legislating for the three parts of the United Kingdom, and particularly when you are creating new rights for the new Irish Parliament, that what you give with one hand you do not take away with the other. You should make the electoral law perfectly clear for the United Kingdom, and you should look into the matter and see that in imposing these new penalties, and as some think, too severe penalties, you do not shut out the power of the Irish Parliament to alter a law which they may think it desirable in their own interests to change.
Mr. BOOTH: I acknowledge the delight with which we listen to the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson), who puts his points temperately and with a charm
714
which, I am sure, is always acceptable to the House. It is very curious that the reason he gives for supporting the Clause is the exact opposite of that given by the Mover and the Seconder. The Mover of the new Clause rather laboured the point, and drove it home to the dullest of us, that he was concerned about the great power of the illiterate voter in Ireland, and that he wished to counterbalance that by allowing the property owner, who is better educated, to roam about from province to province neutralising the illiterate voter. The right hon. Baronet supports the Clause from an entirely different standpoint. He says that the illiterate voter will very soon be the plural voter.
Sir W. ANSON: Might be.
Mr. BOOTH: And, therefore, because there are more illiterate voters in proportion to the electorate, so there will be more illiterate plural voters, and he wishes those who cannot read or write to rush about in motors or in trains in the different provinces of Ireland in order to dominate the position. That is one of the most curious arguments I have ever heard addressed to the House. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member who moved this new Clause clearly saw the difficulty he was in, and I am not surprised that he could not get a single Irish Member to be responsible for his proposal. Since the discussion commenced I notice that one of the better known Members of the Irish party has favoured the House with his presence, and I would like to know why the hon. Member has entirely overlooked this Amendment and declined to attach his name to it.
9.0 P.M.
There are attached to the Amendment the names of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir William Bull), the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson), and the hon. Member for the Enfield Division of Middlesex (Mr. Newman). Why is the hon. Member for Enfield not representing his native land? I am not challenging the good taste of the electors of Enfield. I challenge hon. Members who are responsible for bringing forward this Amendment to say whether any Irish Member representing a democratic constituency is in favour of this Clause. We are entitled to know. I undertake to say that the Unionist Members of the House will not go down to their constituencies and make speeches on this Clause.
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I
ask how the hon. Member knows that the Irish party are not in favour of the Clause when they absent themselves from the discussion?
Mr. BOOTH: I am speaking of the Irish Unionists. There cannot be any doubt as to the views of the Irish Nationalists. When did they identify themselves with vested interests, particularly in voting? I am asking about the Irish Unionists, the cream of the Unionist party, who go perambulating in processions. I ask where those new leaders of the party stand upon this proposal that the Bill shall not apply to Ireland.
Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the hon. Member to say that no Member on this side of the House would go into his constituency and say that he advocated this Clause. I say I would go into my Constituency and state that I was in favour of it.
Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Baronet must do me the justice of listening to me with more attention, as I always listen to him. I said that no Irish Unionist representing an industrial constituency would go down and make a speech to his own electors about this Clause. Of course, the hon. Baronet is the great champion of plural voters in this House, and it would not make him any the less acceptable in the city to say that he is in favour of the Clause. He is not only one of the representatives of the city, but he is a clever manœuvrer in the constituency itself. I ask why hon. Members opposite get up and make Home Rule speeches. We have had three distinctly Home Rule speeches. The whole meaning of it is that they wish to give special treatment to Ireland. Why! The Unionist case has always been that Ireland does not need special treatment, but now they come here and say that there is such a difference between the electorates in Ireland and England that they must vote under a different law. You cannot justify this except by maintaining that the aims and objects of the Irish electorate are entirely different from those of the electorate in England. If you grant that, you grant the case for Home Rule. That has been the case for Home Rule for the last hundred years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University did insist that the Irish Parliament had power to make its own electoral laws, and the whole of his argument was devoted to the support of the Bill as it stands, and not of this Amend-
716
ment. This Bill will apply to the whole electorate of the United Kingdom and will govern the election of Members to this House. That being so, surely, the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that Members for England, Wales, and Scotland should be elected on a single vote system, while in Ireland plural votes should operate in elections to the same Chamber. If the Irish Parliament like to experiment with regard to the electoral conditions appertaining to the election of their own Parliament they have got the power.
Sir W. ANSON: My whole point was that this Bill would govern elections to the Irish Parliament as well as to the the Imperial Parliament.
Mr. BOOTH: That is what I am granting. The right hon. Gentleman said that they would have different laws, and now he is saying that they will start with the same law. Surely, if we set up an Irish Parliament we should say that at the next General Election, both in England and Ireland, there should be no plural voting. What can be simpler? If afterwards the Irish Parliament like to alter their own conditions, well and good, but they never can alter the basis of election to this House. That is what we are arguing for. The right hon. Gentleman has stultified his own speech. The hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Government made it evident to the House that the Mover himself did not understand it. I appeal to hon. Members, as I think they have some sensible, Clauses lower down, to spend the time of the House more profitably, and to abandon this Clause.
Mr. PEASE: I was somewhat surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Oxford had any doubt as to the provisions and meaning of the Home Rule Bill, but having regard to his reputation as a constitutional lawyer I sent for a copy of the Bill with which for greater accuracy I have now obtained, and I will read the passages to the House in regard to the question he put to me. In Sub-section (4) of Clause 9, these words occur:—
"After three years from the day of the first meeting of the Irish Parliament, the Irish Parliament may alter, as respects the Irish House of Commons, the qualification and registration of electors, the law relating to elections therefor."
So that until the Irish House of Commons has been in existence for three years, the

717
Plural Voting Bill, assuming its passage into law before the Home Rule Bill, will operate in regard to elections to the Irish House of Commons. Then if we turn to Clause 13, and look at the commencing words of the second Sub-section, we see:—
''Unless and until the Parliament of the United Kingdom otherwise determine the election laws."
Which, of course, includes the laws relating to plural voting—
"shall not, so far as they relate to elections of members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, be altered by the Irish. Parliament."
Those words are perfectly plain, and if this House abolishes plural voting, plural voting would not apply to the Parliamentary elections of Irish representatives to serve in the Imperial House of Commons, and I may add I think if this Bill passes into law after the Home Rule Bill, this Bill would not affect the elections to the Irish Parliament.
Mr. J. HOPE: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting and pertinent reply to the point which my right hon. Friend has urged, but I do not think he has quite covered the ground. In the first place, I am not at all sure that those words in Sub-section (4) relating to elections would cover this point. I very much doubt that the Court would hold that they did, but, even if that be so, supposing this Bill becomes law after the Government of Ireland Bill, does he say that the provisions of the Plural Voting Bill would not override the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill? I am referring to Clause 41 of the Government of Ireland Bill, which says that the Irish Parliament shall not have power to repeal or alter any provisions of this Act, or any Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom after the passing of this Act, and extending to Ireland, although that provision deals with matters with respect to which the Irish Parliament has power to make laws. If the Government of Ireland Bill becomes law next year and this Bill becomes law in 1915, I submit that this Bill would override the provision in Clause 9, allowing the Irish Parliament to alter its franchise itself. This Bill would dominate, and the power of concurrent legislation would lapse. Therefore, you are by this Act imposing a law for all time, as far as the Irish Parliament is con-
718
cerned, upon that Parliament. It is very possible that the Irish Parliament might want to change the law as regards Ireland. It would be in the spirit of certain declarations which we have heard as to special concessions to the minority similar to those that were put forward at the time of the Local Government Act, but, whatever the future may be, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to direct himself to this point: Supposing that both the Government of Ireland Bill and this Bill are resisted in another place and become law after three years under the Parliament Act, will not the provisions of this Bill, read in conjunction with Clause 41 of the Government of Ireland Bill, override the power of the Irish Parliament to alter the franchise, nullifying the effect of Sub-section (4) of Clause 9?
Sir F. BANBURY: I think that every word which the right hon. Gentleman has said is absolutely correct. There can be no doubt that the Irish Parliament cannot alter the law relating to the qualification of electors as regards the Imperial Parliament, but it can alter the law in reference to elections as regards the local Parliament which will then be set up. But I really do not see what that has got to do with the subject before the House at the present moment. The reason why I shall vote for the Amendment is because we are establishing in Ireland new conditions which may be right or wrong, and while we are doing so, we should not alter the basis on which Members have been returned for eighty years to this House. I believe that it is a good thing to give a person who has a stake in the country a larger power in returning Members to this House than is given to the man who has not a stake in the country. We do not know what is going to happen now, and until we hear a little more I submit that Ireland should be exempted from this Bill. I prefer that the propertied class in Ireland should still have greater power than the class which has not got any property. Hon. Members below the Gangway do not agree with me in that.
Mr. BOOTH: Nor above it.
Sir F. BANBURY: Then I think hon. Members above the Gangway are a little more foolish than Members below the Gangway. [HON. MEMBEKS: "Oh, oh!" "Withdraw."] Or shall I say that both are equally foolish. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Then I withdraw. It is to the advantage of the country that persons who

719
have a stake in it should have rather more power than those who have no stake in it whatever. Let us see how the proposition will apply to Ireland. It is evident that if Ireland comes under this Bill greater power will be given to those people who have got no property. We do not know how the Government of Ireland will work. There are two hon. Friends of mine from Ireland who are qualified to-give an opinion, and I gather from them that they think the Home Rule Bill will never come into operation, and therefore we need not worry about it. I hope they are right, but we have to be prepared for eventualities. In the event of the Home Rule Bill coming into operation, I want to preserve to the people who own property in Ireland the right to exercise in that country a little more influence in electing a candidate to represent them in this House than they would have if this Bill became law. A right hon. Gentleman last week told me that a man who had property in England should not have any vote, because he can use his money and influence in such a way that he can do better or as well as if he had no vote. I am not sure that that was not a direct incitement to bribery and corruption. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean it, but it might be taken to mean that, and I do not want it to occur in Ireland. For the reasons I have given I think it would be advisable to accept this new Clause. I cannot quite see what harm it would do. Ireland is coming under a new law, and it is to be a wonderful place. Let us hope that they will be very careful at the start to preserve the old state of things until it is seen how the new state of things will work. Under these circumstances, I shall certainly vote for the exemption of Ireland. It may be asked why do I vote to put Ireland in a different position from that of England. My answer is that I would like to exempt England also from this Bill, but I am afraid we could not very well do that, and, therefore, desiring to do to others as I would they should do unto me, I vote for the exemption of Ireland, and if I could, I should also vote for the exemption of England.
Mr. RAFFAN: We have learnt once again that the Conservative party in this House and the country resembles the Bourbons in that they learn nothing and forget nothing. In the growth of democratic government in this country we have
720
found that the Conservative party, when there has been extensions of popular rights and privileges, have never ventured to propose their withdrawal. They have accepted accomplished facts, they have allowed the legislation to stand upon the Statute Book; indeed, they have gone further—there have been great and popular movements, which were so strong that they could no longer be resisted. They have assented to great extensions of the franchise, but they have always made those concessions grudgingly, and half heartedly. They have always nullified the effect of their concessions to a democracy by retaining some vestige of privilege or of vested right. And in this instance, where it is proposed that every voter in every constituency shall stand in a position of perfect equality, they now propose to exclude Ireland, they propose to exclude Scotland, they propose to exclude Wales, they propose to exclude the Isle of Wight, they propose to exclude the City of London, they propose to exclude the universities, and they propose all these things in order to nullify in detail the effect of legislation which they are bound to accept. It appears to me that a better case could be made for the exemption of Scotland, Wales, or the Isle of Wight, than could be made for Ireland. We are told that legislation for Great Britain and Ireland is fundamentally different with regard to a great number of questions; and, that being so, there ought to be a difference with regard to this matter.
I can only make passing reference to the fact that the history of Great Britain and Ireland might have been very different but for the circumstance that rights conceded to the democracy in Great Britain time after time have been withheld from the people of Ireland, with the result that there has been discontent and that a sense of injustice which has had such an important bearing in our modern history. The Act of Union has never secured equal laws and equal rights between the two people. It seems to me most remarkable that when it is proposed to make a great democratic advance for the whole of the United Kingdom hon. Members opposite should propose to exclude the democracy of Ireland from the benefit of that provision. Upon what ground, apart from the admitted fact that legislation has been different in the two countries, is this Clause proposed? We are told that there are other anomalies in

721
the case of Ireland, and it is pointed out that Ireland is over-represented in this House. But under the Home Rule Bill, of which so much has been said, Ireland in future will send to this House a body of Members, not in excess of the proportion to which she is entitled but a body of forty-two Members, a smaller number than the number to which she would be justly entitled under any system which accurately reflects the number of the population in Ireland and Great Britain. Therefore it appears to me that the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite absolutely goes by the board. We have been told that what is wanted is to protect the Protestants of Ireland, but it appears to me that what hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to do is to give every Protestant two or more votes, and every Roman Catholic only one vote. If the object is to give the Protestants of Ireland representation in excess of what they are justly and fairly entitled, that would appear to be the logical method. I venture to say that this proposal is one which has no parallel in any country in the world where you have either a federal system or self-government for various units in the State. Does anybody suppose that anything so preposterous would be proposed in the United States of America for election to the House of Representatives or to the Senate as that a voter in Maine should have two votes, while every voter in New York should have only one. Does anybody suppose that in Australia in elections for the Commonwealth Parliament it would be proposed that a voter in New South Wales should have—
Mr. BAIRD: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member justified in referring to Australia on this Motion.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): I understood the hon. Member to be using that by way of illustration.
Mr. RAFFAN: I can quite understand why hon. Members opposite are restless. They were very keen about parallels with Australia and Canada when the Home Rule Bill was under discussion, and now they are proposing something for which there is no parallel in the civilised world.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes there is. What about South Africa?
Mr. RAFFAN: The hon. Member will have his opportunity of citing parallels.
722
The last point I have to make is one which perhaps will appeal more directly to the hon. Member, and perhaps he will not venture to deny it. What, after all, is the real reason why the Motion is proposed. Does anybody suppose that the three southern provinces, Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, that the fact of continuing the plural voter would send a single Conservative representative to this House. Hon. Members know well that the unanimity of opinion in the South of Ireland is so great that even if you gave every Unionist voter six votes or seven votes, you would not be able to send any contingent from the South of Ireland representing Conservatives and Unionists. The people there have lived so long in a state of oppression that they know the value of democratic government, and will only send democratic members. This is proposed for Ulster. Why are hon. Members so extremely anxious that the voice of Ireland should not be the true voice of the people of Ireland, and that when elections take place there you should have the benefit of this plural vote. The hon. Member who moved or the hon. Member who seconded, or probably both, referred to the fact that at the present time in Ulster there is a majority only of one in favour of Home Rule. For many years the representation of Londonderry in this House was not the true representation of the people of Londonderry. It was a representation secured by bringing plural voters from all parts of Ireland and from Great Britain to vote down the people who lived there. Everybody knows that if you abolished the plural vote in Ulster there could be no semblance of justification for the statement made so often in this House and in the country, that Ulster is opposed to Home Rule. If you secure a system of government under which the vote of every man in Ulster in every constituency will be equal to the vote of every other man, there can be no doubt you will then have a majority in Ulster declaring in favour of Home Rule. Why hon. Members are so anxious to make an exemption in the case of Ireland is because the whole of the blatant campaign they are carrying on in a campaign based on the most hollow hypocrisy. That is the reason why they are making this proposal.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 243.

Division No. 192.]

AYES.

[8.3 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gardner, Ernest

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Peel, Lieut.Colonel R. F.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Gibbs, George Abraham

Peto, Basil Edward

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Goldsmith, Frank

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Astor, Waldorf

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Baird, John Lawrence

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Ratcliff, R. F.

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

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Baldwin, Stanley

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Remnant, James Farquharson

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barnston, Harry

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Blair, Reginald

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Boles, Lieut-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sanders, Roberts, Arthur

Boyton, James

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Sandys, G. J.

Bridgeman, William Clive

Horner, Andrew Long

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Butcher, John George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Snowden, Philip

Cassel, Felix

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Spear, Sir John Ward

Cautley, Henry Strother

Ingleby, Holcombe

Starkey, John Ralph,

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Swift, Rigby

Clyde, J. Avon

Mackinder, Halford J.

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Macmaster, Donald

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

Dairymple, Viscount

Magnus, Sir Philip

Touche, George Alexander

Denniss, E. R. B.

Malcolm, Ian

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Duke, Henry Edward

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M

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

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

Worthington-Evans, L.

Fell, Arthur

Mount, William Arthur

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Flnlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Newdegate, F. A.

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Newman, John R. P.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Norton-Griffiths, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hicks Beach and Mr. Lane-Fox.

Fletcher, John Samuel

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Forster, Henry William

Parkes, Ebenezer

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Hackett, John

O'Doherty, Philip

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Hancock, J. G.

O'Dowd, John

Agnew, Sir George William

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

O'Malley, William

Alden, Percy

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Shee, James John

Arnold, Sydney

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Hazleton, Richard

Outhwaite, R. L.

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

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

Parry, Thomas H.

Barnes, George N.

Higham, John Sharp

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Hinds, John

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Barton, William

Hodge, John

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

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Hogge, J. M.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Pointer, Joseph

Bentham, G. J.

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Boland, John Plus

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

Booth, Frederick Handel

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Bowerman, Charles W.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Pringle, William M. R.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Radford, G. H.

Brace, William

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Reddy, Michael

Bryce, J. Annan

Jowett, Frederick William

Redmond, John E (Waterford)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Keating, Matthew

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Kellaway, Frederick George

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Kelly, Edward

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Kilbride, Denis

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

King, Joseph

Robinson, Sidney

Chancellor, Henry George

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Lardner, James C. R.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Clancy, John Joseph

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Rowlands, James

Clough, William

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

Rowntree, Arnold

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Leach, Charles

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Scanlan, Thomas

Cotton, William Francis

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

Cowan, W. H.

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

Lundon, Thomas

Sheehy, David

Crooks, William

Lynch, A. A.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Crumley, Patrick

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Shortt, Edward

Cullinan, John

Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

McGhee, Richard

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

M'Curdy, C. A.

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Dawes, James Arthur

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Sutherland, John E.

De Forest, Baron

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

Sutton, John E.

Delany, William

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Devlin, Joseph

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Dillon, John

Meagher, Michael

Tennant, Harold John

Donelan, Captain A.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Thomas, J. H.

Doris, William

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Duffy, William J.

Millar, James Duncan

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

Molloy, Michael

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Verney, Sir Harry

Elverston, Sir Harold

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Wadsworth, John

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Mooney, John J.

Webb, H.

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Morgan, George Hay

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Morrell, Philip

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Morison, Hector

Whitehouse, John Howard

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Ffrench, Peter

Muldoon, John

Wiles, Thomas

Field, William

Munro, Robert

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Fitzgibbon, John

Murphy, Martin J.

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

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

Ginnell, Lawrence

Needham, Christopher T,

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

Glanville, H. J.

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Wing, Thomas Edward

Goldstone, Frank

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Nuttall, Harry

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Gulland, John William

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Division No. 193.]

AYES.

[9.31 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Fell, Arthur

Mount, William Arthur

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Newdegate, F. A.

Astor, Waldorf

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Newman, John R. P.

Baird, John Lawrence

Fleming, Valentine

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

Fletcher, John Samuel

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Gardner, Ernest

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Banbury, Sir Frederick Georoe

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Gibbs, G. A.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Barnston, Harry

Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Grant, J. A.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Greene, W. R.

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Denis Fortescue

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Boyton, James

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

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Sanderson, Lancelot

Butcher, John George

Helmsley, Viscount

Spear, Sir John Ward

Cassel, Felix

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Cautley, H. S.

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Swift, Rigby

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

Hohler, G. F.

Talbot, Lord E.

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Horner, Andew Long

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

Clyde, J. Avon

Houston, Robert Paterson

Touche, George Alexander

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Ingleby, Holcombe

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Dairymple, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Denison-Pender, J. C.

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Denniss, E. R. B.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Mackinder, Halford J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Rawlinson and Captain Morrison-Bell.

Duke, Henry Edward

Macmaster, Donald

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Magnus, Sir Philip

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Crooks, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Crumley, Patrick

Hazleton, Richard

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

Cullinan, John

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Agnew, Sir George William

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Alden, Percy

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

Higham, John Sharp

Armitage, R.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

Hinds, John

Arnold, Sydney

Dawes, James Arthur

Hodge, John

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

De Forest, Baron

Hogge, James Myles

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Delany, William

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Devlin, Joseph

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Dillon, John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barnes, George N.

Donelan, Captain A.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Barran, Sir John U. (Hawick Burghs)

Doris, William

Illingworth, Percy H.

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Duffy, William J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Barton, William

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Elverston, Sir Harold

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Jowett, Frederick William

Bentham, George Jackson

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Joyce, Michael

Boland, John Pius

Esslemont, George Birnie

Keating, Matthew

Booth, Frederick Handel

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Kellaway, Frederick George

Bowerman, Charles W.

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Kelly, Edward

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Ffrench, Peter

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Brace, William

Field, William

Kilbride, Denis

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Fitzgibbon, John

King, Joseph

Brocklehurst, William B.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Ginnell, Laurence

Lardner, James C. R.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Glanville, H. J.

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

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Leach, Charles

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Goldstone, Frank

Levy, Sir Maurice

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Carr-Gomm. H. W.

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

Lundon, Thomas

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Gulland, John William

Lynch, A. A.

Chancellor, Henry George

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hackett, John

McGhee, Richard

Clancy, John Joseph

Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

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

Clough, William

Hancock, John George

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

M'Curdy, C. A.

Cotton, William Francis

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

Cowan, W. H.

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

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

724

725

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Parker, James (Halifax)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Parry, Thomas H.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Meagher, Michael

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

Snowden, Philip

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Millar, James Duncan

Pointer, Joseph

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Molloy, Michael

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Sutherland, John E.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Sutton, John E.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Mooney, John J.

Pringle, William M. R.

Tennant, Harold John

Morgan, George Hay

Radford, G. H.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Morrell, Philip

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Morison, Hector

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Reddy, Michael

Verney, Sir Harry

Muldoon, John

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wadsworth, John

Munro, Robert

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Murphy, Martin J.

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Webb, H.

Needham, Christopher Thomas

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Nolan, Joseph

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Whyte, Alexander F.

Nuttall, Harry

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Wiles, Thomas

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Robinson, Sidney

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

O'Doherty, Philip

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Rowlands, James

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

O'Dowd, John

Rowntree, Arnold

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Malley, William

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

Winfrey, Richard

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

Scanlan, Thomas

Wing, Thomas Edward

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

O'Shee, James John

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Sheehy, David

Outhwalte, R. L.

Sherwell, Arthur James

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

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Shortt, Edward

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington; (Mr. Pollock) and others ["Saving"] is not in order. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) ["Modification of Penalty under 46 and 47 Vic, c. 51"] should come as an Amendment. I think the hon. Member has it already on the Paper.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Expiration of the Act.)
Unless Parliament otherwise determines this Act shall not continue in force after the expiration of five years from the passing thereof.
New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I would not have ventured to have brought this proposal up again on the Report stage had it not been for certain remarks by the spokesman of the Labour party signifying that he had considerable sympathy with the Amendment. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Arthur Henderson) said that the Amendment was well worthy of consideration. Indeed, I think he went so far as to say that if there
726
had been present Members on the Front Opposition Bench he would have voted for the proposal, but for some inexplicable reason he concluded his speech by saying that he was going to vote against it. While, therefore, emboldened to bring forward the proposal again, I shall not support it by the same arguments which I adduced in Committee. One reason why I think the Bill should be of a temporary character is that it deals only with General Elections. Is it not absurd to put on the Statute Book as a permanent piece of legislation a measure which introduces one method of voting at a General Election and another method at by-elections? That distinction could only be justified by the fact that the Government are anxious to bring the Session to a close at the earliest possible moment. They have not sufficient confidence that if the Session continued beyond about the 12th August they would be able to command the following of their supporters. I can see no other reason for dealing with the problem in this way, which the Government themselves have over and over again admitted is not the best way of dealing with the matter. Their only reason for limiting the Bill to General Elections is that it enables them to bring in a one-Clause Bill. That being so, I think they ought to make so imperfect a piece of legislation temporary. By so

727
doing, they would be following the precedent of the Ballot Act itself, because by Section 33 of that Act it is provided that it should continue in force until the 31st December, 1880, and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determined. Ever since 1880 the Ballot Act has been continued by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and if this Clause were introduced it would be perfectly possible to deal with the present measure in the same way. It is desirable to have this Clause in the Bill in order to keep it present to the minds of whatever Government are in power that they ought to deal with the electoral problem in a more comprehensive and reasonable manner, by a Bill having reference to the problem itself, and not by a Bill drawn up simply with a view-to taking the minimum amount of time in the House. That is the sole principle of the present Bill. On these grounds I beg to move the Second Reading of this Clause.
Lieut.-Colonel BOLES: I beg to second the Motion.
Mr. HARCOURT: I think it will perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I imitate the admirable brevity of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just seconded the Amendment. Let me put our point of view quite simply and frankly before the House. We avowedly want permanence for this measure. Hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to have something like automatic repeal. We want this Bill to last until some other or better method is substituted for it. I quite agree that there are many other ways in which this matter could be carried out. There was the proposal which fell to the ground, not by our fault, earlier in this year. I have, too, a fatherly affection towards a proposal of my own in 1906. The question of by-elections which have been alluded to by hon. Gentlemen can only be dealt with by an elaborate system of registration which we have not thought it right to throw into this Bill. This measure is short, simple, effective, and it is indulgent to the plural voter. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, because for the first time in any of these proposals it leaves him up to the last moment free to choose his constituency. It is no doubt quite true that if hon. Members opposite are in office at the end of five years they will repeal this Bill. We can face that with confidence, because I have heard promises of repeal made in the past by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Sir F. BANBURY Sir F. BANBURY made an observation which was inaudible.
Mr. HARCOURT: Hope springs eternal in some breasts. I heard the late Lord Salisbury promise during, the passage through the House of Lords of the Budget in 1894 that it would be repealed by his party. They were in office for ten years afterwards, and never touched one of its provisions. If we are in office five years hence, we mean to maintain this Bill—possibly to amend it. At all events we have no desire or intention to relegate it to the sort of sickly schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act in which it may be repealed at any moment, if hon. Members are in office, by the mere omission of the Bill to be brought before this House. The fact is the House is quite frankly and honestly divided into two parties on this, question. Those who think as I and my Friends do on this side of the House, think that this Bill is good, and we mean, so far as we can, to maintain it, as an hon. Member opposite said yesterday about the Parliament Act, for all time. Those who dislike this Bill do not even want to maintain it for five years. They even think that it ought not to be passed at all. This is a sort of half-way house that provides no comfort or accommodation to either party—I mean the half-way house of this new Clause. Either you want the Bill or you do not. We do want it. You do not. The issue is such a simple one that I think we might almost at once proceed to a division.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman said, "Either you want this Bill or you do not." I do not think the position is quite so simple as he would have us believe. The Government themselves admit that they are dealing with one little point in a big area of controversy; that their measure is incomplete, imperfect, difficult to work in many respects. In spite of all those defects they desire to carry it at once in this form, leaving further reforms to be dealt with at some period between the present and the time that this Parliament comes to an end. We are not at all sure that even if the wildest hopes of the right hon. Gentleman in his most sanguine moments were realised, and that they had not only the whole of this, but of another Parliament in which to realise the good intentions that they have expressed, that they would ever touch this question again, once they had secured

729
themselves against the plural voter. We desire there should be on the face of this Bill some indication of that which we find in every speech that every Minister makes, that this is not a complete solution of the difficulty which confronts us—that it is not a simple question, but that this is only a temporary expedient to suit the present convenience of the opposite side, to be perfected and improved at the earliest moment that Parliament can direct its attention to the matter. That is the object of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. It is to write on the face of this Bill its temporary and imperfect character, and to remind the House—not this House but its successor—that this was not a solution of the question, and that the question still remains to be solved. The right hon. Gentleman said this Bill was short. That is true. He said this Bill was simple. That I think is, perhaps, paternal fondness, and scarcely expresses what the practical effects of this Bill will be. It necessarily involves a greater attention to machinery; less thought to what the country is really thinking; more thought about how you can best arrange the various votes you command to secure the greatest number of representatives in this House. That, seems to me to be the first effect this Bill will have.
Any Bill which has the effect of lessening the importance of the vote and increasing the importance of the machine can not, I think, be described as a Bill which will be simple in its operation, whatever it may be in its actual terms. The last observation of the right hon. Gentleman about the Bill was really unique—as to the attitude of mind with which the Government approaches this matter. He said the Bill was indulgent to the plural voter. What indulgence is shown to the plural voter under the terms of this Bill? [An HON. MEMBER: "He can vote at a by-election."] The right hon. Gentleman knows the kind of questions at by-elections. At a by-election the plural voter is still left some of his rights, merely because it is the desire of the Government to have the Bill short and simple, and when you attempt to deal with by-elections, your Bill can neither be one thing nor the other. That is what the right hon. Gentleman was thinking of when he said that the Bill was indulgent. He meant that it was indulgent at a General Election. I invite him to say why. What boon has the plural voter got under
730
this Bill; what right, what advantage, that is not common to every elector in the country? The Bill provides that he should give no more than one vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to pursue my argument. It will be their fault if my speech is longer than I intended. This Bill prevents the plural voter from voting more than once, but every other elector has one vote only. He can only record his vote in one place. What is the indulgence there? [An HON. MEMBER: "He can choose his place."] That is not an indulgence. He is qualified for more than one place ex hypothesi. It is not an indulgence to him to allow him to exercise his vote in the place in which he wishes to exercise it. It would be a special disqualification, if being qualified to vote, he should not be allowed to exercise that right where he wanted to exercise it. That, no doubt, is what you wanted. I agree that that is what the original proposal was, and what the party opposite would like, and that is the kind of Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind when he says he hopes to amend the Bill at some time. The Amendment brings this anomaly into proper relations with other anomalies, and it prevents the House of Commons from dealing with this single anomaly without remembering that it ought to solve the whole problem.
Mr. J. HOPE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was present during the last discussion. If so, he would realise that there was a consideration of great importance, which hitherto had been entirely neglected by the Government, and that is that this Bill exercises an extraordinary effect upon the Government of Ireland Bill. It was pointed out, and by the silence of the Government was admitted, that if this Bill passed into law later than the Government of Ireland Bill it would nullify that Bill in one important particular. Clause 9 of the Irish Bill says that the Irish Parliament, after the expiration of three years, shall have power to make such franchise laws of itself, but if this Bill passes after the Government of Ireland Bill it will override that, because by a later Clause 41, it is provided that the Irish Parliament shall not have power to deal with the franchise so as to override the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and where there is concurrent legislation the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall prevail. Therefore, this Bill will

731
override the provisions of Clause 9, and exercise an effect which was certainly not intended by the Government, either in this Bill or in the Government of Ireland Bill, and it follows that there will be a necessity for revision after two years, and it will be far better that that necessity should be marked upon the face of the Bill. I take it that my interpretation of this Bill and of the Government of Ireland Bill is accepted by the Government, because no view has been expressed to the contrary.
As to the point of simplicity, does the right hon. Gentleman seriously think that the operation of this Bill will be simple? The first result will be that the party agents will put their heads together and make up a prodigious list of plural voters all over the United Kingdom. They will set up a sort of Clearing House; they will divide the constituencies into "safe," "hopeless," and "doubtful." They will then prepare a second list of plural voters in the doubtful districts, and having done that, they will devise a mass of elaborate machinery to concentrate the plural voters from the "safe" and "hopeless" upon the "doubtful" seats, and there will be enormous labour and considerable recrimination and internal heart-burning. Simplicity is the last thing that the Bill possibly can produce, and this state of things must of necessity be temporary. I look forward, though many of my Friends may not agree with me, to proportional representation as a solution of the problem. Whether that be so, or whether we still go on the single vote, this Bill must of necessity cause the greatest trouble and inconvenience, and its provisional character should be stamped upon it from the outset. I hope the Colonial Secretary will say whether or not he accepts my view of the effect upon the Government of Ireland Bill. If nothing more is said I will take it that my interpretation is the correct one, and that it will have an effect upon the Irish Bill that certainly was not intended by the Government.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. BUTCHER: The principle for which we contend, and which we say justifies this Amendment is, broadly speaking, that you are by this Bill attempting to deal with one anomaly, and one only, of our electoral system, leaving larger and worse anomalies entirely undealt with, and that it is not right that a measure dealing with one anomaly only should be a permanent
732
measure. What answer does the Colonial Secretary give? He says, "We are extremely indulgent to the plural voter." I suppose the plural voter is such a sinner that he ought not to be allowed to vote at all, and therefore, if we allow him to vote once, we are extremely indulgent. I cannot see what indulgence the plural voter gets by this Bill. Then we have the brutal candour of the Under Secretary for India. He did not attempt to justify the Bill except from the point of view of flagrant party exigencies. "This Bill," he said in effect, "is going to improve the position of our party, and, therefore, it is quite right that we, having the power, should pass it into law." I think that is an argument which is not worthy of being put forward from that or any other bench. Then came the argument of the President of the Board of Education. He admits that this is a very partial dealing with the subject, but he says, "We intend, at some time or other"—a short time, someone said, in the history of the nation—" to bring in a Bill dealing with the matter more fully." I am afraid that we have some reason to believe that these statements of intention are not always successfully carried out. We want to give some effect to their statement of intention. Assuming it is an intention, let us stimulate them to carry out that intention. Let us make this Bill temporary and fix a limit to its operation, and then, perhaps you will be induced to carry out its intention and to bring in a larger measure dealing with the wider anomalies which are admitted. None of the reasons which have been given by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are in any degree adequate as reasons why this Amendment should not be passed.
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have characterised the statement of the Colonial Secretary that some indulgence has been shown for the plural voter in this Bill as altogether beside the mark. At an earlier stage of the proceedings on this Bill I stated that I had a considerable sympathy with the proposal to limit its operation for a certain period, but the reason for my sympathy was that the Bill was altogether too indulgent to the plural voter. If you are going to deal with what we call the evil of the anomaly of the plural voter there is a right and a wrong way of doing it, and our objection is that the Government have selected the wrong way. We hold that so long as you leave the prin-

733
ciple of selection, and by that, to a certain extent allow gerrymandering in the constituencies, you are not dealing with this anomaly in the correct way. What do you do? You allow the pluralist to be registered, if he has ten or twenty qualifications, for the whole of them. This is no new evil in connection with electioneering, both for Parliamentary and municipal elections. Supposing a pluralist is registered for every qualification, and in one constituency more than another the party agent feels that it is a little bit near and short of votes, that it has so many registered for constituencies where the party is strong and so many registered for constituencies where the party is weak. All the agents have to do is to set to work to influence the elector to vote in the constituency where the party is short of votes. They may be short of a few score or a few hundred votes, and then by a concentration they may turn the election in a given direction. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I need not from any point of view argue why not. I am merely showing there is some consideration, and that was the point made in more than one speech criticising the statement made by the Colonial Secretary. I am merely showing—and I speak from experience as an old election agent —how it has worked in connection with municipal elections over and over again, and the results have been turned in a given direction by the mere process of getting the people who have the choice of recording their votes in one ward or another to vote in a given ward, and thus override the votes of the resident electors in that particular ward.
Moreover, I want to say that there is another great consideration, and this is another strong point against this Bill, and this consideration has been shown so far as by-elections are concerned. I think in by-elections there is one of the strongest possible objections to the method which the Government have chosen. I know the reason for it. I know it would have involved an entirely different measure, and a much more comprehensive and complicated Bill, to have dealt with that question, because it would have affected the question of registration, but it seems to me that we on these benches can only regard the Bill as one to exist only for a limited period, because we feel, first of all, that it will lead to the gerrymandering of constituencies; and, secondly, because of the difference that will obtain between a General Election and a by-
734
election. It seems to me that we ought certainly to try always to appeal as nearly as can be to the same electorate, and we are not going to do this by restricting the vote in the General Election and allowing the plural voters to vote just as they like in connection with a by-election. I have often wondered why it is that the Opposition are so anxious to put in this five-years' limitation. I suppose that they are getting a little tired of telling this House that when they come into power they will have thrown upon them the responsibility of repealing these measures. In more than one debate during the last few months hon. Members opposite have solemnly assured the House, and they have given the same assurances on public platforms, that they intend to repeal Home Rule, Welsh Disestablishment, and the Parliament Act, and they have also talked about repealing the Trades Disputes Act and payment of Members. I suppose they are now getting a little bit tired of telling the House and the country that they are going to repeal these measures, and they now adopt a simpler method of trying to-limit the operation of the Plural Voting Bill to five years, and that relieves them of the necessity of saying that they are going to repeal this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire spoke about dealing with one part of the great electoral problem, but he said nothing in the event of this Amendment being carried, and his party coming into power with the right hon. Gentleman occupying a very important position in the Government, what they proposed to do.
Sir F. BANBURY: Wait and see.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: The hon. Baronet tells me to "wait and see," and he took the words out of my mouth, because I was going to say that probably the right hon. Gentleman would respond by saying, "We are not going to prescribe until we are called in." It does seem to some of us that when we are asked to vote for a proposal of this kind, we ought to be given some indication as to where hon. Members opposite are leading us, and that is exactly what they will not do. We want to deal with the question more fully than it is dealt with by this Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite does not say that when his party comes into power he will give us any opportunity of going into the great question of electoral reform, which I am very

735
much interested in, and which I want to see dealt with. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to encourage in us the hope that we may expect something from his party if they come into power, they should give us some little encouragement when they are putting these proposals before the House.
Sir W. ANSON: I do not propose to enter into the large question which has been raised by the hon. Member who has just sat down, but I will deal with the short point as to whether this should be a temporary or a permanent measure. I think the contempt which the Colonial Secretary poured upon this new Clause is wholly unjustified. I will give my reasons why I think that there should be some limit put to the continuance of this measure in order to give Parliament a definite opportunity of considering it after a time. One is that on the admission of hon. Members on that side of the House and of the Government, our whole Parliamentary system needs to be overhauled. We have the Parliament Act which provides for a reform of the other House, a vision which continually recedes whenever we endeavour to approach it; and we have their own admission that Redistribution should follow before the conclusion, if possible, of this Parliament, and Redistribution means a tremendous change in the distribution of political power throughout the country. Then we have before us this little measure which touches one corner of the reforms of our Parliamentary system, and which, whenever they carry out their great schemes for the reform of this House and the redistribution of political power throughout the country, will have to be fitted into the whole system. It is very desirable that it should be brought home to the country that, whenever this great reform takes place, this measure will have to be adapted to the changed conditions of our Parliamentary system at that time. That is one reason why I think that it is most important to limit the continuance of this measure. Another is one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) referred. Anyone who looks at Clause 41 of the Home Rule Bill will see that this Plural Voting Bill, which must in the nature of things, if it ever becomes law, become law after the Home Rule Bill, if ever that becomes law, will govern the Irish Parliament. The Irish Parliament may desire to alter this Bill, and it is very
736
desirable that it should be limited so as to give the Irish Parliament the power to relax the conditions we are laying upon them by this Bill. There is a third reason which I really think the Colonial Secretary overlooked when he treated this new Clause with such contempt. It is in strict accordance with Parliamentary procedure that measures which concern electoral matters should be temporary. If he looks at the Expiring Laws Continuance Act he will see constant reference to Parliamentary procedure, and, amongst other things, the Ballot Act which has lasted now for forty-two years has been renewed from year to year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. It is therefore in strict accordance with Parliamentary procedure, and I would suggest that it is in strict accordance with the convenience of this House and of the legislation of this House, that some time limit should be imposed upon the operations of this Bill and that the new Clause should be accepted by the Government.
Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I desire to add a few words to those which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) in opposition to this Amendment. The first reason given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that this ought to be temporary because the whole system of representation needs to be overhauled. Is that a reason? Within the five years proposed, either the whole system of representation will be overhauled, or it will not. If it is overhauled, this Bill will not stand in the way, if it is not overhauled is the fact of that unhappy circumstances to prevent the country having the advantage of this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Disadvantage."] That is a matter of opinion. Those of us who believe it to be quite inadequate, but good as far as it goes, can surely not be tempted either by the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, or by the frank expression of opinion by the hon. and gallant Member opposite to support this Amendment, because, so far as it goes, we hold that the Bill redresses a grievance and brings us one step nearer proper representation.
The second argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was drawn from possible experience in Ireland, sufficient unto the day is the problem thereof in that particular. Hon. Members may interpret that in whichever way they choose. The third argument was that many

737
measures affecting Parliamentary procedure are now included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Yes, they are, but are methods as to the possession of a vote or not included in that Act?
Sir W. ANSON: This Bill does not affect the possession of the vote. It imposes a penalty for exercising it.
Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the most accurate, but, if I may venture to say so, verbal criticism. It affects the exercise of a vote, and therefore practically affects the franchise whereas the Ballot Act and other Acts included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill do not affect the number of votes more or less or the possession of the vote by the individual. They merely affect the particular way in which the agreed number, of votes are given. I venture to submit with the greatest possible deference to the high constitutional authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be a novelty to include a measure of this kind—which is essentially a Franchise Bill—in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is most desirable that the electors of this country should know without any kind of doubt or hesitation exactly what their powers are. For myself I agree very largely with what the hon. Member for Barnard Castle has said about the limitations of this Bill, and about its inadequacy and incompleteness. We all know the reasons of Parliamentary time and the exigencies of the Parliamentary position which have led to those defects. But there is this to be said in favour of the very limited character of the Bill: No one can say that this in itself is a final and complete settlement of the problem of the plural voter. If so, there is no danger in making it technically permanent. But there is no possibility of the matter being permanently left where the Bill leaves it, and therefore the argument that it should be made temporary really fails because of the character of the limitations in the Bill.
Mr HICKS BEACH: I fail to understand why the Hon. Member for Barnard Castle has congratulated the Government on the benevolence of its action. It is graciously allowing the plural voter to exercise the vote once in a General Election in exactly the same way as any other voter—and where the benevolence of that comes in I cannot see. It is an interest-
738
ing fact that on the Report stage the Labour party has discovered that the Bill will lead to a good deal of work on the part of the Parliamentary agent, and that it will necessitate a great deal of manipulation of votes among different constituencies. The hon. Member was also good enough to tell us that his party look upon this measure as a very undemocratic measure. In these circumstances I would venture to suggest that he should take his courage in his hands and, seeing that the majority at the back of the Government is fairly large, that he and some of his supporters might vote for the Amendment. It would do the Government no harm and it would show a little independence on their part.
Mr. GOLDSMITH: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, and am not quite certain whether he is going to support the Clause or vote against it. He told us that there was a right way and a wrong way of approaching this subject, and that the Government had selected the wrong way. In that case the hon. Member ought to have voted against the Second Reading of this Bill, but, as he did not do so, he ought, at least, to vote for a Clause which is going to make the Bill temporary. He also said that the Bill was too indulgent to the plural voter. I have carefully looked through it, and am unable to find that any indulgence is shown to the plural voter. As a matter of fact, it is a Bill to disfranchise and punish the plural voter. The Colonial Secretary also told us that, in his opinion the plural voter was treated with great indulgence. May I remind him that he was responsible for a Plural Voting Bill in 1906, which, in one respect, at any rate, was far more indulgent to the plural voter than this Bill? I refer to the question of the penalty. Under this Bill no mercy is shown to the plural voter who inadvertently commits a breach of the Bill. In the Bill of 1906 the word "knowingly" was inserted. It is omitted from this Bill. In addition to that there was a Clause which gave the High Court power to remit the penalties in any case which came before them. Both these methods of protecting the plural voter are omitted from this Bill. I cannot see any part of it which shows indulgence to the plural voter, and I hope that the hon. Member for Barnard Castle will lead his party into the Lobby in favour of this Clause.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: We listened a few moments ago to a speech from the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, which from one end to the other was an argument in favour of making this Bill as temporary as possible. He pointed out that it would lead to a certain amount of manipulation in the constituencies. Of course it will. We have all had experience of a certain amount of necessary arrangement that has to be made and is made by all political parties, including the Labour party, in every municipal election where there is more than one ward or division in a city or town. The fact is that wherever there are electors who are qualified and are on the register in one or more divisions or wards it is obvious that the parties must try to arrange matters in such a way as for themselves to get the most advantage out of the fact that there are voters with more than one qualification. Why should they not? If the voters have a qualification, surely it is perfectly right that arrangements should be made that in a particular place where it is wanted, or if they choose to exercise it, if it is within their option to do so, they should be allowed to record their votes! That is a grave objection to the Bill being permanent. Anything in the nature of arrangement or manipulation of the voters in any given division to accomplish any given object is clearly. something which this House should avoid if possible, but if Parliamentary exigencies have caused us to resort, for the purpose of getting rid of the plural voter, to some extent to adopt a Bill of this description, surely the argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Henderson), which was to point out these grave defects in it, is the strongest possible argument which can be put forward to make the measure as temporary as possible. The hon. Member gave another reason. The plural voter can still vote in a number of by-elections whenever he likes, and the hon. Member pointed out that the effect of that would be that if you had a by-election, followed in a week or two by a General Election you would not be appealing to the same body of electors, although the elections were fought upon absolutely the same register. There is no doubt that that is a very grave defect. Those are two grave defects which really go to the merits of the whole measure as a remedial measure to accomplish the object which the Government have held out to the country, and which are apparent on the
740
face of it. We have never denied the two points which the hon. Member has made, but what we say is that amongst other reasons why this Bill should be made as temporary as possible, surely these two reasons are enough to bring it about.
There was another argument used just now from the other side in reference to other Acts of this kind being temporary. It was pointed out that the Ballot Act is exactly in the same position in which we should like to put this Bill. There is also the Corrupt Practices Act. It came as a surprise, no doubt, to a great many hon. Members when attention was called to that not many months ago. All the Corrupt Practices Acts require to be renewed from one year to another, or else they would entirely expire. If this Bill comes into any category at all it ought to be described as a sort of Corrupt Practices Act imposing a penalty, upon voting twice in a General Election. Therefore we have perhaps the most important precedent which could possibly be found for making this Act of a temporary character. I do not believe the plural voter is a criminal. It is rather suggested that the plural voter ought to be punished because he has got something or done something which is worthy of being held up to public opprobrium. Plural voters in a great many cases are working men who have saved a little money and got a qualification in the county or in the city as well as their residential qualifications. I do not see why those people should not have all the privileges which come from having saved and invested their money in a reasonable way. I agree that the proper principle that the House ought to go for and make permanent some day in a perfectly reasonable manner, is One Man One Vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, that is the principle that ought to be made permanent, but this Bill creates further difficulties, and does not solve the question. It leaves all the other anomalies alone, and even in dealing with this particular anomaly, it does it in a way which is going to cause confusion. It is going to lead to gerrymandering, and it is going to lead to the same constituency within two or three weeks having two sets of electors. After pointing out these difficulties the hon. Member declared himself in favour of the Bill being made permanent. We cannot expect anything else from the party to which he belongs. We have seen not only in this matter, but in a variety of others, that hon. Members go up and down the country laying down

741
principles, and then come here and vote a different way in order to support the Government, even where, as in this case, the arguments are strong in the opposite direction.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry that the hon. Member for the Middleton Division of Lancashire (Sir Ryland Adkins) has left the House, as I wanted to say a few words upon the extraordinary arguments he brought forward against the Amendment. He advanced two arguments only against the acceptance of the new Clause. First of all, he said that the Bill was inadequate and insufficient, and would require amending. I should have thought that was one of the strongest possible arguments that could be brought forward for accepting the Clause. If the Bill is inadequate and insufficient, and will require amending, surely the best thing we could do is to make it a temporary measure, so that, at the expiration of the time fixed for its continuance, it could be amended and made adequate and sufficient. The other argument was that the voter would not know where he was if this Clause was passed, and if the Act went year by year into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I am not quite certain that the voter will know where he is if the Bill is passed, but I am quite sure if it was put in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act he would know whether it had been renewed or repealed It is perfectly evident that steps will be taken to inform people what they have to do, and what their powers are. I would have said that both of these arguments were in favour of the new Clause.
I am afraid I cannot congratulate the Secretary for the Colonies on the speech he made at the commencement of the Debate on this Clause or upon the soundness of the arguments which he advanced, as I did when he spoke on an Amendment earlier in the evening. The right hon. Gentleman brought forward the argument that the Bill was indulgent to the plural voter. I have not looked up the meaning of the word "indulgent" in the dictionary, but I understand that it means the giving of something to someone who has no right to what is given, and that it is given on the part of somebody as a gift to the recipient. If that is the right meaning, then I disagree with the Colonial Secretary, because there is no indulgence granted to the plural voter under this Bill. It is a right which the plural voter has in the constituency an which he is duly qualified, and there
742
fore that argument falls to the ground. Then we come to the other argument that the Bill would require Amendment and would be amended before five years had expired. If that is so, then why not accept the Amendment? In fact, every argument—except that of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson)—is an argument strongly in favour of the new Clause. The argument of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle was that the plural voter generally voted Conservative, and therefore he ought not to have any vote at all; it is an indulgence to allow him to have any vote, and the only people who ought to have votes are Members of the Independent Labour party. We do not agree with that. This is an experimental measure, and very strong arguments have been advanced in favour of making it a temporary measure, and to those arguments there has been no reply.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I point out to the hon. Baronet that there is granted to the plural voter no indulgence of which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Colonies, from his position, must be aware? The right hon. Gentleman doubtless knows the steps that have been taken in the Colonies in the abolition of the plural voter. In every case the qualification has been made residential. As an example I may give the case of the State of Victoria. They had in the city of Melbourne a Conservative representative. When plural voting was abolished they had in the city of Melbourne a majority consisting of caretakers and working-class people. The Mayor of Melbourne, perhaps the most extravagant labour man in Australia, was put up against the Conservative, and he was defeated by the votes of the caretakers and the working classes. The same thing might happen in the City of London. They made the qualification residential instead of giving the plural voter a choice, and in giving a choice in this case a great deal of indulgence has been given to the hon. Baronet. There is no expectation of this being made permanent, because if hon. Members opposite come into power they will make short work of it, and if the Liberal party are again returned they will make short work of it. In this question hon. Gentlemen are dealing with representation according to the property qualification, but that qualification must go sooner or later, and when you have manhood suffrage, then, necessarily, the qualification must be residential; a man must vote where he resides.

743
Then you will not have that opportunity of gerrymandering the constituencies of which the agents of the party opposite take the fullest advantage.
Mr. SANDERSON: I have listened to the arguments in this Debate with the greatest possible interest, and I am bound to say that if this Amendment is not carried it will cast a grave reflection upon this House. The proposal is that this measure should be a temporary one. Every hon. Member who has spoken in this Debate has put forward arguments to show that this is a temporary Bill. This side of the House looks upon it as temporary, first, because we think it is not a just measure and that it ought to be put right at the earliest possible moment, and, secondly, if for no other reason, that it is dealing with a matter that ought not to be dealt with by itself, but ought to be dealt with in connection with a large scheme of Redistribution. On the other hand, Members on that side of the House pointed out what a very inadequate measure this is. The arguments on both side of the House have been all one way—that this is a temporary measure. That being so, why should this House pass it? I was very much impressed with the arguments of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson.) I thought he was making up his mind to vote for this Amendment until the very end of his speech, and then it turned out that the reason which chiefly weighed with him was that he could not tell what would happen at the end of the period. He need not be anxious, because at the end of the period he might have become a plural voter himself—at all events he might have entirely changed his mind as to the position of the plural voter They say it takes a strong man to change his mind, and the hon. Member might perhaps change his at the end of the period. If that is the only reason which prevents him from voting for the Amendment, be need not be in any doubt. At the end of five years, if it ever becomes law, this Bill will not be in existence. For these reasons I submit that the Amendment ought to be carried.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I was very much interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite). It appears to me that the Colonial precedent in legislation is one which cannot be driven too far in this House. We all know
744
that various projects may suit the Dominions Overseas, being comparatively new countries, which do not necessarily conform to the conditions and ideas of politics which have been handed down to-us in this House. But I think, if we may judge by the speech of the hon. Member, we might claim him as being in favour of the plural vote, because he put forward one of the strongest arguments in favour of retaining the plural vote that has yet been advanced. He referred to the City of Melbourne, and he seemed rather to regret the abolition of the plural vote there, stating that the Mayor of Melbourne had been rejected by the caretakers and others to whom the City vote was confined. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has so far paid attention to the arguments on this side of the House. That is exactly what we have been urging will happen in the case of the City of London. Therefore, such an arrangement will not, as a matter of fact, be as truly representative as it is at the present moment. The hon. Member speaks of the indulgence of choice which is allowed but that seems to be wholly illusory. The inevitable and intended result of this Bill will be that residence will tend more and more to be the qualification of the vote, and that automatically the tendency will be to vote in the place of residence. So that in spite of this indulgence we shall arrive at the situation which the hon. Member deplored as regards Melbourne.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: I did not deplore it.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I fail to fathom the mind of the hon. Member if he still thinks that the business interests of the city are better represented by the views of the caretakers than of those who are carrying on the undertakings. It does appear to me that there is a great deal to be said for carrying this Amendment, and for revising the whole question at the end of the period suggested. Circumstances in these islands may be considerably different, and a good many hon. Members opposite who now think that this Bill will be an advantage may by that time quite conceivably change their views.
Major MORRISON-BELL: The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) said that in Melbourne, using Australia as an illustration, there is no plural voting and that every man there has one vote. That is an absolutely intelligible proposition if they have, as they have in Australia and

745
in Canada, one vote one value. In this case the Government are trying to introduce one man one vote—a perfectly legitimate scheme—but are absolutely failing to introduce one vote one value, because they realise that it would be absolute wreckage to all their present schemes. Therefore when the hon. Member quoted Australia he should also, I think, have informed the House that they have the corresponding and perfectly understandable system whereby those votes are each of them of the same value, and not like the system, here, whereby votes for Members below the Gangway count twice as much as English votes. That is the chief objection to this Bill. That is why every Member on this side, and I
hope some opposite, can get up and support this particular Clause. As soon as the Government bring in one vote one value they will find on this side all Members will be ready to support their one man one vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite cheer at that proposition, but over and over again it has been said, and has been proved by everybody, that we are perfectly ready to accept the doctrine of one man one vote, provided you accept the similar doctrine of one vote one value
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 253.

Division No. 194.]

AYES.

[10.54 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Fleming, Valentine

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

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Fletcher, John Samuel

Mount, William Arthur

Ashley, W. W.

Forster, Henry William

Newdegate, F. A.

Astor, Waldorf

Gardner, Ernest

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Baird, John Lawrence

Gibbs, G. A.

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

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

Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Baldwin, Stanley

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Banbury, Sir Fredrick George

Grant, J. A.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Greene, W. R.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

Gretton, John

Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

Perkins, Walter Frank

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Haddock, George Bahr

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Mt'gomy B'ghs.)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Blair, Reginald

Harris, Henry Percy

Rothschild, Lionel de

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Helmsley, Viscount

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Boyton, James

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Sanders, Robert A.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hills, John Waller

Sanderson, Lancelot

Burn, Coolonel C. R.

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Sassoon, Sir Philip

Butcher, John George

Hoare, S. J. G.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Campion, W. R.

Hohler, G. F.

Spear, Sir John Ward

Cassel, Felix

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Starkey, John R.

Cator, John

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cautley, H. S.

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cave, George

Horner, Andrew Long

Swift, Rigby

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Talbot, Lord E.

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

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

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

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Hunt, Rowland

Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Ingleby, Holcombe

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

Clyde, J. Avon

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Kerry, Earl of

Touche, George Alexander

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Dairymple, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Tuillbardine, Marquess of

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Lewisham, Viscount

Walker, Col. William Hall

Denison-Pender, J. C.

Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Denniss, E. R. B.

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Dickson, Rt Hon. C. Scott

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

Duke, Henry Edward

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Duncannon, Viscount

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Wolmer, Viscount

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Mackinder, Halford J.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

Macmaster, Donald

Worthington-Evans, L.

Falle, B. G.

M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Fell, Arthur

Magnus, Sir Philip

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Malcolm, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Newman and Major Morrison-Bell.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

Alden, Percy

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Agnew, Sir George William

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

Armitage, R.

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

Outhwaite, R. L.

Arnold, Sydney

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

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Hayden, John Patrick

Parry, Thomas H.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Hazleton, Richard

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

Barnes, George N.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

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

Pointer, Joseph

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Higham, John Sharp

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Barton, William

Hinds, John

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Hodge, John

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

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Hogge, James Myles

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

Bentham, G. J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pringle, William M. R.

Boland, John Plus

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Radford, G. H.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Illingworth, Percy H.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Bowerman, C. W.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Brace, William

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Reddy, M.

Brady, P. J.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Jowett, Frederick William

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Joyce, Michael

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Keating, Matthew

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Kellaway, Frederick George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

Kelly, Edward

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Kilbride, Denis

Robinson, Sidney

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

King, J.

Roch, walter F. (Pembroke)

Chancellor, H. G.

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

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Clancy, John Joseph

Lardner, James C. R.

Rowlands, James

Clough, William

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Rowntree, Arnold

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Leach, Charles

Scanlan, Thomas

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Cotton, William Francis

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Cowan, W. H.

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lundon. T.

Sheehy, David

Crooks, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sherwell, Arthur James

Crumley, Patrick

Lynch, A. A.

Shortt, Edward

Cullinan, John

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

McGhee, Richard

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

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

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dawes, J. A.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

De Forest, Baron

M'Curdy, C. A.

Sutherland, J. E.

Delany, William

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Sutton, J. E.

Devlin, Joseph

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Dillon, John

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Tennant, Harold John

Doris, William

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Thomas, J. H.

Duffy, William J.

Meagher, Michael

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

Toulmin, Sir George

Elverston, Sir Harold

Millar, James Duncan

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Molloy, Michael

Verney, Sir Harry

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wadsworth, J.

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Wardle, George J.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Mooney, John J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Morrell, Philip

Webb, H.

Ffrench, Peter

Morison, Hector

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Field, William

Muldoon. John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Fitzgibbon, John

Munro, R.

Whitehouse, John Howard

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Murphy, Martin J.

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Wiles, Thomas

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Needham, Christopher Thomas

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Ginnell, L.

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Nolan, Joseph

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

Glanville, H. J.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nuttall, Harry

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

Goldstone, Frank

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Greig, Colonel J. W.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wing, Thomas Edward

Griffith, Ellis Jones

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

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

O'Doherty, Philip

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Gulland, John William

O'Donnell, Thomas

Young, William (Perth, East)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Dowd, John

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Hackett, J.

O'Malley, William

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

Hancock, John George

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

O'Shee, James John

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

It being Eleven of the clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
Bill, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow (Friday).

HOUSE OF COMMONS VENTILATION.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire what changes, if any, in the existing system of heating and ventilation of the House of Commons may be desirable and practicable.—[Mr. Illingworth.]
Dr. Addison and Mr. Barnes nominated Members of the Select Committee.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Charles Bathurst be another Member of the Select Committee.—[Mr. Gulland.]
Objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PAYMENT OF MEMBERS).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Illingworth.]
Mr. CASSEL: I desire to call attention to the last instalment of salary which the Members of this House have received and to the fact that instalment included Income Tax payable on a uniform allowance in respect to expenses at the rate of £100 per annum, which had been allowed to Members of the House, in other words, although we received £100 we were only required to pay on £75. I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that this has been done, notwithstanding that the legality of the allowance has been questioned in this House, notwithstanding that the Comptroller and Auditor-General has questioned its legality, and notwithstanding that the Prime Minister gave an assurance that this practice, the legality of which was questioned, should not be continued until after the Public Accounts Committee had considered the matter. Hon. Members
750
will bear in mind that we first received salaries as from the 1st April, 1911. In the first year no such uniform deduction was made. If any Member wished for a reduction in respect to expenses he had, like any other of His Majesty's subjects, to prove that he had incurred those expenses and that they were expenses which came within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts. In the autumn of 1912 the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have considered that it was inconvenient that hon. Members of this House should be put to the trouble of proving that they had actually incurred the expenditure, although the right hon. Gentleman had not shown much consideration in putting other people to inconvenience in connection with forms that they had to fill up.
In the case of Members of this House he seemed to think it was too much inconvenience to them to be put to the trouble of proving that they had actually incurred the expenditure, so notwithstanding that there is no statutory expenditure—as the Public Accounts Committee has found—for allowing a uniform exemption of this description, and without consulting the House or saying a word to Members, without taking their, views as to whether or not they wished for this uniform exemption, he proceeded to instruct the Treasury that they should allow every Member in this House a uniform remission in the case of Income Tax of £100 out of £400, that is, he should only pay Income Tax on £300 without having to prove that he had incurred any expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the expenses allowed to be deducted under the Income Tax Act have received a very narrow interpretation indeed. In my own case I should feel considerable doubt whether I could make out £100 expenditure which is allowed under the Act. In these circumstances I raised the question in this House. After having asked a number of questions about it, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer finally, whether he would take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon this point, On 14th February, 1912, I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not now take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the question of a uniform reduction of the Income Tax, and he said, "I will consider that suggestion." I do not know what consideration the right hon. Gentleman subsequently gave to it, but his consideration never resulted in any action, because the Comptroller and Auditor-General afterwards

751
appears to have taken the same view, and on 13th November, 1912, that officer wrote to the Treasury calling into question the legality of the practice, and asking whether it had been fortified by any opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. He made his report on the 28th of January, 1913, and he then stated he had received no reply to his letter. The letter of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to the Treasury of the 13th November was only answered on the 15th February, 1913. What the reply was I am unable to say, because when asked by me to let me see it the right hon. Gentleman declined to produce it, as he said it was before the Public Accounts Committee, and it was not in accordance with practice to lay it on the Table of the House. On the 1st of April, 1913, the same thing happened again, and after that I raised the question whether, pending a final decision of this matter, we could have some assurance that this practice, the legality of which had, at all events, been doubted not only by Members of the House, but by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, could be stopped until it had been finally adjudicated upon. Later on I asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General as to this allowance of £100 without proof of actual expenditure for the purpose of assessing Income Tax on salaries of Members of Parliament, whether it was being legally made, and whether he would afford the House an opportunity of discussing the question? The Prime Minister replied:—
"The question is now engaging the attention of the Public Accounts Committee, and no action will be taken until that Committee has reported."
I asked the Prime Minister if he would endeavour to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to continue this practice, the propriety of which had been called into question by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I also asked the Prime Minister if he would endeavour to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the opinion of the Law Officers on the matter, and he replied:—
"I think we had better wait until the Public Accounts Committee has reported. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend will not take any action meanwhile."
I interpreted that as meaning, and I think that anyone reading the question and answer together would have interpreted it to mean, that a practice, the legality of which had been called in question, he was
752
sure would not be continued by the right hon. Gentleman pending consideration by the Public Accounts Committee. That is the way in which I understood it, and I would submit that that was a reasonable interpretation of what the Prime Minister said. Notwithstanding that, on the 1st July the right hon. Gentleman again repeated the practice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Time!"] I shall leave the right hon. Gentleman the same amount of time as I occupy myself. The Public Accounts Committee Report was presented to the House on the 30th June, 1913. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman could not have seen it before he made the payment on the 1st July. At all events, the Public Accounts Committee found that there is no statutory sanction for this practice, and that if it is to be continued in future it ought to be properly and legally sanctioned by Act of Parliament. Notwithstanding the assurance of the Prime Minister and the protests of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the right hon. Gentleman, as I say, continued that practice on 1st July. The right hon. Gentleman may say that the figure involved is small, but I put it to the House that the principle at stake is large. The principle at stake is this: That in matters which affect our own pecuniary interests we should be absolutely scrupulous and strict in observing the law, and that if we err at all we should err rather on the side of severity against ourselves than in allowing to ourselves privileges and conveniences which are not allowed uniformly to the rest of His Majesty's subjects. We are acting as trustees of the national finances, paying ourselves our own salaries out of national money. We ourselves make the law with regard to the Income Tax and administer it. Under those circumstances I do put it that it was never so incumbent upon anybody to be so absolutely strict to the very last letter in the observance of the law. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he ought at least to give to the House to-night this assurance. I do not know when we are going to discuss the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, although we have been told that we shall have a day for it, but I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the House the assurance to-night, the unequivocal assurance, that on the next payment, on the 1st October, he will not repeat this practice, the legality of which has been called in question by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to assume that this is some practice which I have initiated, that there is no precedent for it, and that I went beyond my warrant as Chancellor of the Exchequer in making this allowance. If he had pursued his investigations a little further into the evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee, he would have discovered that there were at least two very important precedents, set not by Liberal Governments, but by Conservative Governments, for this course. The first was set by Sir Robert Peel with regard to revising barristers. He made an allowance of £78 15s. per annum to every revising barrister. That was an allowance of three-eighths. He took a definite arbitrary proportion of that kind. That did not mean that every revising barrister spent all the money. Some spent more upon their expenses, and some less. Sir Robert Peel, not so much in the interests of the revising barrister as in the interests of the Inland Revenue, came to the conclusion that, making for simplicity, it would help them in their work, and that on the whole it was a desirable practice, and he established that precedent. That precedent was also followed in 1888 again by a Unionist Government when the payments to revising barristers having been increased the allowance was reconsidered. It was assumed that the additional payment was all remuneration, and the allowance for expenses was fixed at the same amount as before, namely, £78 15s. per annum, and that deduction was made from the salary of every revising barrister throughout the Kingdom at the instance of Mr. Goschen. So we have Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goschen, two of the greatest authorities I could possibly quote as far as finance is concerned, who laid down this principle. That practice has been followed for years. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone more carefully into the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, he would have found that the Report of that Committee does not confine its condemnation, or rather its criticism, to my action, but the same observation applies to the whole of these cases—a practice which has obtained from 1843 down to the present day, which was confirmed by Mr. Goschen in 1888. Again a Unionist Government set a third precedent in the case of Army officers in receipt of consolidated rates of
754
pay to cover all allowances. There are three precedents. They were all quoted to the Public Accounts Committee. They had, it is true, criticised the whole lot. That is a question to be considered not in reference to anything that I have initiated but in reference to the practice which has been established for about fifty or sixty years, set by a Unionist Government and followed by every Government, Unionist and Liberal, since that date. I think that this practice is on the whole animadverted upon by the Public Accounts Committee. They suggest that it should be regularised by some method. But when they make that suggestion the Government are not merely bound to take it into account, but they are bound to give it the most favourable consideration, and I propose to do so. I propose immediately to act upon that Report, and the first step that I propose to take in order to make it absolutely clear will be—and I shall take the opinion of the House on the subject—to divide the amount into £300 salary and £100 expenses and put it down in the Estimates this year. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take a discussion upon it, he has his way of obtaining that discussion. It is for the Front Bench to choose the particular topic on which they desire to challenge the action of the Government in administrative matters, and they have only to demand that the first available opportunity shall be allocated for the discussion of it. It is a matter for the Opposition, and not for the Government. We propose to put it down definitely and formally in that particular manner. I propose, too, to go beyond that; also, in order to carry out the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee I propose to have a Clause inserted in the Revenue Bill which will put in legislative form somethng that will regularise not merely our proceedings in reference to the £400, but the proceedings of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goschen, for, after all, this criticism is directed against these two great financiers. The hon. and learned Gentleman and the Public Accounts Committee seem to take up the attitude of criticism and in order to put Sir Robert Peel right, we propose to insert a Clause in the Revenue Bill of this year. I think that meets the almost censorious views of the hon. Member.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The only comment I should like to make on that is that I think it would have been better for the reputa-

755
tion of the Government and the whole history of these proceedings if the right hon. Gentleman had thought it better to take these steps to regularise he proceeding before he applied it to Members of Parliament. It seems to me that the precedent he refers to obviously did not deal—from the very explanation he gave— with—
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him? There was one question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel) which I did not answer. I can only answer it now with his consent.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Certainly, I will give way.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is in reference to the answer given by the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I agree that I ought to have answered it. I saw the Prime Minister about it, and asked him what his intention was when he gave that answer. His explanation of the answer is that what he meant was that the matter should be left exactly as it was until the Public Accounts Committee's Report should criticise it. That is the view I took of his answer. I certainly do not think that the Prime Minister has said that the deduction should not be made until the Public Accounts Committee should have decided the matter. What I thought was that it meant that there should be no further extension of that practice until the Public Accounts Committee had declared their opinion in reference to it. That is certainly the view the Prime Minister takes, and it is clearly the view that anyone reading the answer would take.
Mr. PRETYMAN: It was certainly not the impression made upon this side of the House. I only rose to state that the objection we have to the whole of these proceedings is as to their furtive character, if I may use such an expression. This little sop is given to Members of Parliament, and it is clearly withheld from other subjects of the Crown, whose claims are equally good. That is the feeling in the country about it. As my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cassel) very clearly expressed it, where there is doubt we ought not to come to a decision in our own favour as regards our own personal concerns here, and give it against other subjects of the Crown who have not the same oppor-
756
tunities of voting money for themselves as we have. The whole incident is rather repugnant to those who look nicely upon matters of this description.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he interpreted what the Prime Minister said as intending to imply that there would be no further extension of this practice. That is precisely what we complain of, for after the Public Accounts Committee had reported a still further instalment of salary was paid, and the allowance was made in respect of that instalment. What, in fact has happened is this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, according to the Public Accounts Committee, without statutory sanction has made a present during each of the years this allowance has been made, of £5 16s. 8d. to every Member of this House; certainly to all those Members who could not justify the £100 expenditure for expenses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to justify that allowance by saying that he follows precedent. But he does not. The precedent that he quotes doss not apply in the least degree to this particular case. That was a precedent for an allowance for Army officers and for revising barristers who have travelling and other expenses necessary in the conduct of their business for which they are paid; but the grant to us is a grant by way of salary—it is not a grant for expenses or salary and expenses, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that, for he tells us how he proposes to legalise it in future. He proposes to divide the sum of £400, as to £300 for salary and £100 for expenses, and in his own proposal to legalise the position in the future he has admitted the illegality in the past. It seems to me that while there was any doubt during that three months that he was wondering what answer to give to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, at least he ought not to have continued a practice upon which doubt had been cast by the very man who is over all of us in Parliament and whose duty it is to call attention to just exactly the sort of illegality of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now been guilty.
It being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.