Commons Sitting of 7 June 1917

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Lanarkshire County Council (Water, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Lanarkshire County Council (Water, etc.)," presented by Mr. MUNRO; read the first time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Friday, 15th June.

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1916.
Copy presented of Supplementary List of Persons, Firms, and Companies as to whom Orders have been made under Section 1 (1) of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Statement showing the Amounts entered in the Accounts of Local Education Authorities for Elementary Education in the year 1915–16 as received under the heading of Grant under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
INEBRIATES ACTS (INSPECTOR'S REPORT) (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Thirteenth Report of the Inspector for Ireland under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, for the year 1916 (with Appendices) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877 (RULES).
Copy presented of Consolidated Rules made by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland
294
and County Court Judges under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BOARD.
Copy presented of Forty-second Annual Report of the Public Works Loan Board, 1916–17 (with Appendices) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 85.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that complete freedom to attack and criticise the Provisional Government of Russia and its supporters has been permitted; and, seeing that action was taken under the Defence of the Realm Act against critics of the war aims of the late Czar and his Ministers, can he say whether this immunity indicates a general change of policy in the matter of criticism of the Governments of the Allies or is confined to the Russian Government?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): If it is intended to convey the impression that His Majesty's Government have exercised discrimination in their treatment of criticism directed against the present Government of Russia and that to which the late Russian régime was subjected, I can only say that there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion. The policy of the Government in respect of this matter is exactly what it has always been.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the assurance that the war aims of the British Government coincide with those declared by the Provisional Government of Russia, he will take steps to secure the permission desired by the latter to publish the Treaties relating to territorial changes entered into between the late Czar and the Governments of the Alliance?
    Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government have received no request from the Russian Government in regard to the publication of the Treaties referred to.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the declaration by M. Ribot that he in tended, with the approval of the Russian Government, to publish not only the Treaties and Agreements made, but all the secret documents without exception exchanged between France and Russia; and whether the British Government proposes to take a similar course?
    Lord R. CECIL: I think that, if the hon. Member will reread M. Ribot's speech, he will see that the President of the French Council of Ministers was referring only to conventions entered into and documents exchanged before the outbreak of the present War, and that it was these Papers which His Excellency desired to publish. A similar course of action does not appear necessary in the case of His Majesty's Government, who were bound to Russia only by the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, which was made public at the time.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Under secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Council of Workmen and Soldiers' Delegates in Petrograd have protested against the arrest by the British authorities at Halifax, Nova Scotia, of Russian political refugees desiring to return to Russia; whether the Foreign Office has any information, or has made inquiries, as to these arrests; and whether communications have passed between the British and Russian Governments on this subject?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am not aware whether the Council of Workmen and Soldiers' Delegates have made such a protest as referred to. I understand some refugees were detained under a misapprehension. They have all been now released. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

  BULGARIA.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been directed to a report given by Serbian deserters from the Bulgarian Army, in which they had
  296
  been forced to serve, of the savagery with which a so-called insurrectionary movement in Old Serbia was crushed last winter by the Bulgarians; whether he has official information to the effect that out of 6,000 prisoners captured by the Bulgarians 2,000 were murdered in cold blood by machine-gun fire and the remainder deported to Asia Minor; that the whole rural population of the district were removed to Bulgaria, where the men were reduced to slavery and the women and children handed over to the Turks to be taken to the Turkish Asiatic provinces; and, if so, can he say whether the German officers and troops assisted the Bulgarians in perpetrating these atrocities?
  Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government continue to receive confirmation of the brutality with which the recent rising in Old Serbia was suppressed, but the details which have hitherto reached them do not show that any German officers or troops participated in these atrocities.

  AUSTRIAN EMPIRE.
  Mr. LEES SMITHasked whether the correct interpretation of the Allies' Note to President Wilson is that it is not proposed to dismember the Austrian Empire into two or more independent States, provided that suitable forms of home rule are granted to the Czecho-Slovaks and the other subject races of the Empire?
  Lord R. CECIL: The words of the Allied Note seem to me perfectly clear. It is the object of the Allies to secure the liberation of the races referred to, but they have not denned the exact method by which such liberation is to be secured.

  BULGARIA AND TURKEY (SEPARATE PEACE).
  Major CHAPPLEasked whether any effort is made by the Government as part of a considered policy to ensure that in Bulgaria and Turkey there are newspaper correspondents and others belonging to neutral countries charged with the duty of correcting, as far as may be, false statements prejudicial to the Allies and of countering German propaganda designed to prevent these countries from appealing for a separate peace?
  Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government can clearly have no control over neutrals who may be in enemy countries.
  Major CHAPPLEasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the names of the representative of the United States in Bulgaria and of the representative of Bulgaria in the United States; whether the former has been asked to represent British interests; and whether any overtures have been made by Bulgaria to any of the Allies for a separate peace?
  Lord R. CECIL: The United States representative, at Sofia is Mr. Warfield, and I understand that the name of the Bulgarian Minister at Washington is M. Panaretoff. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative; that to the last part is, as far as I know, in the negative.

  GERMAN WAR AIMS.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked whether His Majesty's Government have any official knowledge of a statement made on the German Chancellor's authority to the effect that Germany wishes no increase of territory nor any political or economical increase of power, that it merely wants to defend its own national territory against foreign plans of conquest, and also wants guarantees necessary for future defence and self-protection?
  Lord R. CECIL: The answer is in the negative.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether United States citizens of military age in this country are under orders, are desired, or are expected to return to America to do military service there; whether British subjects in the United States are being called to register for military service there; if so, whether Irishmen in the United States are differently treated from British subjects with domicile in the United Kingdom; and whether any convention with the United States relating to the conscription or registration of men for military service has been or will be concluded?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have no information with regard to the first part of the question As to the second part, the hon. Member is no doubt aware that the United States Congress recently passed an Act permitting the Governments of the Allies to recruit their nationals on the soil of the United States. In virtue of this Act, a British Commission is at present carrying on a voluntary recruiting campaign among British subjects in the United States. Irishmen in the United States are of course at liberty to enlist in the British Army if they wish to do so. No convention with the United States of the kind referred to in the last part of the question has yet been concluded. I cannot at present say whether one will be concluded.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the fact that the conscientious objectors working at the Mountain Ash reservoir at Penderyn are allowed to go home to Merthyr Tydvil for week-ends; that such visits are used to spread their pro-German peace views; that such visits are greatly responsible for the unrest among the miners in the district; whether he is aware that the Merthyr district of miners has become affiliated with the Union of Democratic Control; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): Except that one man was allowed to attend the funeral of his father, and another to attend the funeral of his mother, no leave, whether week-end or otherwise, has since 23rd April been granted to any of the men employed under the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors at Penderyn. The remainder of the question therefore does not arise.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the option to reconsider their position and accept non-military work under the Home Office scheme is being denied to conscientious objectors who are in prison for refusing that scheme; and whether he will encourage prisoners to exercise such option by employing them on work of national importance so soon as they are willing to do it, thus relieving the public of the burden and expense of maintaining them in idleness in prison?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors is empowered to deal only with those persons in whose case the Central Tribunal reports that they should be treated as conscientious objectors. Any such person, even if he at first refuses to accept the conditions of release for the purpose of performing work of national importance under the Committee, may do so at any time, and the necessary steps will be taken for his release.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the effect be, if the person applies for permission to carry on work of national importance, to ensure that purpose?
    Sir G. CAVE: I cannot say in all cases, but he is at liberty to apply.

    SKILLED FARM SERVANT (CRAIGIE, CLACKMANNAN).
    Mr. EUGENE WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the case of John Martin, aged twenty-three and married, who for the past eighteen months has been in the service of Mr. John Prentice, farmer, Craigie, Clackmannan, as byre-or cattle-man who tills over 150 acres of arable land under crop besides 106 acres in pasture, and has a dairy stock of sixty cows, being one of the chief milk producers in the district; whether he is aware that if Mr. John Martin is called up it will be impossible for Mr. Prentice to carry on his dairy unless a skilled substitute be got, and that to procure such under existing conditions is extremely difficult because the services of an ordinary farm servant are quite inadequate for the care of dairy stock; and whether, seeing that he is engaged in work of national importance, he will use his best efforts with the War Office to get Mr. John Martin exempted from military service?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am making inquiry of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland respecting the case mentioned, and will communicate with my right hon. Friend when I receive the Board's report.

    IRISH LABOURERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he is aware that a number of Irishmen have been induced to leave Ireland within the past two months to take employment in Great Britain and have since been compelled by
    300
    the military authorities to become conscripts; if he will take the necessary steps to see that the Miltary Service Act will be carried out as intended by the House of Commons; and if he will order the release of those men who are only temporarily resident in Great Britain and are here at the invitation of British employers?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I have no knowledge of the matters referred to in the question, but if my hon. Friend will supply particulars of concrete cases, inquiries will be made into the matter. I must refer him to the answer which I gave to him on 7th March, 1917, with reference to the steps which have been taken for the protection of Irishmen who are temporarily resident in Great Britain.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have sent to the War Office and have received a reply signed by the hon. Gentleman himself, in which I drew attention to the case of a boy who came from Dublin to take employment on an English railway and was conscripted in three weeks, and to another case, when a boy was conscripted after five weeks in this country?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If the hon. Member can give me concrete cases I will have inquiry made. All these cases were tried by the civil courts.

    RECRUITS (RE-EXAMINED).
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he has now been able to inquire into the methods of re-examining recruits at Hulme Town Hall; whether he is aware that men there are still being passed for Class A, though previously rejected once or more times, and without proper examination; whether in many cases at this station the man's previous medical history is either not available or not made use of; what steps he proposes to take; (2) with regard to the case of T. D. McKelvey, of 5, West Richmond Street, Cross Lane, Salford, whether this man was rejected at Pendleton Town Hall on 24th June, 1916; whether he was cursorily re-examined by the same board that previously rejected him at Hulme Town Hall on 9th May last, and is now passed as B 1; whether he is suffering from deafness and varicocele; (3) with regard to the case of T. Cross, of 8, Santley Street, Longsight, Manchester,

    301
    whether he is aware that he was three times rejected as medically unfit, and has now been passed at Hulme Town Hall in C 1; whether his previous medical history was examined by the board when they passed him; (4) with regard to the case of William Jones, of 11, Carter Street, Salford, whether this man was discharged from the Army as medically unfit for further service in February, 1914; whether he was subsequently twice rejected for the Army, namely, at Holdsworth Town Hall, November, 1915, and Pendleton Town Hall, September, 1916; whether he suffers from double mitral murmur and severe varix in left leg and is unable to perform hard physical work of any kind; whether, in spite of all this, he was passed at Hulme Town Hall on 11th May last and classified A for service abroad; whether it is proposed to send such a man to the front in view of the waste of public money and effort involved; (5) with regard to the case of Private Edmunds, of 2, Lynton Street, Salford, whether he is aware that this man twice volunteered at the outbreak of war and was rejected as permanently medically unfit, and was given a certificate to this effect; that he was again examined under the Derby Scheme and given complete exemption; that he has now been examined a fourth time at Hulme Town Hall and passed Class A; and whether he has any official information showing that such a man is likely to be of any effective military value at the front; and (6) with regard to the case of H. J. Nicholson, of 244, Moss Lane East, Moss Side, Manchester, whether he is aware that this man received a certificate as over age in September last, but has now been re-examined at Hulme Town Hall, the certificate of over age taken from him, and he has been classified as C 1; and whether he will explain under what statutory authority this action has been taken?
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will secure a further consideration of the case of Alfred Cree, 29, Scholes Street, Higher Broughton, Salford, who was first rejected in October, 1915, then in December, 1915, under the Derby scheme, again in March, 1916, and again on 14th August, 1916, at Hulme Town Hall by Lieutenant-Colonel Collie, in spite of which he was passed B 2 by Lieutenant-Colonel Gullam at Hulme Town Hall on 15th May and commanded
    302
    to join the Colours on 30th May; and whether the reasons for his rejections were not sufficiently valid as he was born with cataract of the right eye, which has proved incurable, and this has greatly impaired the sight of the left eye, and has also undergone an operation for vari-cocele, the effects of which have not disappeared; (2) whether he will secure a reconsideration of the case of Gilbody, the son of William Gilbody, 97, Fenney Street, Higher Broughton, Salford, on the ground of gravely defective health, attested by two well-known Manchester doctors, Dr. Moreland and Dr. G. Reynolds; whether Gilbody has valvular disease of the heart, vomiting attacks which require a special diet, and has lost 10 lbs. in weight since he was rejected, finally as he believed, last September; whether he is aware that Colonel Crawford told him at Pendleton that he was totally unfit for military service, and that on 22nd May he was summoned before Major Cox at Pendleton, who passed him Class B3; (3) whether he will secure a further reconsideration of the case of H. Boyes, 39, Arrow Street, Broughton Lane, Salford, who was rejected by Dr. Burgess, of the 8th Lancashire Fusiliers, on 15th October, again rejected at Broughton Town Hall on 8th December, 1915, under Lord Derby's scheme by Dr. Boddy, was re-examined at Hulme Town Hall on 21st August, 1916, and rejected by Major Reid, Royal Army Medical Corps (being told that this rejection was final), and was called up to Pendleton Town Hall on 18th May, 1917, and passed as B1; and whether he is aware that Boyes was rejected three times because he had a fractured right leg which was badly united?
    Mr. JACOBSENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) if he is aware that Mr. Sam Leigh, of Hyde, was called up under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act for medical re-examination; that this man lost his left arm some years ago and had notified the authorities of this fact; and that nevertheless he was instructed to proceed to Chester Castle on 17th May, where he was ordered to strip in the usual way, although it was obvious that the arm was missing, and he could only do it with great difficulty; whether he is aware that no classification card was given to him and, in consequence of this, he was required to attend at Chester Castle again for still another examination; if under any Regula-

    303
    tion Army medical authorities are allowed to accept for service in any category men who have lost the entire use of one limb; (2) if he is aware that early on 22nd May some twenty to thirty men residing in Hyde, all previously rejected, were sent from Hyde to Chester Castle for re-examination under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act and that the medical board were unable to make the examinations on that day; that the men were therefore detained and placed in the married quarters of the castle with a mattress and two blankets, but that no food was given to them on either that or the next day, although they were told that food was available and would be supplied on payment; whether he is aware that many of these men, unprepared for such treatment, were penniless and unable to buy such food; and if he will ensure that men not in the Army through no fault of their own and called up for re-examination receive ordinary rations or allowance if unduly detained by the Army authorities?
    Sir HAROLD ELVERSTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that the medical board at Ulverston recently passed as fit for general service a man who is dumb and who has to wear a strait-jacket to keep him from collapsing; whether he is aware that when the Ulverston Tribunal gave this man exemption Mr. Chapman, the military representative, appealed on the ground that the local tribunal had no right to set themselves over the decision of the medical board; whether a local tribunal has the power to grant exemption when it knows that a mistake has been made; (2) whether he is aware that at the Hulme Town Hall, Manchester, a man was passed for military service who at the outbreak of war tried to enlist in the 6th Manchesters, but was refused on account of flat foot, bad eyesight, and two operations (one for appendicitis and the other for hernia); that this man on subsequently trying to join the Public Schools and also the Manchester University Officers' Training Corps, was rejected for the reasons stated above; when Lord Derby's scheme came out he again attested, but was marked medically unfit by Captain Maclure, Royal Army Medical Corps; in June, 1916, he went into Manchester Infirmary for an operation caused through stoppage of the bowels,
    304
    and had a large part of his intestines taken out; after leaving the infirmary a pink form calling him up for re-examination was received, when he was again refused, the form this time being signed by Captain Hallewell; that after another week or so he had again to go into the infirmary and have the gall bladder taken out on account of gall-stones; that Dr. Platt will verify this, and that Dr. Howart Lea, Cheetham Hill, and Major Roberts can verify other particulars; and whether, seeing that a man with such a record would not be able to stand the strain of military training, he will see to it that competent men are employed to examine recruits and that each man's previous medical history shall have proper consideration?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am inquiring into these cases, and will write to my hon. Friends as soon as I am in a position to do so.
    Mr. BARLOW: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave dissatisfaction in regard to a very large number of these cases, and will he undertake promptly to have them dealt with, and to send an inspector down and inquire into these particular recruiting stations?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: We are sending inspectors over the country now.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is my hon. Friend aware that his attention was called to this matter before the Recess? Has he had any inquiries made in the interval, and cannot he tell us the result of his investigations?
    Mr. KING: In view of the large number of cases that my hon. Friend has to inquire into, would he like the assistance of hon. Members of this House, who might place some of their time and ability at his disposal?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can we have a day to discuss it?

    EXEMPTION (FARMER'S SON).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private A. C. Downes, No. 101613, D Squadron, Mounted Gun Corps, Cavalry Training Centre, Maresfield Park, Uckfield, is the only son of a farmer who cultivates 1,149 acres in East Kent and is employing a number of women and soldiers on the land who require constant supervision; that he has no bailiff; and

    305
    that he would be in a position to plough some 200 additional acres if he had the assistance of his son, who is a skilled agriculturist; whether he is aware that, in view of the value to agriculture of securing A. C. Downes for the land, the Board of Agriculture, after inquiries through the Kent Agricultural Executive Committee, made application to the War Office for this man's release; if he will say why this application was refused; and if he will give immediate instructions for the release of A. C. Downes from the Army in order to increase food production?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Board of Agriculture applied to the War Office on 21st February, 1917, for the release of Private A. C. Downes. His release was refused, as the Board of Agriculture has been informed that no applications for the release of a particular soldier can be sanctioned except in very special circumstances where the soldier applied for is required to manage his farm. In this case Mr. Downes (senior) was the manager of the farm, and it was open to him to apply for the services of a soldier or soldiers from an agricultural company to meet his requirements for reinforcement of labour. The Army Council is not prepared to make an exception in this case, nor to sanction Private Downes' release.
    Mr. McNEILL: Does my hon. Friend not realise that this man is as indispensable to Agriculture as any man could possibly be; is he also aware that the War Office has been requested by the Board of Agriculture to release him after a full inquiry by the local committee, and can he give any reason why this man has not been released?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot at the present moment add anything to the answer which I have already given, but I will make further inquiries.

    COLOURED TROOPS.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware that hundreds of thousands of young, strong, and willing coloured members of our Empire are ready to go to the front to fight for this country; whether, seeing that such men are better fitted physically and temperamentally adapted for such a campaign than many of those now being called up, he will explain why these men are not used; and whether his Department will consider this question?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The means of utilising to the best advantage the services which the coloured peoples of the Empire are capable of rendering have already been thoroughly investigated and are continually under consideration. Contingents of these peoples are already rendering useful service in several theatres of war, in the capacities for which they are best suited, and arrangements are in hand both for reinforcing existing contingents and for forming new ones.

    MEDICALLY UNFIT.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that men who passed fit for general service several months ago, but who are now certified by their doctors to be unfit, are being called up and consequently compelled to give up their situations or close their businesses without further medical examination; and will he give instructions that in such cases medical re-examination shall take place before the men have to give up their situations or close their businesses in order to join their units?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of this being the case, but if my hon. Friend will give me some specific instances I will cause inquiries to be made.
    Mr. JOWETTasked whether Ernest Parker, of Springwood Cottage, Esholt, near Bradford, who was discharged from the Army medically unfit on 19th April, 1904, and was arrested as a deserter at 5 p.m. on 29th March last, and was handed over the following morning to the military authorities, was at the date of his arrest an excepted person under the Military Service Act, 1916, and the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2); and, if so, what action he has taken against the person or persons responsible for his arrest?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I made inquiries in this case, and communicated the result to the hon. Member in a letter which I wrote to him on the 16th May. I pointed out that the recruiting officer at Keighley on four occasions sent notice to Parker that he must produce evidence in support of his claim to be exempted from military service. That evidence he did not produce, and he was accordingly brought before the magistrates as an absentee a fortnight after the date on which he should have reported for service. The Military Service Act, 1916, provides that

    307
    if a question is raised whether a man is an exception to the Act or not, such question is to be decided on proceedings before a civil Court. The magistrates accordingly held that Parker was not an exception, to the Acts, and they handed him over as an absentee to await military escort. In these circumstances, no action has been taken against the persons responsible for Parker's having been brought before the magistrates for his case to be decided in the manner required under the Acts.
    Mr. JOWETT: Is it the case or is it not that this man was illegally arrested; and is it not also the fact that he repeatedly went to the recruiting office and reported the circumstances of the case?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot add anything to the very lengthy answer I have given to-day and the letter that I have written.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In view of the large number of cases which I have submitted of illegal acts on the part of recruiting officers, will the hon. Gentleman have a special inquiry made into the way the Act is being carried out?

  CHEMISTS' ASSISTANTS (IRELAND).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the wages paid to and hours worked by Irish chemists' assistants; if he will see that these men, especially those in houses holding Government contracts, will be paid a decent wage; and if he will see that Government contracts are not placed in houses where there is sweated labour?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question of the 17th May. The question of the rates of wages paid by Government contractors is one that falls within the province of the contracting Departments concerned.

  IRISH PRISONERS.
  Mr. BYRNEasked what are the Government's proposals with reference to Countess Marckievicz and the Irish prisoners in Lewes?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): This matter is not under the control of the Irish Office.
  Mr. BYRNE: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter to-night. It has been, going on too long.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if the Government have yet decided to release the Irish prisoners?
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Government are satisfied that when the approaching International Peace Congress comes to deal with the treatment of political prisoners the fact must be disclosed that it is only in this country they are treated worse than prisoners for ordinary crimes; that while some ordinary criminals are given 392 oz. of bread per week and others are given, in accordance with the statutory rules now in force, 196 oz. of bread per week, the Irish political prisoners now at Lewes and Aylesbury are, in violation of the statutory rules, given only 119 oz. of bread per week, and that, like the other articles, of inferior quality; if it be undesirable to have this fact disclosed at the Peace Congress, whether this allowance will be immediately increased; (2) whether he is aware of the effect of the want of uniformity in the treatment of political opponents of the Government under the Defence of the Realm Act, so that, while little used for that purpose in this country, policemen and Government officials canvassed for the Government candidates in North Roscommon and South Longford, and punished persons for celebrating the victories over the Government; whether he is aware that at present young men of high character are in prison or under sentence of imprisonment in the counties of Cork, Tipperary, Meath, and Galway for having celebrated in an orderly manner the South Longford victory, no violence being alleged against any of them; that the evidence of the police, the sole witnesses against the accused, was not corroborated in any particular; that they identified the accused only by the light of torches; that Gerald Bartley, a boy of eighteeen, is now in prison garb, undergoing prison treatment among criminals in Galway goal, for having celebrated the Longford victory by lighting a bonfire; and that food sent him by friends is prevented by the prison authorities from reaching him; and, having regard to the considerate treatment of political opponents by civilised

  309
  Governments, whether all prisoners for this cause will be released forthwith and all further proceedings quashed?
  Sir GEORGE CAVE: I can add nothing to previous statements on this subject.
  Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present moment Irish prisoners are in solitary confinement, and were refused permission to attend church last Sunday? Will he say when this Hunnish treatment is to cease?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to deny any of the allegation in Question 61?
  Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir; they have been dealt with to some extent, but I cannot refer to them.
  Mr. GINNELL: Then the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to deny a single one of these statements?
  Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Member must not infer that from my answer.

  BOARD OF WORKS EMPLOYES, KINGSTOWN.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the claims of the Kings town Board of Works employés for an in creased war wage has been considered; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): The employés of the Board of Works at Kingstown will receive the appropriate war bonus under the awards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MILK.
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made last week by the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) that a serious shortage of milk would occur in a few months' time in that country; whether he has received a resolution passed by the North Dublin Board of Guardians suggesting that for the purpose of securing a sufficient supply of pure new milk for the poor
    310
    in the large towns of Ireland, the creameries should be taken over by the Food Controller; whether there is even at present a serious scarcity of fresh milk, not only in the towns of Ireland, but in many rural districts; and whether, before a milk famine actually occurs, some steps will be taken by the Government at once to avert such a calamity, especially by providing land or enabling rural districts to provide land for grazing by milch cows owned by labourers?
    Mr. DUKE: I have been in communication with the Department of Agriculture on this subject, and have no reason to suppose that there is the risk of a milk famine which is suggested in the question.
    Mr. CLANCY: The suggestion has not been made by me, but by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture.
    Mr. DUKE: This is a matter about which I have had a great deal of discussion and inquiry. The fact is, I believe, that there is no shortage.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Irish Department of Agriculture has more than once earnestly impressed on the Irish farmers the advisability, and even necessity, of spraying in the case of growing crops of potatoes; whether, in view of this advice, the rural district council of Balrothery, county Dublin, which has borrowed a considerable sum of money to provide the necessary seed for the tenants of their cottages and other small landholders, proposed to expend the balance of the loan, amounting to about £50, on the purchase of spraying machines and materials, but were informed that they could not legally do so without the consent of the Treasury; and whether he will see that that consent will be obtained, and so help in saving the expected crop from the danger of destruction?
    Mr. DUKE: Arrangements have been made whereby the Department of Agriculture, with the co-operation of the Local Government Board, will sanction necessary means of help in cases such as that mentioned in the question.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the board

    311
    of guardians of Balrothery Union, county Dublin, some weeks ago complained to the proper authority of the lack of a proper supply of sugar for the inmates of their workhouse, and received for answer a recommendation to make a second application; that they did apply a second time, but have again been informed by their contractor that the sugar asked for is not available; and what he proposes to do to secure a proper supply to this public institution?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Captain Bathurst): A letter was received by the Ministry of Food from the clerk to the Balrothery Union on the 25th May, and was referred to the Sugar Commission, who on the 1st June wrote to the union asking from whom the latter purchased their sugar in 1915, how much they then obtained from all sources, and how much they had obtained this year. No answer has yet been received to these questions, and pending its receipt no action is possible. I have not been able to trace any letter from the clerk of the Balrothery Union prior to 25th May last.
    Mr. CLANCY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received a letter from me: I wrote to him, and he advised me to apply again?
    Captain BATHURST: I have received an enormous number of letters on the subject of the sugar supply. If the hon. Gentleman did, as he states, I would send on the letter immediately to the Sugar Commission, and it must have miscarried. I will pursue the matter further.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say when a representative on the Sugar Commission will be appointed for Ireland: he has made a promise to that effect about ten times within the last four months, and we have heard nothing more about it?
    Captain BATHURST: I have already stated, in reply to a similar statement by the hon. Member, that I have made no promise whatever in the matter: it was not in my power to do so. I have made representations to the Food Controller, but, in the present state of suspended animation of the office of which I am representative here, it is wholly impossible to commit some future Minister to a policy of which he might not approve.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Are the Irish people to suffer from the animated suspension of the Government?
    Mr. PRINGLE: The "Do-it-now Government"!
    An HON. MEMBER: Wait and see!
    Mr. ACLAND ALLENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Clydebank Co-operative Society, owing to shortage of supplies, have had to reduce the supply of sugar to their members to 4 ozs. per head per week; and if he will take steps at once to increase the amount available for the society?
    Captain BATHURST: I have received from the hon. Member a letter to the effect stated in the first part of the question. There was a shortage in the issues of sugar from the Sugar Commission during April, and the Clydebank Co-operative Society, presumably, suffered in common with other retailers. For the past few weeks, however, the issues have been restored to about their previous level, and the Clydebank Society should henceforth be able to obtain from its wholesaler supplies at the rate of 50 per cent, of their 1915 allowance. The Sugar Commission are making immediate inquiries into this case.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will say for what reason the price of sugar was advanced after promising the fruit growers that they would have some for jam making; and whether the Sugar Commission shows a big profit on its purchases?
    Captain BATHURST: The price of sugar has been advanced to meet the increased cost at which the Sugar Commission have recently had to purchase sugar, including that intended to be sold to fruit growers for jam making. The Commission make no profit upon their transactions taken as a whole.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is the retail price of sugar the price fixed by the Ministry of Food?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir, no; the retail price of sugar is not fixed, but, so far as I am aware, there has been no increase in the retail price of sugar that is out of proportion to the increase in the wholesale price of sugar which the Commission has had to pay.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Was it not until recently the policy of the Ministry to suggest the price at which sugar should be sold retail?
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Are not these matters for the Sugar Commission?
    Captain BATHURST: These matters are matters entirely for the Sugar Commission. I am not myself prepared, under existing circumstances, to go further than I have already gone.

    LOCAL (FAIR-PRICE) TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if his Department will now agree to the establishment of local fair-price food tribunals; if he is aware that much of the profiteering and exploiting of the public could be prevented by such tribunals; and that a dangerous condition of unrest prevails at the inactivity of his Department in dealing with this matter of the people's food?
    Captain BATHURST: I am aware of the feeling aroused in certain quarters by the rising price of meat and some other foods; but it is clearly impossible for me to announce any decision on the important question of policy raised in this question pending the appointment of a new Food Controller.

    DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF FOOD.
    Major NEWMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists among the British-born population of the East End of London with regard to the equitable distribution for sale of the food supplies available; and will he ensure that no unfair preference from any quarter is allowed to be shown to the shops and other sources of supply used by the alien population?
    Captain BATHURST: I have received a report indicating the existence of the feeling referred to in the first part of the question. I am not aware of any substantial grounds for this feeling, but am making inquiries in the district referred to, and if it appears that there is any unfair preference in the distribution of any supplies now under the control of the Ministry of Food, action will be taken in the matter.

    CHEESE.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS(by Private Notice) asked if the President of the Board of
    314
    Trade could state what arrangements he-has made for the release of cheese for sale to the public?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Roberts): The Board of Trade have now completed arrangements for making cheese available to the public at 1s. 4d. per lb. retail, and issues of such cheese will begin at the end of next week. It will take a week or ten days to get the distribution organised throughout the Kingdom. It must, of course, be understood that although the quantity of cheese released will be very considerable, it will still be limited by the necessary provision for Army requirements.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can explain the grounds upon which Mrs. Mary Lang, of Knocknagee, Ballinakill, Riverstown, county Sligo, at present in receipt of a pension of 3s., was refused the 5s. per week awarded her by the local pension committee; whether he is aware that this woman is wholly destitute, having nothing to live upon; and, if so, whether her case- will be inquired into?
  Mr. DUKE: The case is being investigated.

  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the representations made as to the proposed closing of the Victoria and Albert Museum by the transfer of the Board of Education to these buildings, the Government will reconsider their decision in this matter?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): It is regretted that it is not possible to have this decision reconsidered, but I have every reason to believe that a substantial portion of the Victoria and Albert Museum will still be available for use by the general public.

  ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
  Captain BURGOYNEasked the Parliamentary Representative of the Air Board (1) whether there is any constant air patrol along the East coast; if

  315
  so, whether there is any explanation as to why the recent raid which took place in full daylight was not dealt with before reaching Folkestone; (2) why, although many seaplanes lay ready for instant service in Dover Harbour, no orders were given to the pilots until twenty minutes after the hostile machines employed in the recent German air raid had gone over?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): These Questions deal with matters within the purview of the Admiralty. I have therefore been asked to take them. If my hon. and gallant Friend will place himself in communication with either the Fifth Sea Lord or myself, we shall be glad to give him all the detailed information upon the points which he raises.
  Captain BURGOYNEasked the Parliamentary Representative of the Air Board whether the watching of the Kent coast is largely vested in men drawn from Infantry battalions quartered in the several districts; whether these men have the slightest knowledge of detail distinctions between British and hostile air craft; and what provision is given them to spot aircraft passing over at heights up to 20,000 feet?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The information asked for in all three parts of the question cannot be given publicly.
  Captain BURGOYNEasked whether the hostile aircraft employed during the recent raid were observed passing over certain parts of Essex; and, if so, why, in the circumstances, no warning what ever was sent out to Dover and Folkestone when it must have been known that these, amongst other towns, were their objective?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: It would not be in the public interest to discuss the system of warning; but my hon. and gallant Friend must not assume that Dover and Folkestone were the actual objectives of the raid.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will say by what method it is proposed to afford the oppor-
  316
  tunity, which he has stated will be given, to voters in constituencies which will lose their separate representation under the Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners to lay before the Commissioners their views as to the future boundaries of their constituencies; whether the same opportunity will be given to voters in constituencies which, without losing their separate representation, may have alterations made in their boundaries; whether he will give an assurance that no constituency shall have its boundaries altered without an opportunity being first given to the voters therein to lay their views on the proposed alteration before the Commissioners; (2) whether it has yet been decided by the Boundary Commissioners to hold public inquiries at which representative bodies may state their views regarding the proposed alterations in the constituencies; whether any such inquiries have yet been held; if he will say what representative bodies are to have a locus standi to appear at such inquiries; and in what manner is notice to be given that an inquiry will be held in any particular locality?
  Sir G. CAVE: I understand that in every case the boundaries of the proposed Parliamentary constituencies will be advertised locally, so as to enable persons interested to make representations to the Boundary Commissioners, and that, speaking generally, wherever the boundaries of existing divisions are proposed to be altered, an Assistant Commissioner will hold a local inquiry. No such inquiries have yet been held.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will counsel be able to appear?
  Sir G. CAVE: That, I should think, will be a matter for the Commission.
  Mr. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated loss of representation of rural voters under the Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners; and whether, having regard to the increased importance of the agricultural industry in view of the lessons of the War, he will add an Instruction directing the Boundary Commissioners to redistribute the county and borough seats, respectively, in such a manner as not to diminish the existing representation of rural voters?
  Sir G. CAVE: It would be extremely difficult to make a reliable estimate of the

  317
  loss of representation of rural voters under the scheme, and it must be remembered that voters in rural areas are not necessarily agricultural voters. Some of the areas classed for local government purposes as rural districts are, in fact, densely populated mining areas, and there are many rural districts which are partly agricultural and partly industrial or residential. The subject-matter of the latter part of the question will no doubt be discussed in the coming Debate on the Instructions.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Bewdley Division) when the schedule of charges to be allowed to the returning officers, under the Representation of the People Bill, will be circulated to Members?
  Sir G. CAVE: My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. These charges will require careful consideration by the Treasury, and it is not proposed to circulate a schedule at present.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Is the House to have an opportunity of considering the scale of charges and comparing it with the Act of 1875?
  Sir G. CAVE: If the House desires it, certainly; but I am not aware that there is a desire.

  ENEMY ALIENS.
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a respectable qualified and registered medical practitioner in the North-Western district of London has been warned that unless he leaves this country at once he will be deported; that this gentleman, who has been in his present practice five years, has no idea of any reason to warrant his deportation, and on requesting the grounds for this threat has only been abused by an official at Scotland Yard; whether he has personally considered the allegations against this doctor; whether he will allow him to know his accusers and the grounds of his threatened deportation; and whether he will allow some appeal, in this and similar cases, to the Advisory Committee over which Mr. Justice Younger presides?
  Sir G. CAVE: I fear that the hon. Member is not fully informed as to the character of the person to whom he refers. I am satisfied that the action which has
  318
  been taken in his case is justified, that no reliance can be placed on his statements, and that he is well aware of the grounds on which his presence in this country is considered undesirable. I see no reason to adopt the suggestion made in the last part of the question.
  Mr. KING: In view of the interests of his patients, will some warning be given to this person so that he may make arrangements that his patients may have proper attention when he is deported, or is it the intention to deport him suddenly and without warning?
  Sir G. CAVE: No; I think the interests of this country are paramount over the interests of his patients.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Mr. WILESasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the revised rules of the Police Union, which have been submitted to the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, guard against any possibility of members withholding their services as a means of obtaining redress and that the object of the union is to have all differences between the authorities and members arranged or decided by amicable and conciliatory means he will now reconsider his decision as to permitting members of the force to make a collective representation of their grievances to the Commissioner; and, if he still feels unable to recognise the Police Union as the channel for representing the views of the entire Force, will he give instructions that facilities shall be given for the men to consult together as to their conditions of service so that the views of the police as a body may be always available, and thus relieve much of the prevailing discontent?
  Sir G. CAVE: I regret that there is nothing which I can usefully add to what has been said by my predecessors in office and by me in reply to the numerous questions addressed to us on this subject.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether any steps had been taken to ascertain the views of the members of the Metropolitan police themselves when it was decided not to pay them for the seventeen days' leave they forfeited in 1914 on the outbreak of the War and before the order was given allowing weekly leave

  319
  to be resumed; whether he is aware that the police resent the action of the then Home Secretary in informing the House that the police were willing to give up some portion of their leisure as their share of the national sacrifice, without giving the men an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject; and whether, in the interests of discipline, he will consider the advisability of giving the police as a body facilities to make known their own views to the authorities when questions affecting their conditions of employment have to be decided?
  Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir; the suspension of leave was on the ground of national necessity, and the grant of leave was resumed at the earliest possible moment. If the hon. Member will refer to the answer given in this House on 22nd February, 1915, he will find that my predecessor's statement was that he ventured to think that "the majority of the force will willingly give up some portion of their leisure as their share of the sacrifice which all classes have to make during this national emergency." I have no doubt that my predecessor correctly voiced the patriotic sentiments of the majority of the metropolitan police. As regards the third part of the question, I have nothing to add to what has already been said on the point.

  MUNITIONS.

    WORKERS' TRAIN FACILITIES (IRELAND).
    Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to the absence of Sunday morning trains, inconvenience and loss of time are being caused to many munition workers, who are expected to start work not later than 7.45 a.m. on Sundays and who require to travel from Bangor, Comber, Holywood, and Carrick-fergus into Belfast; whether he is aware that at present no train reaches Belfast on the County Down line until 9.30 a.m. and on the Midland line until 9 a.m. on Sundays; and, in these circumstances, will he arrange with the Irish Railway Executive to provide the necessary early trains so long as the present necessity for Sunday working continues?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am asking the Irish Railway Executive Committee for their observations on this matter, and will communicate with the hon. Gentleman on receipt of their reply.

    LONDON EXPLOSION (EAST END).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that in connection with the East End explosion a number of claims for compensation were made and amounts in settlement agreed to by the Ministry; that delay takes place in paying over the money to the claimants; that the representative of the Ministry has caused irritation by informing Mr. Parnell that he intends to review his claim and make him wait some weeks for a settlement; and if he will take action in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The Ministry has instructed assessors to assess damage caused by the East London explosion for which claims have been made, and their recommendations are examined by the Ministry. It is only in very exceptional circumstances that after an assessor has made a recommendation it has been found necessary to make special inquiries, thus causing delay. Over 11,000 claims have been lodged. Of this number 5,650 have been approved, and 5,586 actually paid. Nearly all the claims for personal injury and furniture have been met. Several claims have been made in the name of Parnell. So far as can be ascertained at present in none of them has it been suggested that it is intended to review the claim and delay settlement. If the hon. Member will state the full name of the claimant, inquiry shall be made into the particular case.

    WORKS AT HALLEN AND HENBURY.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether, in connection with the abandonment of the erection of the works at Hallen and Henbury, he will state the measures being taken either to transfer the workmen to other work or to their homes; and whether, in the latter event, any compensation is being paid?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Immediately upon the decision of His Majesty's Government to discontinue constructional work at Henbury, a special branch of the Employment Exchanges was opened in the factory in order that workmen on the receipt of notice might be informed as to existing vacancies on war work and facilities given them to take up such work. All workmen on receiving notice are offered other work of national importance, and it is therefore not thought that any case for compensation will arise.

    SCOTTISH RESERVISTS, MORECAMBE.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Minister of Munitions how many men of the Scottish Rifles and Highland Light Infantry have been transferred to the Reserve and are now employed on un skilled labour by the Ministry of Munitions at Morecambe; whether he is aware that these men find it impossible to maintain their wives and families at Glasgow and themselves in Morecambe on the wages paid them, even with the addition of the subsistence allowance; whether he is aware that the employment of men on unskilled labour at such a distance from their homes involves heavy losses to the State; and whether any efforts have been made to secure un skilled labour for Morecambe in Lancashire or from Class W Reserve men belonging to Lancashire?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Twenty-eight men, formerly of the Highland Light Infantry, and one hundred men, formerly of the Scottish Rifles, but now enrolled as A.R.M.W.'s, are employed at Morecambe. There seems no reason to believe that these men do not earn sufficient wages to support themselves and their families. Each man is paid at least the full civil rates for the work upon which he is employed, and receives, in addition, where eligible, subsistence allowance and children's allowance. The average earnings at Morecambe are about £2 2s. a week, and, in addition, a bonus system is in operation whereby 80 per cent, of the workmen receive a bonus which works out, on an average, to more than 10s. a week. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer to a similar question which he asked on this subject on 21st May. Endeavour is continually being made by the Ministry to replace imported labour by local labour wherever possible. Every effort has been made to obtain the labour needed at Morecambe from local sources, but without success.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that a representative of the Ministry of Munitions explained the National Service scheme to the men of the 5th Scottish Rifles and informed them that if they signed the form volunteering for National Service they would get twenty-one days' furlough, with Army pay and allowances, during which they could obtain work of national importance at Glasgow, where
    322
    their homes were, and, if they failed to find such work themselves, they could apply to the nearest labour exchange, which would find work for them as near home as possible; whether he is aware that these men on signing were returned to Hipswell Camp, Catterick, for civilian clothes, kept working there for three weeks, then transferred to W Reserve, and sent to work at unskilled labour under the Ministry of Munitions at Morecambe, where some' fifty of them are now so employed; whether he is aware that discontent prevails among the men, who believe that they were induced to sign the form on false pretences; and whether he proposes to take any action?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The conditions of the Army Reserve munition workers' scheme were fully explained to the men of the Scottish Rifles previous to their enrolment, in the first place by their commanding officer and later by an officer of the Employment Department of the Ministry of Labour. I am assured that there are no grounds whatsoever for the suggestion that any misrepresentations were made in the matter. The hon. Member's reference to the National Service Department's scheme in this connection appears to be due to a misapprehension. Information in the possession of this Department shows that there is no general discontent amongst the men.

  TRADE AFTER WAR.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to take steps to prevent trade after the War falling into the hands of foreign countries; and if he will take steps to see that foreign countries will not be allowed to dump into Ireland goods which can be manufactured by Irish tradesmen?
  Sir G. CAVE: It is impossible at present to make any specific statement on this subject.

  ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
  Captain BURGOYNEasked the Prime Minister who was responsible, and what were the reasons, for forbidding publication of the names of the towns recently attacked by hostile aircraft; and, in view of the subsequent change of policy, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has requested me to answer this question. For various reasons the name of the town was withheld until the publication of the enemy's communiqué showed that there was no longer any necessity for secrecy.

  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number of small traders, more especially those residing in the coast towns of the West country, who find their takings so reduced owing to early closing that many of them fear they will be reduced to the Bankruptcy Court, he will consider the possible amending of the early closing Order, making nine o'clock the hour for closing on ordinary days and ten o'clock on Saturdays?
  Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The question of extending the closing hours was very carefully considered at the time the Order was renewed, and the representations received from retail trade associations, local authorities, and individual shopkeepers, including many small shopkeepers, showed an overwhelming body of opinion in favour of retaining the existing hours. I regret, therefore, that I do not see my way to reopen this matter.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of local option?
  Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir; not during the War.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS ROLL OF HONOUR.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the number of Members who have lost their lives or been wounded during the War, he will consider a suitable design for a Roll of Honour to honour their memory?
  Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Member's suggestion will be sympathetically considered by the Government.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: As to the proposed Roll of Honour, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that St. Margaret's Church is the parish church of this House, and could it not be placed there?
  Sir G. CAVE: I will convey the suggestion to the Leader of the House, and I have no doubt he will bear it in mind.
  Colonel BURN: Will the Government appoint a small Committee to deal with this matter, and ascertain the feeling of the House as to whether Members' sons, who lost their lives in the War, should be included in the memorial put up by this House?
  Sir G. CAVE: I will communicate the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Leader of the House, and I have no doubt he will bear it in mind.

  UNITED STATES (LORD NORTHCLIFFE'S MISSION).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if Lord Northcliffe has been sent by the Government on a foreign mission and, if so, what is the nature of the mission; whether Lord Northcliffe has been appointed a member of the Government or the Diplomatic service; and, if not, why he has been selected to carry out an official mission?
  Sir G. CAVE: I cannot add anything to the statement which was published in the Press this morning.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not Lord Northcliffe will report to the Prime Minister direct or the War Cabinet, or will he be under the auspices of the Foreign Office and come under its orders?
  Sir G. CAVE: I must have notice of the question.
  Mr. KING: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can answer.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is answering only for the Leader of the House.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: In view of the importance of the question, why is the Minister not present who can reply to it?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand now that Lord Northcliffe is a representative of the Government, that the papers which he controls will be the official organs of the Government?
  Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) does not know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is indisposed.
  Mr. KING: In view of the attitude taken by Lord Northcliffe recently towards the Foreign Secretary, Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to answer a question by Private Notice to-morrow?

  RACING RESTRICTIONS.
  Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the War Agricultural Committee passed a resolution protesting against the total prohibition of racing, he can say what steps the Government intend to take for providing entire horses suitable for breeding horses for the Army and national purposes?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The temporary suspension of racing is not likely to affect seriously the provision of thoroughbred stallions suitable for mating with half-bred mares. If, however, racing is prohibited for any length of time the steps necessary to provide the stallions will require further consideration.
  Mr. BUTCHER: How is it possible to select good sires for breeding purposes unless they are tested by racing?
  Sir R. WINFREY: The suspension is only temporary.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Can the hon. Gentleman say why racing is allowed in Ireland and not in England?

  SAILORS' AND SOLDIERS' WELFARE.
  Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that our sailors and soldiers have been told that they are fighting for the very existence of the Empire, and that resolutions have been passed in various parts of the Empire that the Governments of the Empire should accept the sole responsibility of the settlement and future welfare of the Empire's sailors and soldiers, together with their near depend ants, he will inform the House whether the British Government is prepared to accept this responsibility?
  Sir G. CAVE: I cannot say more at present than that the Government is giving the most careful consideration to this
  326
  subject, of the importance of which they are fully aware.
  Major HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dominions are already waiting for a lead from this country, and that the Prime Minister said that the matter was urgent; and can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Committee is likely to report?
  Sir G. CAVE: I know that the matter is urgent, but I cannot fix a date.
  Major HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman take the responsibility of not answering that question?

  NITRATE PRODUCERS' STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Nitrate Producers' Steamship Company, with an issued capital of £266,265, has made, a profit for last year of £369,804; whether he is further aware that such profits help to inflate the rising cost of living and cause dissatisfaction; and what steps the Government intend to take in this matter?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been previously drawn to this case. He has already fully explained to the House the steps taken by the Government to restrict shipping profits.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Are those steps going to be really in the nature of business and not just window-dressing as was the case of National Service and Food Control?
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the share capital very inadequately represents the value of the steamers even at pre-war prices?

  MILITARY SERVICE (CONVENTION WITH ALLIED STATES) BILL.
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the disappointment caused to the British-born population of London by the failure of the Government to immediately pass into law the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Bill; and when is it intended to proceed with this measure?
  Sir G. CAVE: As was announced yesterday, this Bill will be proceeded with to-morrow.
  Major NEWMAN: Will it be proceeded with to-morrow energetically and pressed forward?
  Sir G. CAVE: Certainly.
  Mr. KING: Will it be considered in Committee of the Whole House, or sent to Grand Committee?
  Sir G. CAVE: No doubt it will be considered in Committee of the Whole House.

  CORN PRODUCTION BILL.
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Prime Minister when the Corn Production Bill is to be taken?
  Sir G. CAVE: The Financial Resolution will be taken on Wednesday, and the Bill will be proceeded with as soon as possible thereafter.

  FRANCE (WAR AIMS).
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to a Vote of the French Chamber of Deputies on the 5th June which, by an overwhelming majority, reasserted the war aims of France, which include the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine, reparation for the atrocities committed by Germany on French soil, the crushing of Prussian militarism, and guarantees for the independence of great and small nations; and whether he will propose a resolution which would give the House of Commons an opportunity of expressing its sympathy with and concurrence in the aims of France as formulated by the Chamber of Deputies?
  Sir G. CAVE: This subject has been so recently discussed in the House that no further opportunity seems necessary at present. The Government, the House, and the country are, as is well known, in thorough and complete accord with the Chamber of Deputies on all points referred to in the question.
  Mr. McNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, having regard to the very peculiar circumstances of the recent vote in France, it would be gratifying to our Allies that there should be an opportunity for this House to show itself entirely in line with them?
  Sir G. CAVE: I will convey the suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Allies are prepared to go on fighting, regardless of other considerations, until this object is achieved—the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine?
  Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Gentleman must take the answer given as absolute.

  PRISONERS OF WAR (GERMAN CRUELTY).
  Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the accounts of the British and Australian soldiers as to the cruel treatment and starvattion, in some cases resulting in death, and including physical punishment, inflicted on soldiers of the British Empire by the Germans; and whether he will have the evidence collected and verified and widely distributed in the United Kingdom and in our overseas Empire and in the countries of our Allies and neutrals?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): A careful record of all cases of ill-treatment of British prisoners of war has been kept with a view to suitable action. What form this action will take is a matter for Cabinet decision.
  Major HUNT: Would not the publication of these facts about the cruelty of the Germans be the best way of stopping the agitation of pro-Germans and peace-at-any-price people in this country and abroad?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Nobody can answer that question until he tries the effect.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

    CONVENTION.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he will, with a view to the Irish Convention, now inform the House of the terms arranged in September, 1914, between the Government and the leaders of Irish parties with reference to the partition of Ireland as a condition of placing the Government of Ireland Bill, then awaiting the Royal Assent, on the Statute Book?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am not aware to what the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there was an arrangement of the kind suggested with the question in September, 1914, and will he communicate it to the House?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir. I was not aware there was any such arrangement.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does he deny that there was?
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the desirability of making available immediately, for the information of the Convention in Ireland, all the correspondence of the last twelve months between the American and British Governments?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the recent Russian declaration that not one Russian soldier will be sacrificed to help England to repair historic injustices against England until England herself has repaired her own historic injustices against Ireland, India, Egypt, and innumerable peoples in all the continents; and when and in what way the Government propose to repair the first of the aforesaid historic in justices of which they are thus reminded by an Ally?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am not aware of any declaration having been made by the Russian Government in the sense indicated in the first part of the question. The second part, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman not read any Russian declaration to this effect?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir; I have not had that advantage.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a set of resolutions passed by the citizens of Worcester, Massachusetts, United States, including one that Ireland should be granted independence, guaranteed by the United States and the Allies; and, if so, will he inform the House what reply he has given to this?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: Then the Prime Minister has received it and refuses to disclose to the House his reply?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer is that he has not received any such resolutions.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if the Government desired the Irish Convention to be truly representative of the Irish people, will he say why they did not adopt the constitutional method of making it so, by having all the delegates to it elected by adult suffrage; if there is no other reason than the knowledge that a Convention so elected would decide for sovereign independence, and that fact being a title to representation at the International Peace Congress, will the Allied Governments be so informed; and will the Irish people be allowed to send duly accredited representatives to convey this information to those Governments?
    Sir G. CAVE: I can add nothing to previous statements on this subject.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the Home Secretary ft ware that a Convention called on adult suffrage, as suggested in this question, would be four-fifths Sinn Fein and would decide in favour of sovereign hide-pendence?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Nobody can say what the effect would be until he tried.

  FINLAND.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the British Government have considered the joint declaration of the Central Committee of the Finnish Democratic Party and of the Finnish. Socialist Parliamentary Party, that, complete sovereign independence being the aim of Finland and nothing less being acceptable to her, the Finnish problem must be treated, not as a Russian domestic question, but as an international question, and as such must be submitted to the forthcoming International Peace Congress; whether the British Government support or oppose this proposition; and, in the event of representatives of Russia opposing the representation of Finland in the Peace Congress, what attitude representatives of the British Government will be instructed to assume?
  Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government cannot possibly commit themselves to public statements regarding the declarations of Parliamentary parties in friendly foreign countries, or to the course which they will adopt in hypothetical circumstances.

  RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.

    EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYED.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that last year a sub-committee of the Reconstruction Committee was appointed to consider the relations of employers and employed after the War; whether such committee has sent in an interim Report; and, if so, whether it is intended to publish this Report and make it available for the use of Members and others?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The question of the publication of the Report is under consideration.

  FIELD STORES, ALDERSHOT.
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that adult men employed at the Aldershot field stores are being paid 26s. per week; whether he is aware that these men have only received an increase of wages during the War of 4s. per week; whether he is aware that all men in munition establishments are being paid a war bonus of 12s. weekly in addition to their pre-war wages; whether he is aware that negotiations have been conducted with the War Office for eight months, so far without result; and whether he will take steps to speed this matter up and so help to remedy the present hardship under which these men are suffering?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I hope that a decision will be arrived at during the next day or two.
  Mr. DUNCANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that adult women are being employed at the Field Stores, Aldershot, at 17s. per week; whether he is aware that increased wages have been asked for; whether he is aware that they have been informed that the increased cost of living is no reason for
  332
  increasing these women's wages; whether he is aware of the discontent at present existing amongst these women because of their treatment by the War Office; and will he take prompt steps to bring their wages up to the minimum paid by the Ministry of Munitions and the Admiralty, namely, 24s. per week?
  Mr. FORSTER: As I promised my hon. Friend on the 9th May, I am having inquiries made. I hope a decision will be arrived at very shortly.

  LICENSED TRADE (IRELAND).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that thousands of Irish licensed traders are ruined owing to the recent restrictions and seeing that they are in a totally different category from English licence holders both as to title to premises, capital invested, legal security, and the prospects of other employment if their present business is closed down, immediate steps will be taken to deal justly with those men before themselves and their families are deprived of all prospects of livelihood?
  Sir G. CAVE: I cannot add anything to previous statements on this subjects.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: When may we expect to hear something definite on this subject?
  Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the last couple of months half the licensed houses in Dublin have had to close down for want of supplies.
  Sir G. CAVE: I think questions have been put to me on that subject.
  Mr. BYRNE: I had a question on the Paper for to-day which has been taken off and which drew attention to the fact that houses were closed down. What are these people to do for a means of living?

  INCOME TAX.
  Major HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether if a child is left £100 or less contingently on its arriving at twenty-one years of age Income Tax has to be paid during all the years up to twenty-one at the rate of 5s. in the £, and

  333
  is not repayable unless the income is spent on the child for education and maintenance during every year till it is twenty-one?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The answer is in the affirmative.
  Major HUNT: Is not that a very unfair arrangement?

  PETROL SUPPLY (IRELAND).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the hiring of motor cars in Ireland is practically prohibited under the Order recently issued; whether he is aware that most of the owners are comparatively poor men who have invested all their capital in this business and who will be completely ruined if this Order is enforced in its present form; whether this Order is due to the want of petrol; if so, why are private motor cars allowed to run; and whether he will reconsider this question and make such arrangements as will not completely ruin car proprietors?
  Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the authority under which owners of motor cars let out for hire were prohibited without any notice or warning from letting out their cars except under certain special conditions; if he is aware of the hardship caused by this prohibition; and what action does he propose to take?
  Mr. ROBERTS: In view of the shortage of petrol and the fact that there was no control of the purposes for which hired cars were employed, the use of motor spirit in motor cars let for hire was prohibited, subject to certain exceptions, by a Defence of the Realm Regulation made on the 10th May. Arrangements are, however, now being made for the issue, under certain conditions, of permits for motor cars to be let for hire for business purposes, public duties, and the conveyance of passengers to and from railway stations and ports.
  Major NEWMAN: Is it not the fact that the Order appeared in the "London Gazette" on a Saturday to be operative on the next day, so that the owners of cars had no chance at all of knowing anything about the Order until it appeared?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Though it might be claimed that this relieves the Department of a charge of slackness, still I agree that the point is one of substance.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: May I ask before this Order was issued to men who made their living in this way any steps were taken to prevent private owners using their cars?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I have repeatedly stated in this House that allowances of petrol to private persons is very severely restricted.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it fair or just that a notice should appear one day, and that a person should be liable to be dragged to Court the next day, and does he not think longer notice should be given?
  Mr. ROBERTS: That is, I admit, a question for consideration, but the position was very serious at the moment.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the Department take steps to ascertain the circumstances under which an infringement of the rule takes place before prosecutions are entered on. Why should a man be dragged to Court under such circumstances?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I shall take note of that.
  Mr. BYRNE: Will the hon. Gentleman give instructions to give an equivalent amount of petrol to taxi-drivers in Dublin as is; given in England?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Each case is considered on its merits.
  Mr. PR INGLE: There was plenty of petrol in South Roscommon.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN.

    ALLOWANCES WHEN TORPEDOED.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that when a merchant ship is torpedoed and sunk the wages of the sailors and firemen are stopped; that they have to trust to the Shipwrecked Mariners' Society to bring them home; and that no allowance is made for the loss of kit and clothes; and if the Government intend taking any action in the matter with a view of seeing that in all such cases the men receive full and adequate compensation?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Under the Merchant Shipping Acts the legal right to wages terminates on the loss of the ship, and payment of wages beyond this date, though made in some cases, cannot be claimed as a legal right.

    335
    If seamen are landed at a port abroad they are sent home at the expense of the ship or of public funds, but there is no statutory provision for sending men landed at one port in the United Kingdom to another port, and a great deal of good work has been done in this connection by the Shipwrecked Mariners' Society and the British and Foreign Sailors' Society.
    As regards loss of kit and clothes adequate compensation is paid in all cases where these have been insured, either by the men themselves or by the owners, under the Government scheme, the premium for which is 2s. for £5. In the case of vessels on Government service the compensation is given without payment of any premium.
    Mr. A. F. WHYTE: Does not the Government think that subsistence allowance should be given, in view of the fact that these ships are sunk in time of national emergency?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The whole question is under consideration. I will bear the suggestion in mind.

  PETROL SUPPLY
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked whether motorists in France are now allowed a supply of 60 gallons of petrol per month; and, if so, the reasons for the greater restrictions in the allowance in this country?
  Mr. ROBERTS: In Franco, under an Order issued on 1st March last, supplies of motor spirit are strictly reserved for the needs of national defence and for purposes of essential national importance. The supply of 60 gallons per month is, I understand, a maximum allowance for motor vehicles, and applies to all vehicles, including omnibuses.

  WILD BIRDS (IMPORTATION OF FEATHERS).
  Sir GEORGE GREENWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any feathers of wild birds, the importation of which was prohibited by proclamation on 23rd February, 1917, have been imported into this country
  336
  since the 48,346 lbs. weight of such feathers were imported in the months of March and April last; if so, will he say what was the weight of such feathers so imported; and why their importation was allowed?
  Mr. ROBERTS: During May feathers of the kind referred to were imported to the amount of 13,681 lbs. weight. They were admitted as being en route at the time of prohibition.
  Colonel YATE: Will any further be admitted during the present month?
  Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir.
  Sir G. GREENWOOD: Is not this trade entirely, or almost entirely, in the hands of aliens?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think that arises.
  Sir G. GREENWOOD: You cannot answer it.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  Mr. WILESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that many Metropolitan constables have been recruited from rural districts and that the cost of travelling is prohibitive in the case of men with small weekly wages, the Government would advise the railway companies to issue privilege tickets to police going on annual leave, so that they and their families may assist their relatives and friends, many of whom are farmers, in gathering in the hay, fruit, and corn harvests?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I fear that, in the circumstances at present existing, it would not be possible to arrange that police constables or other officials going on annual leave should be granted the privilege of travelling at specially reduced fares.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Minister of Pensions how the case of Mrs. Growden is proceeding; is he aware that the facts in this case were brought to the notice of the Admiralty as far back as the 29th January and forwarded to the

  337
  Ministry of Pensions on the 17th March; and will he use every effort possible to expedite the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The case referred to by the hon. Member has been a difficult one to investigate, but it has now been decided to give Mrs. Growden a pension under Article 17 of the new Order in Council of 12s. 6d. a week.

  CHINESE LABOURERS (SMETHWICK DISTRICT).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in the Smethwick district numbers of Chinese are being employed as labourers; whether the employment of these Chinese has been sanctioned or encouraged by any Government Department; and what action, if any, lie proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am having inquiries made into this matter, and so soon as these are complete I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  "KEW BULLETIN."
  General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the suppression of the "Kew Bulletin" by the Controller of His Majesty's Stationery Office; and whether he was consulted before this journal was suppressed?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew are not under the administration of the Board of Education, and the Board were not consulted as to the suspension, of the publication of the "Bulletin."
  General CROFT: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the purchasers greatly value this publication, and will he look into the matter?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question without notice.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is the "Kew Bulletin" any friend of the "Skibbereen Eagle"?

  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (BOY MESSENGERS).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Bewdley Division) whether it is proposed to admit to examination for the position of preventive man in His Majesty's Customs and Excise those boy messengers employed in that Department who are being called to the Colours, previous to their entering military service, or whether the privileges enjoyed by these youths in respect to appointment to the position of preventive men, including relative seniority, will be secured to them on their return to civil life?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Examinations for the position of preventive man are suspended for the time being, but arrangements have been made to secure to Customs and Excise boy messengers who are called up for military service the opportunity of attending an examination for this situation on their return to civil life.

  ACCOUNTANT OFFICERS (ROYAL NAVY).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, following on the principle adopted in the recent Admiralty reorganisation scheme of not diverting combatant officers more than necessary from combatant work, whether lie will consider the advisability of making more use of officers of the accountant branch by appointing them, in lieu of commanders, as presidents of canteen committees and as representatives of Commanders-in-Chief of the Home ports on the Army and Navy Canteen Board; and whether, taking into consideration that no "one in either the Director of Victualling's or the Accountant-General's Department at the Admiralty has had any naval experience, he can see his way to forward the efficiency of the Navy by appointing selected fleet-paymasters to act as naval assistants to these Admiralty officials?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards canteen committees in his Majesty's ships and naval establishments, it is considered desirable to maintain the system under which the executive officer of the ship is ex-officio president, but the accountant officer of the ship is in all cases a member, combining the duties of secretary and treasurer, and thus relieving the executive

  339
  officer of detailed work in connection with the committee. An accountant officer has already been selected as naval member of the Army and Navy Canteen Board, and will give his whole time to its business. The representation of the Commanders-in-Chief on that Board is for these officers themselves to decide, and I am confident that they will select representatives who can act in this capacity without detriment to their other duties, to whatever branch of the Service they may belong. The suggestion contained in the last Clause of the question was fully considered in 1913 by the Committee on the accountant branch, of which Vice-Admiral Sir Cecil Thursby was chairman, and it was not recommended for adoption.

  FOXES (DESTRUCTION).
  Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what measures he has instituted in those cases where the hunts have not taken effective action for the reduction of the number of foxes during the continuance of the War?
  Sir R. WINFREY: All complaints received by the Board are referred to the Masters of Fox Hounds' Association, who communicate with the hunt concerned. No case has yet occurred in which the hunt has declined to take effective action.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is my hon. Friend aware that the President told me just before Whitsun that there were cases? His words were that in the great majority of cases appropriate action had been taken.
  Sir R. WINFREY: The other cases have been attended to since that.

  WIRE WORM.
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if, having regard to the damage done by wire worm to growing crops, especially in the case of old pasture land brought into cultivation, he will cause research to be made with a view of providing a more effective remedy than has been at present found for dealing with this pest?
  Sir R. WINFREY: The Board are aware of the damage done by wire worm to grow-
  340
  ing crops, and in view of the comparative unsuccess of the methods that have hitherto been adopted for dealing with this-pest, are considering further investigations on the subject.

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) where progress has been made in the improvement of the position of British prisoners of war who have been placed in retaliation camps by the German military authorities?
  Mr. HOPE: An arrangement has been arrived at with the German Government for the withdrawal of British prisoners of war 30 kilometres behind the firing lines both on the Eastern and Western fronts. The German Government has informed us recently that 2,000 British prisoners of war have already been withdrawn. We have asked the Netherlands Minister to report as soon as possible when he has ascertained that the withdrawal of all prisoners concerned is completed. The German Government also states that our prisoners of war are receiving better treatment. We are endeavouring to verify this assurance. Information has been received from one of our prisoners to the effect that food parcels began to be delivered from about 23rd April, and that the condition of our prisoners generally is considerably improved.
  Mr. HARVEY: Can steps be taken to publish the report of the Netherlands Government when it is received?
  Mr. HOPE: I cannot say that offhand. So far there has not been any formal report.

  TRENCH SHIELDS.
  Mr. MACMASTERasked whether our Armies at the front, and particularly in France, have an adequate supply of rapidly transferable trench shields, commonly called at the front "dog kennels," of such weight and dimensions that each may be carried and rapidly placed so as to afford protection to twelve men against rifle and machine gun-fire while our troops are consolidating their position in captured trenches?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the negative. I understand that the opinion of the highest military authorities is unfavourable to these shields.

  SOLDIERS' PARCELS (CHARGES).
  Mr. STANTONasked the Undersecretary for War if his attention has been called to the fact that soldiers' parcels are charged for at the rate of 1s. 4d. per 7 lbs. weight; that it was formerly 1s. 4d. for 14 lbs.; and whether, in view of the hardship inflicted by this increase of charge upon the poor relatives of our soldiers at the front, he will see that this is altered?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The rates on parcels for the British Armies in France are 1s. up to 3 lbs. and 1s. 4d. from 3 lbs. to 7 lbs. These rates have been unaltered since the beginning of the War. The rates for troops serving in more distant theatres of war are the same for parcels up to 3 lbs., but are rather higher for parcels between 3 lbs. and 7 lbs. Parcels exceeding 7 lbs. cannot be sent by parcel post.

  CONSTRUCTIONAL WORKERS (GRETNA).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that constructional workers at Gretna were led to understand that when their work was completed they would be transferred to similar employment elsewhere; that although the Ministry of Munitions exhibited a poster to this effect such men are now being called to the Colours; and if he will state reasons for the violation of the pledge given?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid I cannot answer this question in general terms, but, if my hon. Friend will give me particulars, I will have inquiries made.

  BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.
  Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, arising out of his answer yesterday to the effect that Lord Lytton is a member of the Board of Admiralty, it is to be understood that the newly-created office of Additional Parliamentary Secretary is included in the Patent constituting the Board?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir. The office of Additional Parliamentary Secretary, like that of the Parliamentary and Financial and the Permanent Secretary, is not included in the Patent. The holders of the offices of Parliamentary and Financial Secretary and Permanent Secretary attend all Board meetings by decision of the Board. The holder of the office of Additional Parliamentary Secretary is invited to be present by the First Lord. I have, therefore, to correct the answer I gave yesterday in reply to a Supplementary Question by my right hon. Friend, in which I stated that Lord Lytton is a Member of the Board. That is not so.

  Education (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the condition of education, primary, secondary, and technical, in Ireland is the most backward in the United Kingdom; that the salary paid to national teachers is scarcely above that of the agricultural labourer; and that only £40,000 is given from the State for secondary education; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this question?
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the neglected condition of education in Ireland, primary, secondary, and technical, is such as to require immediate financial assistance of fully £1,000,000 per annum in addition to the grants already given; and whether, considering the salaries paid to national teachers, that only £40,000 is being paid for secondary education, and this only for three years, that nothing has been given for training teachers or erecting schools, steps will be taken to bring those sources up to the requirements of progressive communities?
  Mr. DUKE: I am engaged in discussing with the Departments and the representatives of the teachers the conditions of Irish education and of those employed in instruction with a view to making necessary amendments.

  Mail-Van Drivers (Aberdeen).
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the mail-van drivers in Aberdeen are paid from 23s. to 25s. a week for a minimum

  343
  week of sixty hours, including stable work; that they work on Sundays without extra pay; that they have to take turns in driving funerals, for which nothing extra is given; and that some of them have to do other work in addition; and whether he will take steps to improve the pay and conditions of these men?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: No representations have been made to me about the wages paid to drivers employed by the contractor for the conveyance of mails by road in Aberdeen. I will have inquiry made as to the observance of the Fair Wages provisions, and will write to the hon. Member.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received the resolution unanimously passed by the County Council of Donegal in favour of proceeding at once with the purchase of the Rosses estate of the Marquess Conyngham, in respect of which negotiations had been completed between the owner and the Congested Districts Board previous to the outbreak of war; and whether any decision has been reached in the matter?
  Mr. DUKE: The Congested Districts Board have received a copy of the Resolution referred to. The Bosses Estate of the Marquess Conyngham has been valued, but no offer for purchase was made, and therefore negotiations had not been completed between the owner and the Board before the outbreak of war. Negotiations for the purchase of estates have been suspended, and steps cannot at present be taken with a view to acquiring this estate as a whole, but negotiations have been commenced for the acquisition for cash of a farm on the estate.

  LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.
  The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS informed the House that the Local Legislation Committee not being appointed to meet until Tuesday next, one of the parties opposing the Sheffield Corporation Bill, which is set down for consideration on Tuesday next by the Local Legislation Committee, had appeared before him and proved that the evidence of Hector
  344
  Maclean Wilson, Chief Inspector of the West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board, Wakefield, was essential to their case, and that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House.
  Ordered, That the said Hector Maclean Wilson do attend the Local Legislation Committee on Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what business is going to be taken next week?
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): On Monday we shall take the Representation of the People Bill (Instructions to Boundary Commissioners);
  Tuesday, the Representation of the People Bill in Committee;
  Wednesday, the Corn Production Bill (Financial Resolution), and the Military Service (Convention with Allied States) Bill in Committee, and probably other measures;
  And on Thursday, Supply (Board of Trade Vote).
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the Noble Lord say whether it will be possible to give a day for the discussion of the salary of the Secretary of State for War, in order to discuss the scandal of the re-examination of discharged and rejected men?
  Lord E. TALBOT: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question next week.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the Noble Lord represent to the Leader of the House that this is an urgent matter, as it is going on every day all over the country, and therefore the discussion should take place at once?
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Can the Noble Lord say whether the Government will be prepared with a statement on the British Trade Corporation, and can he assure us that the White Paper will be issued in time to be considered?
  Lord E. TALBOT: I understand that the White Paper will be issued early next week.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Would it not be better to take the discussion on the salary of the Secretary of State for War if you are not ready with this?
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill and Companies (Particulars as to Directors) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Lord E. Talbot.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do sit To-morrow."—[Lord E. Talbot.]
  Mr. PETO: I notice that the Motion on the Paper does not specify the hour of meeting. In view of the fact that there are three Bills of the first importance either in Committee or awaiting the Committee stage—namely, the Representation of the People Bill, the Corn Production Bill, and the Finance Bill—I would like to know whether the Government is disposed to reconsider the practice of having a partial sitting on a Friday, which appears to be merely a legacy of peace times for the convenience of private Members, and to have instead a longer sitting, in order that substantial progress can be made with the urgent business which the Government desire to get through at the earliest possible time? May I point out that the taking of serious and urgent business on Fridays would not involve, in the case of the Bills I have mentioned, any great draft upon the time of Ministers, because it would only involve the attendance of those Ministers who are directly concerned with the Bill under consideration; Is it not advisable that we should realise the situation in which the House finds itself, adapt our procedure to the exigencies of the case, and give up this partial sitting on a Friday, whereby substantial progress with serious business is practically impossible, and have a really business sitting so that progress may be made with the measures before the House. May I ask whether the House is to sit to-morrow at 12 o'clock as usual and adjourn at 5 o'clock, or whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the desirability of having the kind of sitting that I have indicated?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): The House will sit to-morrow at the usual time. My hon. Friend has made a proposal which would involve a very serious disturbance of the usual course of business in this House, and he will not expect me to say more than that the suggestion will be conveyed to the Leader of the House, but I cannot hold out any hope of its adoption.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House do sit to-morrow.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[Progress 6th June.]
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Parliamentary Franchises (Men).)
(1) A man shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentay elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) if he—

(a) has the requisite residence qualification; or

(b) has the requisite business premises qualification.

(2) A man, in order to have the requisite residence qualification or business premises qualification for a constituency—

(a) must on the last day of the qualifying period be residing in premises in the constituency, or occupying business premises in the constituency; and

(b) must during the whole of the qualifying period have resided in premises, or occupied business premises, in the constituency, or in another constituency within the same Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county, or within a Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county contiguous to that borough or county.

For the purpose of this provision the administrative county of London shall be treated as a Parliamentary borough.
(3) The expression "business premises" in this Section, means premises of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds occupied for the purpose of the business, profession, or trade, of the person to be registered.
Where business premises are in the joint occupation of two or more persons, and the aggregate yearly value of the premises is not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint occupiers, each of the joint occupiers shall be treated as occupying business premise of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds:
Provided that in a Parliamentary county not more than two persons, being such joint occupiers, shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same
374
premises unless they are bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on their profession, trade, or business in the premises.
Amendment proposed [6th June]: To leave out the words "on the last day of the qualifying period be" and insert instead thereof the words "for the last thirty days of the qualifying period have been."—[Mr. R. McNeill.]
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
Mr. ROWLANDS: The more one looks at this Amendment, which has been accepted by the Government, the more one realises that a very large slice has been taken out of a right which has existed for a long period of years, and which has been of great advantage to people in the larger constituencies. If this Amendment is passed, successive occupation is curtailed to a most alarming extent. It means that in the last thirty days of the qualifying period a man must be occupying business premises or residing in the constituency. Yesterday every speaker seemed to think that the people in these residences are quarterly or half-yearly tenants, and that they leave their residences on quarter day; Anyone who has had practical experience of registration in industrial constituencies knows that a very large percentage of the electorate do not occupy premises quarterly. A very large percentage, probably larger than many Members of this House anticipate, are weekly or monthly tenants. I have taken the trouble to get out an example of a constituency. At the present time it has 9,000 electors, and no less than 4,000, or just upon 50 per cont., are weekly tenants. The Amendment would carry wholesale disfranchisement among these electors. These working men do not leave their tenancies with any knowledge of the ordinary quarter days, and if they shift at any time under the thirty days they are going to be entirely disfranchised, because they will not have had six months' residential qualification, and they will, not have had thirty days in the constituency where they at present reside. They may only have had twenty-eight or twenty-one days. They therefore will be swept entirely off the register.
The great argument in favour of curtailing successive occupation is that it will prevent gerrymandering, but it would

375
have been well if those who fear gerrymandering had given us an example. The Armagh case is not the only case of successive occupation. You have had successive occupation in the large boroughs for a long period of years, and you have had workmen who have moved twice or three times during the qualifying period, but who have been able to put down on their new claims their old addresses and to show that they have passed from one residential qualification to another without a break, and have thus been able to claim their vote under the Act. It is said that under this Act there might possibly be a large amount of gerrymandering. If no illustrations can be brought forward of gerrymandering in the old constituencies, which are much smaller than they will be under this Act, how are they going to arise?
Sir F. BANBURY: This Bill makes it much easier.
4.0 P.M.
Mr. ROWLANDS: Let us look at it from a practical standpoint. If you have a constituency of 20,000 electors you must have a very fair number pass from one constituency to another to upset the existing balance of political parties. How are you going to do it? Where are you going to find your residences? Just calculate the number of residences that you would want. You would first have to find enough residences for these people to go into for a day. Secondly, you would have to find the people prepared to shift under these conditions. It would not be a question of a dozen electors. You would have to remove a large number of men to upset the old balance of political power. As far as I understand the Armagh case, they were going to solve it by building a block of industrial dwellings, but no one suggests that it is going to be done in this case, and if it were proposed to build them it could not be done in the time when the fear arises just prior to a General Election, I do not say you should not prevent anything in the nature of gerrymandering if it can be proved to exist, but the scare we have had started in the Committee is far too exaggerated, and there is no practical experience of anything of the kind taking place. I want to protect the hundreds of thousands of industrial dwellers who are entitled to the vote, but who would be disfranchised
376
under the thirty days suggested. I sincerely trust that the Home Secretary, who has always met us in regard to any matter we have had to discuss with him, will try to meet this case. What we want to ensure is that there shall not be a huge amount of disfranchisement taking place while, at the same time, we are extending the franchise by means of the six months' qualification. Hon. Members need not fear gerrymandering to any large extent. It would be far too difficult in the big constituencies, especially when we remember that it will be three months before the register comes into force, and we shall not know whether a particular register will have an election fought upon it or not. I sincerely trust the right hon. Gentleman will give this matter his earnest consideration. I believe there is a way out of the difficulty and that he has been giving his attention to it, and we shall be pleased to hear what he has to say upon the matter.
Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: The question which we discussed at considerable length last night, and upon which we are still engaged, seems to lend itself to a rather ready solution which will protect the interests which both sides are anxious to protect. We shall all be agreed that where a man, a few days or even one day before the end of the qualifying period, goes into another district simply to get a bogus claim, and goes out again immediately afterwards, he ought not to be allowed to get a claim there. Where, on the other hand, a man is making a genuine change of residence, that ought not to break his qualification. A month's test is a fair test. If a man goes into a new district a month before the end of the qualifying period, it is a fair conclusion that he goes there bonâ fide intending to stay. On the other hand, if he goes into the new district on the last day of the qualifying period and stays for the full month in the new district, it is a fair presumption that it is a bonâ fide removal and that he intends to stay in the new district. It would, therefore, be easy to frame words which, would achieve that purpose and lay it down that where a man has moved into-the new district and has remained there up till the time for hearing objections—that is, from the 15h January to the 15th February—and if he is still in the district, his claim should be a good one; but if, on the other hand, he has left within

377
that month and has gone away, it is evidence that he is merely a swallow voter and not a bonâ fide removal. I make the suggestion to the Home Secretary that he should introduce at the end of Sub-section (2) some words making a proviso that at the hearing of objections it shall be a valid objection if a man has moved into the constituency within the last month of the qualifying period and has also left the constituency within the first month of the new period. The result of that would he that a man moving on the last day of the qualifying period would be put upon the list, and that if when the date of hearing objections came—that would be a month later—he is still living there he could not be objected to, but that if he has gone he can be objected to, as we all agree he should be objected to, because he is not a bonâ fide resident.
Sir G. CAVE: I venture to think that the suggestion made by the last speaker points a way out of our difficulty. On the one hand we are all anxious—the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands) is as anxious as the rest of us—to find some way of dealing with these swallow voters, as they are sometimes called, who fly into the division on the last day of the qualifying period and out of it the day after. I am sure that none of us want to disfranchise a man who bonâ fide changes his residence even within the month before the end of the qualifying period. We want to cover both cases. I rather think the suggestion just made has that result. The understanding is that we keep the Bill at this point as it stands, leaving the one day where it is, so that we need not alter the subsequent dates of the qualifying period and the rest of the dates, but that we provide for this swallow voter and this change of residence, and we say that if a man lives in the new place only for a few days or for a couple of weeks he really is not a resident there and he ought not to have a claim to vote in that particular new constituency. On the other hand, if he stays for the thirty days in the division, even though part of those thirty days is before and part after the 15tih January or the 15th July, he has shown by his month's residence that he is a bona fide resident in that place and not a mere swallow. That is a case where we may have the month's residence as a test of bona fides. If that is, as I believe it to be, the general view of the Committee, I shall be quite willing to ask my hon.
378
Friend (Mr. R. McNeill) to withdraw the Amendment now before the Committee. The words which have been drawn to-day to carry out our object are these: At the' end of Sub-section (2) to insert a fresh paragraph, as follows:
"Provided that a man though he may have been residing in premises in the constituency on the last day of the qualifying period, shall not be entitled to be so registered if, on objection being made to his registration, it is shown that he commenced to reside in the constituency within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period and ceased to reside there within thirty days after the time when he so commenced to reside."
Mr. GILBERT: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put this new duty on the registration officer or on the party agents?
Sir G. CAVE: I was coming to that. The Amendment is so drawn as not to put the duty on the registration officer. It is impossible for him to know in time whether the man is going to live there for the full thirty days or not, therefore he would, in the ordinary course, put on the register a man who has come there in the time, but if it appears on the objection day that the thirty days have not been spent in the constituency, it is a good objection, and the registration officer, on that objection, would take off the name. That is a sensible way of doing it, and it has the advantage of putting a man on the register in every case, and leaving it to the objector to show that it is not a bonâ fide case.
Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment is not here at the moment and of course I cannot speak for him, but speaking for myself alone I am not satisfied with the result of my right hon. Friend's scheme, for this reason: My right hon. Friend said that he is now going to withdraw the undertaking he gave to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment and is going to put in something which, in my opinion, is totally different and will not meet the point. The old arrangement was that if a man moved for twenty-eight days or any portion of twenty-eight days before the time for registration he should not be allowed to be on the register. That seems to be an excellent arrangement.
Mr. PRINGLE: You mean that is the existing arrangement.
Sir F. BANBURY: The Amendment of my hon. Friend was to insert thirty days, the effect being that a man who had resided there for twenty-eight days was not qualified, because he must have resided there for thirty days. The Home Secretary has changed that as the result of a night's reflection. I could not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands). He said that in the small constituencies which exist at the present moment this kind of thing did not occur, and therefore it would not occur in the large constituencies. I say it is because the constituencies are going to be large that it is more likely that it will occur, because in a small constituency it is more or less difficult to do this, as it is easy to trace a man, and people would know what is being done. The larger the constituency, the greater the difficulty to prevent such doings. My right hon. Friend says the task would be so great—I quite agree with him—that it cannot be put upon the registration officer, therefore it is to be put on the party agents. I have never heard that by this Bill you are going to do away with party agents. I have never heard that it was going to decrease the cost of party agents, but rather to increase them. If you are going to put this new duty on the party agents you will immensely increase the expenses incurred by Members, party agents, or whoever pays the expenses of this description. You will make it extremely difficult for the party agent to find these things out. The right hon. Gentleman discussed this question as if it were only a question of people who occupied houses. He left lodgers out of the question altogether. To my mind the lodgers are the most important people in this matter. They are the people who would probably be used to do this very thing. To London and in all large towns there are large numbers of lodgers. They are continuously moving. With these large constituencies—if London is to become one constituency, with its 5,500,000 people—how on earth will it be possible for any party agent, however energetic, to follow the removals of lodgers, people living in one room in a house? How will it be possible for him to follow them in London within a few days and track the movements going on in this kind of way? It is quite
380
possible for a lodger who is constantly moving to be asked by his party agent to make a move, which he might have made a little later, at a particular earlier date.
It does not require a very large number of people—it may be 200 or 300, or even less—to change the course of an election, and it is not difficult to ask a few people who are lodgers and who are in the habit of changing, and who can leave their lodgings without any great suspicion attaching to them, to move from one constituency to another. Under the agreement to which my hon. Friend (Mr. McNeill) had consented the registration officer would have to see that these people had been in their lodgings for thirty days. That would not have been an absolute protection, but it would have been a considerable protection. Now that is all to be thrown away and it is to be left to the party agents to find out whether or not these were genuine removals and whether these particular lodgers do remain for a further thirty days in the same lodgings. That is a retrograde step. It will be very difficult to find out whether or not they have moved for genuine reasons. I have had some experience of this. When I first stood as candidate for Peckham I canvassed personally. I called on 6,000 electors. I was a stranger, and I thought one of the most efficient ways would be to go round and talk to my future Constituents, so I called upon 6,000 of them. I had to go in the evening between 6 and S o'clock, because, being a working-class constituency, that was the only time they were in. It took me something like six months, but it had a good effect, though I found out the difficulty which attended an attempt to ascertain in a constituency of that sort who were voters and who were not. Take the case of a house occupied by three families, ground floor, first floor and second floor, and perhaps one of those families letting one of the rooms to a lodger. How on earth can you find out, except with very great difficulty, and with a great expenditure of time, whether these lodgers have moved from one constituency to another within a short time like thirty days? I am extremely sorry that the first attempt to meet an Amendment of the Unionist party has been thrown over because the Radical party have protested against it.
Mr. DENNISS: We do not all take the same view.
Sir F. BANBURY: The majority of the Unionist party, or, at any rate, the majority of those who have spoken—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] How can we tell their opinion if they do not speak? I do not know what the opinion of the hon. Member opposite is, though perhaps it is due to my stupidity in not being able to see into his mind. I do not say he was going to vote against the Government, but until he tells us what his opinion is I do not see how we can know what it is, and I do feel that the majority of the Unionist Members who have spoken have been in favour of the Amendment of my hon. Friend. Yet after that Amendment has been accepted it is to be thrown over because the Radical party, led by my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. Samuel), who is a very influential man, have chosen to protest against our Amendment being accepted. I regret it very much. I do not think the alteration is going to have the effect that was intended, and I am very sorry the surrender has been made.
Mr. R. McNEILL: I came in in the middle of the speech my right hon. Friend has just made, and I heard him say that the arrangement which was made yesterday by the Government with myself arid my Friends who are supporting this Amendment has been thrown over. I have had no intimation to that effect from the Government, and until I have better authority than that of my right hon. Friend, great as it is, I shall decline to believe it.
Sir F. BANBURY: May I say the Home Secretary said he wished my hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment, leaving the words in the Bill as they are, with the proviso to be inserted later?
Mr. McNEILL: I think that is a very different thing. I understand a request has been made in my absence by my right hon. Friend opposite. No one is more anxious than I am to meet my right hon. Friend. At the same time, a request from him is a very different thing from saying they have thrown over the arrangement they have already made. I am in this difficult position: The Committee will remember that yesterday afternoon I moved an Amendment which went a great deal further than the Amendment which is now before the Committee. That
382
was an Amendment which, I think, a good many of my Friends on this side, and also on the other side of the House, were prepared to support. In deference to the arguments of the Government, especially of the Solicitor-General, I consented to withdraw that Amendment, because I was anxious to facilitate and expedite the proceedings of the Committee, and it was a distinct term of the arrangement, if it were an arrangement, made in open Committee, that if I and my Friends desisted from pressing that Amendment to a Division the Government would meet us by accepting an Amendment of mine further on the Paper, which is the Amendment now before the Committee. Now I was told very hurriedly that the Government intended to accept a later Amendment of my hon. Friend below me, which I am told will have the effect of practically destroying my Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am not saying that is so. I have been so told. My hon. Friend below me courteously showed me a copy of his Amendment just after Question Time. Of course I have had no opportunity of really considering what the effect of that Amendment would be, and it seems to me to be rather hard treatment of myself and those who support my Amendment, that, without a moment to consider the effect of my hon. Friend's proviso, I should be asked to-withdraw this Amendment and to consider that the whole case was met by the Amendment which my hon. Friend below me intends to move. I cannot do that.
So far as I am able to judge, on a very short consideration of the manuscript Amendment that I have seen, I do not think it will at all meet the ease for which my Amendment is intended to provide. To begin with—and this is a very important Consideration—it appears to me that the Amendment which it is suggested now to insert will enormously add to the necessity for making claims and objections. It will enormously add to litigation, and that is one of the very things which it is desirable to prevent. Now I am extremely reluctant to take up any attitude on this Bill, or any part of it, which could be represented as obstructive, or as putting any difficulties in the way of the Government and the House carrying to the Statute Book this Bill, which, in its main provisions, I think, the vast majority of the House desire. But I would suggest to my right hon.

383
Friend, having regard to the very precise and specific undertaking given last night by the Solicitor-General, and also by my right hon. Friend who represents the Local Government Board, that my Amendment should be accepted, and that it should be carried on as part of the Bill by the Government. I think that the extreme to which my right hon. Friend can expect me to go is that my Amendment should be accepted by the Government and put into the Bill, and that on the Report stage an opportunity should be given to the House of considering the Amendment which is proposed to be moved by my hon. Friend below me. But if the Government intends to stand by the very precise undertaking they gave to me yesterday, I think that they are bound to put my Amendment upon the Statute Book, and reject the Amendment of my hon. Friend here—at all events until we reach the Report stage.
Mr. WARDLE: I think if the hon. Gentleman had been present when the actual words which the Home Secretary had agreed to put into this Bill—not the words of my hon. Friend opposite, but another proviso—he would have seen that he had been largely met, and met to such an extent as to cure the evil which we, along with him, want to cure. If there is a general agreement, surely, if we accept the Government's proposal now, it is possible for the hon. Member, if not satisfied, to raise the whole question again on the Report stage by proposing an alteration in the Bill then. If his Amendment, on the other hand, is accepted and put in the Bill now, it changes the whole character of the franchise law, and would compel many of us to vote against the Government on the other side, which we do not want to do. Under those circumstances, if the hon. Gentleman will allow the Government to pass that part of the Bill, putting in the proviso to which they have agreed, and then, if he is not satisfied, raise the matter on the Report stage, I think he will find he has been fairly met.
Mr. McNEILL: It is clear from the observations made by various hon. Members that there is some divergence of views in the Committee. As to the substance, it appears to me we are really all at one. The proposal which was before the Committee was made in order to deal with a particular case—the case of the man who
384
is brought from one constituency into another with a view to influencing an election, and who leaves again immediately after having been brought into the constituency on the last day of the qualifying period, and so being legally entitled to a vote. Many of us thought that such a case would not occur, but others thought it was a real danger, and, in order to meet it, my hon. Friend proposed a plan which the Government accepted. It was then pointed out that this plan would go far beyond the objects it was designed to meet, and that, in fact, it would disfranchise great numbers of people who quite bonâ fide move from one constituency to another, and would disfranchise a considerable number of people who, as the existing law now stands, would get votes. That, we understood, was not at all the intention of those who promoted this Amendment. They did not want to deprive the bonâ fide voter of a vote merely because he had moved, but they wished to prevent gerrymandering. Objection was raised by many of us, not the least on party grounds, but solely with the object of preventing the disfranchisement of men and women, if women are included in the Bill, under the Amendment proposed. Then the Home Secretary said he would meet entirely the substance of my hon. Friend's proposal by providing that, if a man came in and went out within the period of a month, he should not get a vote, and it appears to me that the Home Secretary has provided a very complete and ingenious method of, on the one hand, effecting the legitimate purpose which was in view, and, on the other hand, avoiding the disfranchisement of bonâ fide voters. I do not think that any serious burden would be involved in the case of party agents, for while the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend behind mo, as modified by the Homo Secretary, would deal with such a case, it would deal with a very rare case. It would not involve the handing in of hundreds of thousands of objections in any particular constituency for any particular registration period. For these reasons, I trust that the Amendment proposed by the Home Secretary will be generally accepted by the Committee. I should like to say, in reply to the Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. Wardle), that I quite realise the force of what he said, but I am not in the position of being the leader

385
of a party. I am in a much more humble and less responsible position. This Amendment is supported by a large number of my friends in this House, and it was fully understood by them yesterday that the Government had accepted it, and that therefore, so far as this Amendment was concerned, it was res judicata. As I am not in the responsible position of the leader of the party, the hon. Member will understand that those who are in favour of this Amendment which I have moved will look upon me as having taken upon myself a great deal more than I am entitled to do, and as having betrayed their interests if I, merely because of the suggestion made by the Home Secretary, and because I have been pressed by the hon. Member (Mr. Wardle), suddenly withdraw an Amendment which they understood had been accepted. I, therefore, feel great difficulty in taking that course. In reply to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Samuel), I regret, very much that I was not in my place to hear what was said by the Home Secretary. I imagined that the Debate might go on for some time, and that in consequence of what took place no change of attitude would be adopted on the part of the Government. Therefore, I did not think it necessary to be here.
It is quite true that I and those who agree with me in regard to this Amendment have no desire to disfranchise anyone, or to curtail the liberties of anyone who is a bonâ fide voter, but I am not prepared to say that the Amendment of the Home Secretary really meets the case. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Samuel) said, I still adhere to the view that it will necessarily add very much to the difficulty of establishing the right in these cases. If the difficulty is to be met at all, there is an alternative method, I, personally, should prefer. I have not drafted the words, but what I should prefer is something like this: Supposing my Amendment were carried, a man remains five months all but a day in a certain constituency and then moves to another constituency, and after thirty days he is entitled to a vote in that other constituency. The alternative suggestion that I would make is that his right to a vote in the constituency from which he has moved should be retained, so that if after five months he moves from constituency A into constituency B, and through the ordinary method can establish by evidence the fact that he has
386
moved from constituency A to constituency B, where he is in residence in accordance with the terms of the Bill on the last day of the qualifying period, he should be entitled to vote, not in constituency B, but in constituency A. I suggest that as an alternative. I really have no authority to give away the opinions of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have supported my Amendment, but speaking entirely for myself, if the Government can see their way to adopt that alternative and to put it in the Bill on the Report stage accepting my Amendment in the meantime.
HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
Mr. McNEILL: Yes, I think I am entitled to ask for that, because, in spite of what the Leader of the Labour party has said, it cannot be denied that, for good or for ill, I have an undertaking from the Government from which I do not think they can recede. Therefore, I think I am entitled to have my Amendment in the Bill when it comes before the House on the Report stage. Then we could have on the Order Paper the Amendment which the Government propose to put down, so that I and those who support my Amendment could have a full opportunity of seeing the alternative scheme and of seeing what the effect of the Government Amendment would be, and then deciding whether or not we could acquiesce in a departure from an arrangement which had already been made with the Government.
Mr. HOLT: It appears to me that the House is making a mountain out of a molehill. I do not believe in the possibility of deliberate gerrymandering tinder the Bill as it stands. That is only possible when you have a large number of single Member constituencies of a homogeneous character and contiguous. This Bill proposes to abolish single Member constituencies and to establish large constituencies, where the voting is done by a system of proportional representation.
An HON. MEMBER: That is not adopted yet.
Mr. HOLT: When proportional representation is adopted it is absolutely impossible to gerrymander a constituency. Under proportional representation nobody could possibly do anything in the way of the deliberate moving of votes,

387
because by the transfer the chance of getting any result is so remote that it is not worth while. If the Bill is passed in the form in which it stands, the whole notion that there can be any gerrymandering by way of the deliberate moving of voters from one constituency to another to affect the result of an election goes by the board. It is alsolutely impossible.
Sir G. CAVE: I do not think the alternative proposal made by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. R. McNeill) would work, because the registration officer when he went to find out who was living there would not find the voter there and would not put him down, and, therefore, he would not get a vote. I have considered that more than once, and I am afraid it would not be effective. The most important point is, what is the effect of the acceptance, which we certainly gave, of my hon. Friend's Amendment? He raised a point by his Amendment which I knew was a substantial point, and which I desired very strongly to meet. In order to meet it we did go a good deal out of our way. We incurred a certain amount of opposition, and employed a considerable amount of time in order to meet him and his friends, because his point is a good one. I realise that all his friends who are anxious about this point are not here to-day, but surely he has some right to act in their name.
Mr. McNEILL: No.
Sir G. CAVE: We said we would take the Amendment because we desired to meet the substance of his point. I was strongly determined to meet his point, and my view is that I am meeting it today. The whole point which has been raised is this: we do not want a man who simply goes into a place and leaves it two days afterwards to get a vote for that place. That we are preventing. At the same time, I think he will admit that he does not want the remedy for that danger to have the effect of disfranchising a number of bonâ fide voters. He says so himself. I think he will admit that his Amendment has that effect.
Mr. McNEILL: No, no.
Sir G. CAVE: If he thinks it over, he will not be able to deny that.
Mr. McNEILL: The Solicitor-General denied that.
Sir G. CAVE: I do not think he did. I am quite sure the Amendment would have that effect of disfranchising a certain number of people. My hon. and learned Friend did not deny that. He admitted it, and said there were compensations which make it worth while to accept it. I am confident that the only way to meet my hon. Friend's main object is by my proviso, which would have the effect of disfranchising the swallow voters and at the same time would secure the franchise for those who are bonâ fide electors. I hope that he will see that this is a very reasonable offer. I have done my very best to meet him. Unless he is prepared to meet us on that it is very difficult.
Mr. MULDOON: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the words of the proviso he intends to move?
Sir G. CAVE: The words I am proposing to move are these:
"Provided that a man, though he may have been residing in premises in a constituency on the last day of the qualifying period, shall not be entitled to be so registered if, on objection being made to his registration, it is shown that he commenced to reside in the constituency within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period, and ceased to reside there within thirty days after the time when he so commenced lo reside."
If he stays there for a month he is all right.
Mr. McNEILL: Is that in addition to my Amendment?
Mr. SNOWDEN: If I have understood correctly the observations of the Home Secretary, I am very much disappointed by his reply to the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. McNeill). The hon. Member put a point which has been in my mind since the Home Secretary first made his suggested proviso. I agree with the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) that this question of the swallow voter is very much exaggerated. I do not think there are very many men who are prepared, for the sake of some party advantage, to lend themselves to a practice of that sort. It must involve great inconvenience and a great deal of expense. I see smiles on the faces of hon. Members who have had a great deal more experience in electioneering methods and devices than I have had, but still that is

389
my view. I think the Amendment before the House is intended solely to deal with that possibility, and it seems to me that in dealing with that we are likely to inflict a very grave injustice upon a number of innocent persons. Under the Amendment suggested by the Home Secretary a person may live in constituency A for nearly six months, and he may be compelled for some reason to move into constituency B, but unless he resides there for a period of thirty days he will be disfranchised for a period of six months. It may be that he goes into the constituency for perfectly good reasons, and before the end of the thirty days he may be compelled to leave that constituency for equally good reasons. I think the dis-franchisement of that man for six months or more is inflicting a grave injustice upon him. This man may have had nearly six months' qualification in constituency A, but under the Amendment that has been suggested he is going to get no allowance whatever for that. I was hoping that the Home Secretary was going to deal with the point made by the hon. Member (Mr. McNeill) that this man's qualifying period in constituency A should count, and that he should be able to retain his vote. I do not think the practical objection put by the Home Secretary is sufficiently strong to override the injustice that would be inflicted upon that man if provisions of that character were not made. I am afraid that unless the Home Secretary, as representing the Government, can do something to remove the injustice that undoubtedly will fall on a very large number of working people through losing their qualification of four, five, or nearly six months, and having to spend an equally long time in another constituency, we shall have to oppose this Amendment.
Colonel SANDERS: As I am the one who was first of all guilty of starting this hare on the Second Reading Debate, I want to suggest to my hon. Friend (Mr. McNeill) that it would probably be better for him to withdraw his Amendment. So far as I can see, this meets the point which I raised, but I want to ask the Home Secretary whether ho will consider a further point that was raised by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) and others, namely, that of the extra expense incurred by the registration agents under the proposed new provision that is to be put in at the end of this Clause. That seems to me to be a very serious point,
390
and I think it is one which we ought to consider when we come to the end of the Clause and the new proviso is made. We ought to have an opportunity then of seeing whether there is not some way in which we can obviate what will really be a very considerable expense to all future candidates. I would point out to the right hon. Member opposite who said that the case very seldom occurs, and that consequently it will not be a big expense to object to the man who moves in this particular way, that the expense will not be incurred in objecting but in searching, and as every one who knows anything about the preparation before the Revision Court is aware it is a very expensive thing, and will be all the more expensive in the bigger constituencies, to go round to house after house and find out whether there is an occupier of this particular sort in it. It is just the same as in the collection of Customs Duties. It is not the contraband goods that cost the money, but searching the goods that are not contraband. It is exactly the same here, and it does mean putting an extra expense upon the political agents who will be employed for registration purposes. I certainly advise the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. McNeill) to withdraw his Amendment if the Home Secretary will promise us that he will try and meet this point of the extra expense when this proviso comes under discussion.
The CHAIRMAN: May I suggest to the Committee that we might now dispose of the Amendment before it? There will be an opportunity, as the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sanders) has said, of considering the point further on the Government Amendment.
Lord H. CECIL: On that point, may I say that I think the Government have taken an extraordinarily inconvenient course in accepting an Amendment overnight and withdrawing it the next day. I do not remember it ever having been done before by any Government in the conduct of a Bill. I think it is an extremely abusive process. It makes it almost impossible to trust declarations made from the Treasury Bench if they are not adhered to, and it is the more inexcusable that the Home Secretary solemnly assured the House last night that it was not done light-heartedly, that it came from the mouths of three successive Ministers, that it had been profoundly deliberated upon; and it seems

391
that it has been so deliberated upon that it has been thrown over, be cause the right hon. Gentleman has been pressed by those he is bound to consider. They do not belong to the party to which he belongs; for those persons he has much less consideration. I suggest that the best plan—
Sir G. CAVE: I have had no communication whatever from any Member of the Liberal party—
Lord H. CECIL: I understood this was intended to meet their views.
Sir G. CAVE: —except that I en countered the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. A. Williams) this morning.
Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I can assure the House that I did not press the right hon. Gentleman.
Lord H. CECIL: I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman did anything immoral.
The CHAIRMAN: After all, as a matter of business—
Lord H. CECIL: I was about to make a suggestion which perhaps the Government may accept. As the matter has gone so far, I suggest that the Amendment should be put in now and that the Government should hold themselves perfectly free to alter it on Report. That would be much more in accordance with Parliamentary procedure as the Government accepted it last night.
Sir F. BANBURY: I must make a protest before we part with this Amendment. I presume it is no use dividing, because we should be in a minority, but I must protest against the statement of the Home Secretary that he had done his best to meet my hon. and learned Friend. It is a very curious kind of best to give an undertaking on one afternoon, which undertaking is backed up by no less a person than the Solicitor-General (Sir G. Hewart), and my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Local Government Board (Mr. Hayes Fisher), and enforced, as my Noble Friend (Lord H. Cecil) says, by the statement that it has not been lightly considered, and then on the next day to come down and withdraw that undertaking and ask my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his
392
Amendment in order that the Government shall put in something which I say, is merely a sham, and does not meet the matter at all.
Mr. McNEILL: I should like to state the course I propose to take. I have already said that I am personally in a difficulty over the matter. There are a number of my hon. Friends who are very interested in this Amendment who are not here to-day. Why are they not here? They are not here because I told them myself that so far as this matter was concerned they need not be in any anxiety, that a definite undertaking had been given by the Government to accept my Amendment, and I said that I was perfectly certain that the Government would not depart from that undertaking. I find that I was mistaken, and in those circumstances I feel bound, out of loyalty to my Friends who are not here, upon an assurance which I now find I was not entitled to give them, not to withdraw the Amenedmnt, or to go to a Division which would be useless, but to allow it to be negatived.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Could not the Government see their way to meet this matter in the manner indicated? The matter put forward is one of considerable difficulty. I have really tried to give it undivided attention. The qualifying period ends on 15th July, and all objections have to be in by the 15th August. Would not it be possible to accept the Amendment and then on the Report stage for the Government to do whatever they think right—abandon, if necessary, the line they are taking, and put down an Amendment which we shall be able to see on the Paper?
Sir G. CAVE: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. I have not the least doubt that the proposal we make is the right one in the interests of the Bill. At the same time, it is not pleasant to me to have it suggested that we are breaking some undertaking. May I suggest that we leave the Bill as it stands in all respects and make no change in it to-day, that this Amendment be negatived, as my hon. and learned Friend cannot withdraw it, and that I will not move my Amendment, so that on the Report stage we shall be free to put down such Amendments as are thought fit? I quite agree to reserve the whole matter until then, and. at the same time,

393
I cannot accept the Amendment to-day, because I feel the arguments against it have been so strong.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will see that the difficulty about that is that even then we should not have a pledge of the Government That they will include the Amendment he has read to-day, which, so far as I can see, will not meet the point. Would it not be better to accept my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, and then to bring in something else on Report if it is thought necessary?
Mr. H. SAMUEL: The course suggested by the Home Secretary is in substance what he was asked to pursue by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. McNeill) originally, namely that the whole matter should be left over and that if the Home Secretary could not put in the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment now he should not put in the Government's Amendment, and that the whole matter should be left over for the Report stage.
Mr. McNEILL: I suggested that my Amendment should be put in the Bill now, in accordance with the undertaking of the Government, and that if they wanted subsequently to amend it they should do so the Report stage.
Mr. SAMUEL: To that course many of my friends would take the strongest objection, because they oppose this Amendment on its merits, or rather on its demerits, and it has now been conceded by the Government that it will disfranchise a number of people who would, otherwise be bonâ fide voters. I am only anxious to facilitate the Government in the conduct of this Bill, and I am sure my friends would be very anxious to do all in their power to alleviate any friction that might arise between Ministers in charge of the Bill and any quarter of the House. If the Home Secretary, therefore, thinks that the best course in the interests of the Bill is to put in none of the Amendments at this stage we should be very ready to concur in that, but on the Report stage we must, of course, maintain our attitude that we do not assent to the introduction of an Amendment which would have a general disfranchising effect while purporting only to meet the case of the voter introduced for gerrymandering purposes.
Lord H. CECIL: I suggest that the last course proposed by the right hon. Gentle-
394
man is a concession to those he is anxious to meet. I think it is better to have the Amendment put in now, and thus to leave the whole matter free for the report stage.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. McNeill) hardly met the Armagh case, which was not one of removal from one division to another, as the Home Secretary said yesterday, but of a change of residence within the same constituency.
Amendment negatived.
The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment deals with a matter disposed of yesterday.
Mr. McNEILL: On a point of Order, I have not been able to follow what the Home Secretary has been saying in this matter. I understood that he was now going to put in the Amendment he read. I hope he intends to do so.
The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has already handed in an Amendment to be placed at the end of Subsection (2).
Mr. McNEILL: What I mean is that I do not quite understand in what position we left the various suggestions made. There was a suggestion that the Bill should be left as it stands until the Report stage. What I want to say is that I hope the right hon. Gentleman intends at this stage to put in the Amendment ho has read.
The CHAIRMAN: The Home Secretary will not put it in. The Committee may do so, if it thinks fit.
The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) deals with a master settled on Sub-section (1).
The next Amendment standing in the name, of the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Major Newman), in Sub-section (2) paragraph (a) to leave out the words "in premises," is one of which I do not see the object. Does he mean someone residing in a tent?
5.0 P.M
Major NEWMAN: That will have to be found out. I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) paragraph (a) to leave out the words "in premises" ["residing in premises."] The Clause will then read:
"Must on the last day of the qualifying period be residing in the constituency, or occupying business premises in the constituency."

395
I move that solely for the purpose of getting from the Home Secretary a definition of what "residing in" premises means. It is a matter of considerable difficulty. I have looked through the standard work. "Rogers on Elections," and one or two others, and those authorities certainly cannot tell me what "residing in" premises in a constituency actually means. I could put a great many conundrums to the Home Secretary. Is "residing in" premises to be taken as covering residing in a tent? That is one of the cases which occurred to me at once. What we really want to get at is this—does "premises" mean a place of abode? If it does we do away with a certain amount of difficulty. A man is supposed to have his residence where his bed is, we were told yesterday, but if a man resides in a bed in a tent is he residing in the division? Suppose he resides in a tent on the banks of the Thames—say, in my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's division, is he a qualified voter if he resides there for a period of a month? It is obvious that if that were the case, my right hon. and learned Friend might have a great many votes registered against him by people who had pitched their tents on the banks of the Thames for a month. An hon. Member asks, is he a householder? And that is another conundrum. We can go on multiplying them, and I have put down this Amendment to get from the Home Secretary what residence means. Then again, a man has a residential qualification and a business qualification. He has a shop, and he has a vote in respect to the shop. He dwells in a room at the rear of the shop, and has a parlour and a bedroom. Has he a residential qualification and a business qualification, two votes in the same constituency, or has he not? The Home Secretary shakes his head. Here we have an ambiguous point. I quite realise what the Committee want and what the Speaker's Conference want—that is, they want to give a vote to a man who resides for six months in a division and a business vote to a man with the other qualifications. If that is so, are the words "in premises" wanted at all; and, if they are put in, what do they mean?
Sir G. CAVE: I, for one, understand that the object is to attach residence to Borne particular premises, some particular
396
place in a constituency. If a man is wandering about a constituency he is not living in premises. If he has a home, no matter what kind it is, whether a mansion or a hovel, but a home of some kind, that is his home, and comes within the terms of the Clause. I hope the hon. and gallant Member (Major Newman) will not ask me to go through all the possibilities, that may occur to him.
Lord H. CECIL: The Government could assist the Committee if they would put definitions to these words in the definition Clause. These things would then be cleared up, and we should know where we are. As I gather, they propose to leave all these questions to the Law Courts. But that is not the way of conducting legislation. What you ought to do is to save the Law Courts labour instead of giving them work.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: What is a woman?
Amendment negatived.
The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Newman), after the word "occupying" to insert the words "for the purpose of carrying on a profession, business, or trade, land or premises," will come on in Clause 3. The next in order is that of the hon. Member for the City of London.
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the words "Parliamentary borough, or Parliamentary county, or within a Parliamentary borough, or Parliamentary county contiguous to that borough or county."
The Amendment as it originally stood would disfranchise anyone in another constituency within the same Parliamentary borough, and on the whole I do not think it would be advisable to go so far as that. Therefore I would rather move it in this form. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. McNeill) objects to that. The effect of it would be to abolish the new franchise in a contiguous Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county contiguous to that borough or county. The practice of allowing people to move out of a Parliamentary borough has been in existence for some time, and on the whole perhaps it had better not be interfered with. But this goes very much further. It seems to me to develop the difficulties which have been mentioned. The first is

397
a development alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. H. Samuel). In his very able speech yesterday he pointed out that it was extremely difficult to define the word "contiguous," and he gave several illustrations of rivers and seas which would make it difficult to define what is actually meant. I thoroughly agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) that it is not our business to provide work for the Law Courts. The object of this Bill is to simplify registration, and it is not our duty to put into it any words which are not clear and which might require legal interpretation. Therefore on that ground, I think the words I propose to omit should be omitted. There is, however, a further ground, and one which in my opinion is more important, and that is you are extending the facilities of moving in this kind of way, and, especially after what occurred a short time ago, this will increase and facilitate the opportunities for gerrymandering. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill) pointed out that in the St. Ives Division of Cornwall there were cases which would not be considered contiguous, and consequently you are going to establish, certain hard oases for certain anomalies. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) in his speech yesterday pointed out that you are going to create two classes of voters—a class of voters who can move and still preserve their vote, and another who can move and lose their vote. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said that distance made a difference. I cannot see that distance makes very much difference. He must have had in his mind the old mistake made by Mr. Gladstone, that the farther you live from Westminster the more votes you ought to have. That is a thing I never could understand, and I do not think Mr. Gladstone would have entertained it unless he thought that the farther people lived from Westminster the more Radical they were. In this case it does not follow that the argument holds good, because it might well be that a person removing a short distance might lose his vote if the place from which he moved was not contiguous. I intend later on to move a Clause which relates to London. I cannot see any object in putting these words in. They do not meet tile argument advanced by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) that
398
every man ought to have a vote and never lose it. It creates a privileged class, it lends facilities for gerrymandering, and it seems to me part of a Clause which ought to be omitted.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I am glad that the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury.) has made some concessions to the rights of voters. All the other Amendments have been to make it easy, but my right hon. Friend said that he put his Amendment down, and had a good night, and made up his mind that it would be a little hard that if a man had five months in one constituency and then moved he should lose his vote. Some of us think it is very hard that anyone living in a constituency, say, Hammersmith, should after five months, because he crossed the street and entered the constituency which I have the honour to represent, lose his vote. That would be a hard measure. My right hon. Friend agrees with that.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not agree with that.
Mr. FISHER: Then all that he agrees to is this, that if a man lived in, say East Islington and moved to West Islington, he should retain his qualification. That is the limit of the right bon. Gentleman's concession.
Sir F. BANBURY: It is a very considerable concession.
Mr. FISHER: But if he is unfortunate enough to move into St. Pancras he must lose his vote, or if he steps outside the county of London or the county of Middlesex to Hertford or Kent, though he may only go a few hundred yards away, he must lose the vote. The matter has been discussed thoroughly both by the Speaker's Conference and repeatedly by this House, and the overwhelming majority of opinion both at the Conference and in this House is in favour of some more equitable method by which men shall not lose their qualification merely because they change their residence, very often only a few hundred yards' distance, into another Parliamentary borough, or from a borough into a county constituency. I admit that this is a very considerable extension of the present right of successive occupation, but it is an extension which the House desires to make. The main object of the Bill, after all, is to remove the difficulties

399
which men have now in obtaining their qualification and to enlarge the electorate, and that where men have a substantial qualification they should get the right to vote. I do not agree with my right hon. Friend or with my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary, as to the difficulties in interpreting "contiguous constituencies." He has put very fanciful cases. The registrar will be able to interpret all ordinary cases, and if there be a few which he cannot interpret the Law Courts can give a decision on any very abstruse matters where there may be great difficulty.
Sir G. YOUNGER: So many anomalies are created by this particular proposal that I have an Amendment on the Paper lower down to limit the use of the successive vote to practically the ease in which it exists at present. Most people seem to forget that shortening the qualifying period so much has made it not so necessary to provide for this case. I do not understand why a man should be allowed to move practically a hundred miles in one case without losing his vote, while if he moves a short distance in another direction he may lose it. It shows that the particular proposal in this Bill is a ridiculous proposal. Either the right to retain the vote should be extended indefinitely and every bonâ fide claimant should be allowed this privilege or else it ought to come out altogether. I do not care which. But to retain a proposal like this is simply ridiculous.
Mr. DENNISS: I quite agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that it is advisable to extend this to the whole country At all events the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London ought not to be carried. In my Constituency we have from 11,000 to 12,000 removals every year, and ordinary persons cannot tell who are moving from Oldham to Manchester or from Manchester to Oldham. A person who moves even to a house next door might unconsciously he moving out of a Manchester division into Oldham, or vice versa. The same might be said of Middleton, Rochdale, or the Rossendale Division. It is necessary that the right to vote should be preserved in case of removals to contiguous constituencies, and I have never been able to see why it should not be extended to the whole country. I think that that would be the more sensible
400
and simple plan, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he will accept an Amendment to that effect. If so, the whole question can be settled once for all with the greatest possible simplicity and universality.
Mr. HOLT: I quite agree with the spirit of the Clause in the Bill I always thought it a most unreasonable thing that because a man moved from one constituency to another he should lose his vote. In my own Constituency there is a village, part of which is in Northumberland and part of which is in Cumberland. The two parts are only separated by a burn. A man moving from one side of the burn to the other loses his vote, while if he keeps to the same side of the burn lie is all right. We ought to have an explanation from the Government as to what is meant by "contiguous." It is a word of very uncertain meaning. Take the case of Liverpool. Is Birkenhead a constituency contiguous to Liverpool, from which it is separated by an arm of the sea? Is any constituency on the Cheshire side of the Mersey contiguous to any constituency on the Lancashire side, and, if not, how would constituencies on one side of the Thames be contiguous to constituencies on the other side of the Thames? There should be some explanation to make it perfectly clear what is meant by contiguous.
Mr. R. McNEILL: I do not think that the difficulty here is so much the interpretation given to the word "contiguous" as the fact that the Clause, however you interpret the word "contiguous," will lead to absurd results. I would ask what exactly is meant by "Parliamentary county"? Does it not mean an ordinary geographical county? For instance, Devonshire is a Parliamentary county. Then, it seems to me that the result of the arrangement under this Clause is absurd, because it means that a person having a vote, we will say, in South Yorkshire, would lose his vote on moving to Staffordshire, which, if my recollection of geography is correct, is not contiguous to Yorkshire, while, on the other hand, he might move a very much greater distance, the whole length of Yorkshire to the south part of Durham, and because Durham happens to be contiguous he would retain his vote. Pursuing the same sort of investigation all over the country you will find innumerable instances for which you can give no reason whatever in which a

401
man loses his vote in one case and retains it in another. Therefore I agree with the hon. Member opposite that, if you are going to have this arrangement to carry a vote from one place to another, it is far better to sweep away these distinctions between contiguous counties and boroughs. I do not see any sacrosancity in contiguity. The only reason that has been given for the proposal, when it was debated yesterday, was that there were supposed to be greater facilities for finding out a man's qualifications in a contiguous constituency. I do not believe that there is any reality in that. I am not so conversant with the machinery by which these investigations would be carried out, but the great majority of them would be done by the post. It is just as easy to find out whether a person has been a bonâ fide resident in a certain constituency, whether it happens to be twenty or a hundred miles off. It is not a question of distance, because even under this Clause you may carry the vote while moving a hundred miles and be deprived of it by moving ten miles. Therefore I am prepared to support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, simply in order to make the Clause logical, and give it a little appearance of common-sense. Let us have it one way or the other. All this talk of disfranchisement is rather absurd in view of the fact that the qualifying period is being so enormously reduced. There was some reality in the point at a time when a man might require a year and eleven months to obtain a qualification, and there was something substantial in his losing his vote simply by a change of residence. But that disappears under this Bill. Therefore I am prepared to support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, though I would not object to the alternative in the opposite direction if the Government would be logical enough to accept it.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: I hope that the Government will see their way to sweep away these artificial difficulties with respect to succession in residence when there is this chance to do so. Is there any reason why a man should lose the vote when he changes his house except for some artificial reason created? And when we get an opportunity like this which enables us to sweep away those artificial restrictions and difficulties, surely the sensible thing is to do it. Look at the result if we pass the Clause without some amendment. Take a place like Market Drayton,
402
which happens to be in three different counties. I take it that, even if you pass the Bill as it is drawn, if a man moves a considerable distance from Market Drayton, so long as he stops in the same county, though he may be in a different division, still he retains the vote; but if he happens to cross the boundary of the county and moves a few hundred yards away he loses the vote. It is perfectly ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill treated this question of contiguity in a very light way. He said that you can go to the Law Courts for a definition of contiguous, and you can go to the Court of Appeal. What is the sense of deliberately passing an Act in this shape and putting those words into it and telling members of the Committee, "If you want to find out what it means you can go to the Law Courts"? Surely we can use words that ought to be intelligible, and deliberately to leave in a Bill words which invite litigation seems to me to be an attitude of stupidity. I would suggest very strongly to the Committee that we ought to be logical, and that the logical solution of the difficulty is that when a person changes his residence he should retain the vote for the place in which he has lived until he can reasonably get a qualification under the Bill for the new place that he goes to, and if I may point out that is exactly where the Bill as at present drafted, fails, because there is no provision to leave the man his vote in the old place until he qualifies in the new place.
I can see that a large number of people will be entirely disfranchised by these arrangements, unless you give the qualification in succession. The effect will be that if a man leaves his constituency a couple of days before the expiration of the qualifying period he will lose his vote. If he does not get into the new constituency in time to stop a month or something of that kind, whilst qualifying in the old place, he will get no vote in the new place, and he would be disfranchised. The logical solution of the whole difficulty is to give the man a vote on the qualification of succession for any two houses anywhere in the United Kingdom. The idea that if a man moves 150 yards he is to lose his vote, or if he moves about 300 or 400 miles he may get his vote, causes these provisions dealing with the question of distance, in any shape or form, to become absurd. The importance of this question is that there are

403
thousands of men in our industrial districts who have been obliged, and are being obliged, to accommodate their houses to the places where they work. It is almost impossible to-day to get about, fares are increasing, means of transport are reduced, railways are exceedingly difficult, the omnibus people, as we have seen lately, are capable of going on strike, while the tendency of men to move fairly close to their work is very strong to-day. The exigencies of their work may compel them to live in Birkenhead for a few months, and then to go back to Liverpool. A man would lose his vote under these circumstances, certainly if he lived in Widnes, just outside the Parliamentary borough of Liverpool. I think the Committee at this stage ought to take a logical course of sweeping away all these artificial restrictions entirely, and let a man keep his vote whether he moves 100 yards or fifty miles.
Colonel GREIG: There is a good deal to be said for the position advocated by the hon. Member who has just sat down, but if hon. Members look at the report of the Speaker's Conference they will find in paragraph 10 that the Bill follows that recommendation. It does not include the hon. Member's wider suggestion, with which many of us have considerable sympathy, as to successive occupation in all parts of the kingdom. Taking the Bill as it stands, I am disposed to think that a real object is served by having the Clause as it is at present framed. There is a phrase in the Bill which the hon. Gentleman who spoke on the other side did not seem to understand. But if he will look at Clause 30 of the Bill he will find what is meant by a "Parliamentary county." It is a curious phrase, I think, only used in Scotland. Renfrewshire is divided into two parts, West Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire, and in Scotland these are called Parliamentary counties. I have the honour of sitting for West Renfrewshire, and Colonel Gilmour for East Renfrewshire. We have in the Parliamentary county of West Renfrewshire the borough of Paisley, and also another borough. These places are all contiguous, and if anyone moves from one contiguous place to another from East Renfrewshire into West Renfrewshire, or from Lanark into Renfrewshire, or from Glasgow into East Renfrewshire, or between other places which are contiguous, you would by this Amendment disfranchise a large number
404
of workmen on the Clyde, and I submit that a very real difficulty would exist in that part of the country.
Lord H. CECIL: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board seems unwilling to explain what is his interpretation of "contiguity," and he says no doubt the Registrar will be able to explain it. I think my right hon. Friend is quite as clear as any Registrar, and if the Registrar is capable of giving an interpretation, why not the Minister? I think it would be far more satisfactory if Ministers endeavoured to make their speeches a little more informative. For example, my right hon. Friend did not explain what was the origin of this rule about contiguity. The doctrine is that a man is not to lose his vote when he moves from one particular constituency to another—as in the Parliamentary borough of Liverpool, for instance—and it seems reasonable that those who move from one division to another of Liverpool should not be regarded as going outside the constituency, but would still be a part of the constituency. But now that idea of representation is abandoned in this Bill, or it is already a good deal modified by the abolition of the plural vote. If a man qualified, no matter in how many constituencies, he was entitled to vote. Now you take that away, and the vote is considered in relation to the citizen. But once that argument is used—the argument of the rights of citizenship—it obviously applies quite irrespective of contiguity. It does not matter whether a man has gone to the Shetland Islands, he is still a citizen, and there is no sort of reason why he should lose his right. You have got to make up your minds as to the principle on which the Bill is to be framed. That not very clear-headed but very complacent body, the Speaker's Conference, are confident about their conclusions, but quite unable to give reasons for them. We should be told on what principle this Bill is framed, and then we will be able to judge of its provisions.
I gather that the Government intend to exclude some voters and include others. There are some people to whom they wish to give the vote, and some to whom they do not wish to give the vote. We ought to be told who it is that ought to be enfranchised in their view, and who it is that are intended to be cut out. Then we can judge how far the particular provisions are reasonable about residence and so forth, and whether they should or

405
should not prevail. The right hon. Member for Walthamstow (Sir John Simon) has the distinction among members of the Speaker's Conference of having a theory. His theory is "the established home"—that the voter should be a person with an established home. I do not know what that it, nor do I know that the right hon. Member knows what an established home is. A man's home does not cease to be established because he moves a number of miles, and I cannot see why the established character of the home should depend on the distance travelled from one place to another. Those who have had the advantage of being on the Speaker's Conference may be able to explain that. Would a man cease to have an established home if ho comes from Yorkshire to London, and not cease to have an established homo if he goes from Middlesex to Hertford? It is a very surprising theory, but these things are perhaps better understood by those who took part in the Speaker's Conference. Perhaps they will explain to us. For my part, it is quite plain that either you must proceed on the old constituency theory, in which case you allow nobody to vote for more than one constituency, or you must ignore the moving of residence altogether. There ought to be some test in regard to the sober-minded citizen compared with the vagrant, and we must have something which realises the right hon. Gentleman's ideal of an established home. If you could do that it might make the Bill better than it is now.
Sir J. SIMON: I accept with all humility what the Noble Lord says of the characteristics and character of the members of this vaunted Conference, and I want to at once admit that the Noble Lord's speech entirely convinces me. My only feeling about the matter is—and I think it is the general feeling on the part of the House—that there ought to be a change made, but I think there would be some risk that if we began to make alterations on one point, it might lead to our having to alter more points before we had finished than we intended. So far as the Noble Lord's argument goes, he has brought conviction even to my mind, and so far as I am concerned, am convinced and I stand in a white sheet. Of course, what one finds in the Bill is not in itself a very logical proposition, but it has the merit of being the half-way house between two conclusions. As far as contiguity is concerned, I do not mean to add
406
anything to what has been said by the Solicitor-General, nor do I think anything more can be said about it. I apprehend that even among lawyers contiguous means touching. If it does, I really think the solution of the interesting geographical conundrum propounded to us will depend on whether the voter crossed a line from one place to another. I do not believe the difficulty about contiguity will be found to be quite so extreme as has been represented, though I agree that it may be found to be so in some places. The main point, which is a much more serious point, is that, as the Noble Lord has said, it is very difficult to see any real justification for going as far as this and not going further; or, as on of the hon. Members for Liverpool said just now, if a man fulfils the conditions which Parliament lays down for having a vote, why should the man forfeit the vote became he moves his home, established or otherwise? I think the argument is absolutely conclusive, but this was a halfway house or suggestion made in order to reconcile two extreme contentions.
Mr. WARDLE: So far as I am concerned, on this question I do not require either to be converted or to stand in a white sheet with regard to it. What took place at the Speaker's Conference, and why was this half-way house agreed to? It was agreed to as a matter of practical politics because it was found to be very difficult indeed to devise, without great expense, some scheme by which voters moving to constituencies which were not contiguous could be taken from one register to another. I do not say it is impossible to do so, but that was the reason why my right hon. Friend and myself and some others agreed to this half-way house. I have always held that a citizen had rights, and that he ought not to be deprived of those rights simply because he moved 100 miles away or into the next street. If the House, as a whole, desires to sweep this away I, for one, whatever my own convictions are, shall not stand in the way.
Mr. WHYTE: If the practical difficulty to which the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) has referred was really what was in the mind of the Speaker's Conference, surely there is no reason why the French franchise system could not be adopted. In France an elector receives a certificate as an elector from the local government authorities, which he presents in the commune of his new residence,

407
and he is engrossed on the electoral roll of the new constituency without any difficulty. That seems to me to be perfectly easy to work. The only difficulty as to which I am not personally clear is that it means a continuous register. But even as to that, I do not see any insuperable difficulty. A continuous register would mean that the whole electoral roll would be kept continuously up to date. Therefore I suggest, if the Government has any doubt as to whether that practical difficulty could be removed, they should consult foreign experience, and especially the experience in France, from which, I think, they will find considerable light.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I suggest that there is a reason why this limit should and must be maintained. If you abolish the limit of space as to a vote, you thereby abolish the limit of time. That may sound very metaphysical, but it is literally true. There would be no meaning in a six months' qualification if you could trace your residence to any part of the country for the purpose of the register. Under those circumstances, one day in any constituency would gain the vote for a man, except in the case of persons coining into the country from abroad. The Speaker's Conference, quite wrongly I think, fixed the limit of six months. My view is there ought to be no limit of time, but that you should have residence on one particular day, with, of course, precautions against gerrymandering and the like. Once you go beyond that and say there must be a month, or three, or, as the Conference said, six, then it necessarily follows that having fixed a limit of time you must also fix a limit of space.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not come to the same conclusion on this matter as my right hon. and learned Friend. The conclusion he comes to is that you ought to do away with it altogether.
Sir J. SIMON: For my part, I certainly would not support any proposal to do away with it altogether, unless it was the general wish of the House.
6.0 P.M
Sir F. BANBURY: Then I rather misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion. My Noble Friend has pointed out what I omitted to say, and which is an
408
answer to the Parliamentary Secretary, when he said I was in favour of a man moving from West Islington to East Islington having his vote, but not in favour of a man who moved to St. Pancras. My original Amendment was to do away with the successive vote. That was put down not in a spirit of light-heartedness, but after having been carefully considered, and because, having reduced the qualifying period to six months, I thought it was unnecessary to preserve the right which did exist in certain cases before. But as there seems to be a considerable amount of opinion against doing anything which might disfranchise people who already had the franchise, and in order to meet the opinion of the House, I altered the Amendment in such a way as to leave to those people the right which they had to vote, but to prevent a new extension which did not seem to me to be necessary to grant in the form of the contiguous borough or contiguous county. My Noble Friend was quite right in saying that the old arrangement recognised area. I was familiar with that in Peckham, which I had the honour to represent for fourteen years. Camberwell was originally one borough and was divided into three constituencies. But all those who resided in that area were supposed to be interested in its representation, and therefore were allowed their votes when moving from one part of that area to another. I am not at all sure that was not a right system. All that has been done away with, although I understand there is some kind of suggestion that area will be considered again. When you come to say that this principle should be extended all over the country, you must remember that that would practically be saying that once a man had a vote he would have it for the remainder of his life, because there is nothing in the Bill, with all deference to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, about an established home. The Bill says "residence," and therefore if a man is once qualified by six months' residence he must reside somewhere, unless he is in prison—[HON MEMBERS: "Then he resides there!"]. I am not at all sure that it might not be held that a prison was a residence. At all events, he must reside somewhere, and consequently, as long as he sleeps somewhere an the last day of the qualifying period, and once having been put on the roll as an elector, he is a voter for life. That may be right or wrong, but they did not

409
go so far at the Speaker's Conference. The idea was that qualification should follow a voter having some particular interest in some particular locality. For that reason this qualification was put in, and the successive vote was limited to a contiguous borough or a contiguous county. I think it would be very much better if my Amendment were accepted and this left out, but I am very much afraid there is not much hope for that. I shall, therefore, content myself with what I have said.
Amendment negatived.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Major Hunt) is more applicable to Clause 5.
Mr. ADAMSON: On a point of Order, Mr. Maclean. What about my Amendment?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We have passed the Amendment of the hon. Member. He was called on, but was not in the House.
Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), paragraph (b), after the word "county" ["contiguous to that borough or county"], to insert the words:—
"Provided that a man, though he may have been residing in premises in the constituency on the last day of the qualifying period, shall not be entitled to be so registered if, on objection being made to his registration, it is shown that he commenced to reside in the constituency within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period and ceased to reside there within thirty days after the time when he so commenced to reside."
Mr. GILBERT: When the Home Secretary proposed to move this Amendment I ventured to put the question as to whether the onus of proof would be on the registration officer or on the Parliamentary agent. I understood from the answer that he did not propose to put it on the registration agent, as he would have a very great amount of work to do; therefore it would have to be left to outsiders to object to the man. I desire to ask whether the Home Secretary will not reconsider this point, because I really do not see why the duty of verifying whether these people ought or ought not to be put upon the register should not be left to the registration
410
officer, who will be appointed under this Bill. In London constituencies this Parliamentary successive occupation difficulty is very considerable indeed. I do not sup pose there is any part of the United Kingdom where there are so many successive occupation claims as there have been in the various boroughs of London. As in this Bill we propose to make the County of London one Parliamentary borough I think anybody who knows the life of London will know that that means that there will be a considerably extra number of removals and of successive claims under this Bill. It does seem to me that the right way to carry out this suggestion of the Home Secretary is, seeing the registration officer must have a staff in order to carry out his other registration duties in the Bill, to let him do the work. It would be no great hardship and not very great expense for the registration officer to canvas these successive claims between the date of qualification and the time when they come before the registration officer for decision. If you do not do that you are simply going to repeat the great difficulty which we have under the registration law at the present time. Everyone knows that the great difficulty of the present registration law is the system of claims and objections. One of the reasons some of us are supporting this Bill, and are very anxious to get it through—although it does not go so far as some of us could wish—is that it does away with the present registration proceedings. As I understand the Home Secretary's answer, the objection to a particular person in relation to the thirty days is not to be done by the registration officer, but is to be left to some-body outside. That means you are going to perpetuate the present system. What it means in practice is that the party agent must object to a particular case. I think everyone, no matter what particular views he holds, is very anxious to get rid of the present system of Registration Courts, with their claims and objections. I hope that the Home Secretary between now and the discussion of the Schedule, which, I take it, will have to be altered in order to carryout this proposal, will consider whether the proof in connection with successive claims should not be put upon the registration officer, and not be in the hands of outide people.
Sir J. SIMON: We have not on the Order Paper the words of the Govern-

411
ment Amendment, though from what I have heard it follows what was proposed earlier in the Debate. If I caught the words rightly, they are words which limit. We all agree as to the need for the pre mention of creating artificial or fagot voters—that is to say, a class which may he called that of sham occupations; and that that is as likely to arise as is the case of sham residents. I rather understood that the case which was referred to illustrated the danger of the ease of occupancy.
Sir G. CAVE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises a point—[HON. MEMBERS: "We cannot hear!"] The danger of anybody creating a sham occupation or sham business is, I think, very small indeeed. In order to have a qualification under the occupation Clause a house must, be occupied for business purposes. It is almost impossible to transfer a business from one place to another for one day and then to transfer it back again. Still, I shall be very glad to consider the point, and also the point raised by my hon. Friend, before the "Report stage. If an Amendment is put in, we shall be able to reconsider the matter.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite agree with the point raised by the hon. Member below the Gangway. It is quite contrary, it seems to me, to the Amendment before the House. I ventured to indicate briefly a difficulty which the Amendment seems to raise, and that is the almost impossible duty thrown upon the ordinary election agent. You have got here a qualifying period which ends on 15th July. Assume for the moment the fraudulent case of a person who brings a bag with him and resides in a room for two or three nights prior to 15th July. Often the only way you can deal with that fraudulent person who resides in that way is by the party agent lodging an objection before 15th August, and that objection has to be answered at once by the resident showing that he has come back again and resided for a night or two before the August period; so that the difficulty is tremendous. Supposing you get an absolutely clear case of what I may call a fraudulent or factitious resident—that of a man endeavouring to make a fagot vote for himself. You make out your objection and that objection must be put in by 15th August. That can be got over under this
412
Amendment by the man saying that he resided there during the early days when he originally came into the place, namely, before 15th August—that he arrived in July. It will be practically impossible to prove that he had ceased to reside at the place. It would be a technicality of the very greatest difficulty. The unfortunate party agent who has gone to the trouble and expense of tracing this man out, this factitious case, would be. dealt with with the greatest ease by the man simply saying, "Oh, I have not been sleeping there lately, but it is still my residence. I went back there on the 12th or 13th August," as the case may be. Really, this Amendment I read it at the time of the Debate, is an absolutely inadequate protection to people who need protection. It is an Amendment which certainly does not meet that for which the hon. Member below the Gangway has been seeking-. It certainly does not meet what some hon. Members beside me are seeking. Further than that, it throws a most intolerable burden on the people who are trying to prevent votes of this kind. Surely a proper Amendment could be framed that would provide that before a man gets on the register he should satisfy the registration officer that he had been in residence prior to 15th July, or whatever the time the Government think is a fair and reasonable time. Last night they thought it should be thirty days. Whether it be that, or five, or fourteen days, let the registration officer be satisfied that he has been there for that time. There can be no possible object in creating further difficulties.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the words last inserted, to insert the words,
"For the purposes of this section a limited liability company shall be deemed to be the occupier of premises, and the board of directors of any such company may select not more than two representatives to be registered for such premises provided the yearly value of the premises if divided between the selected persons shall be not less than ten pounds each."
This is such a very reasonable Amendment that I trust the Government will see their way to accept it. Shortly, it will enable the directors of a company to nominate two of their number to be

413
represented for the premises, provided the annual value of the premises shall not be less than £10 each.
An HON. MEMBER: Why two?
Mr. TERRELL: By this Bill we give a business qualification. A man who is carrying on business turns it into a limited company, and the business qualification goes. Surely, as businesses are now-being more than ever turned into limited companies, it is desirable that we should reconsider the whole of this question, and that the representation of businesses should be preserved, whether the owner is an individual or a limited company. The principle is not a new one. It has been recognised by this House before. Under the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1867, any officer of a company, where such company was rated, whose name was sent to the overseers in writing before 1st March in any year for entry in the rate book under the name of the company was entitled to vote in respect of the property assessed as if assessed in his own name. This was merely for Poor Law purposes. I suggest that some representation should be given by this measure to limited companies. It is all important when one considers the huge burden of taxation which the limited companies are bearing. They are at present contributing hundreds of millions a year in the form of Excess Profits Tax alone. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that just this small representation should be given.
Mr. RENDALL: I cannot quite understand the hon. Member's moderation. He only proposes that two directors shall be put on. If it is a big company and he wants it properly represented, and the Excess Profits Tax represented, surely ho should have more than two directors. It may be a company with several millions of capital. Why cannot he arrange to have all the directors on it? And why leave out the shareholders? He has not used all the arguments which could be used in favour of the Amendment.
Sir G. CAVE: I do not see how it is possible to accept the Amendment. Let my hon. Friend consider what the effect of it is. A company may have property in a number of places throughout the country and would have two votes in every one of those places. They might give votes to all their directors and still have plenty of room left for the most important shareholders. That illustration alone
414
shows that it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment as it stands. Then consider what would happen at the yearly election of members of the board. They would become political elections. I recognise the spirit in which the Amendment was moved, but I do not think it could possibly be accepted.
Sir F. BANBURY: With regard to the objection of my right hon. Friend as to the directors voting in more than one place, that might be easily remedied by saying that in the case of a company which has a head office the directors should not have a vote in more than one place, and if it is not desired to have directors it might easily be arranged that the company should choose someone to represent them. In my Amendment I have not mentioned directors, but merely that the company should choose someone to represent them. The great mistake which has been made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Terrell) and by the Home Secretary is that they seem to be under the impression that limited companies are always big companies. Their arguments have all been addressed to a large body of shareholders and to people earning millions of money who wish to be put upon the register, and the discussions and disputes which would ensue at the election of directors by the shareholders, who would want to know how they were going to exercise the vote. I presume that was the original reason why companies were not allowed to have votes. The majority of companies in those days were large companies, consisting of a large body of shareholders who were represented in other capacities, and, therefore, it was not necessary for them to have a vote for that particular property. I am not at all sure, on the whole, that that was not a good and sound reason. But my hon. Friend and the Home Secretary do not seem to realise that till that is changed now and that there is a very large number of limited companies which consist merely of two or three people. I think seven is the requisite number of shareholders, and they need only hold one share each. As a matter of fact, a large number of businesses consist of two or three people who have turned themselves into limited liability companies, and thus do not get their vote and would not be open to the objection of having shareholders to vote for them, because they themselves are the shareholders and they are really the members and partners in the business, which was

415
and really remains a private business. I am not stating that without having some reason for doing it. I have for the last two and three-quarter years been a member of the Treasury Issue Department, and I have been astonished at the enormous number of cases such as I have just outlined which are continually coming before that Committee. I think something like 13,000 to 15,000 cases of that sort have come before us. I knew before I went on that Committee that a considerable number of firms were doing this. I did not know, and I do not understand now, why they are doing it, but I have been astonished at the enormous number of small businesses, perhaps people with only £3,000 or £4,000, or even not as much as that, which have been converted into limited companies, and it is these people whom you are depriving of their vote and not the large companies, which always meet with such hostility from certain Members of the House. The Amendment is a perfectly reasonable and sound one. You have allowed people to turn their businesses into limited companies by Act of Parliament. Unless you hold that those Acts were wrong and you intend to repeal them I cannot conceive why, because certain people take advantage of privileges which have been given them by Parliament, they should be deprived of their vote, and if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall have great pleasure in supporting him.
Mr. RAWLINSON: In its present form the Amendment goes too far. But is not the real principle which we ought to act upon that, in dealing with private companies, there should be some concession made to the people who own them? The present Prime Minister, when in charge of the Companies Act, accepted an Amendment to allow the institution of companies with only two members instead of seven as it used to be, and public companies still must have seven members. The private companies Section has been very largely used for the purpose of turning genuine bonâ fide businesses into private companies for family purposes. It seems rather hard that where a family has been in a constituency or a parish for years carrying on a business, simply because they have turned it into a limited company, they should have no vote in respect of that company. Hon. Members probably know hundreds of instances in every part of the country. There is no
416
sort of reason why it should not be done. It is even more important in local than in Parliamentary matters. It is an important principle and one which ought not to be swept aside merely upon the technical point that the Amendment is not quite in order in suggesting that directors should have the power of voting. There is more in it than that, and I cannot help thinking that if the Government gave consideration to the suggestion that this should apply to private companies only, they would be doing an act of justice which would make a useful precedent for Parliamentary purposes.
Sir C. CORY: I do not think this Amendment is so unreasonable as it may appear at the first blush.
Mr. TERRELL: I am quite willing to-limit the Amendment to private companies, if the Home Secretary sees his way to accept it in that form.
Sir C. CORY: If it is confined to private companies it is a perfectly reasonable Amendment. I know numbers of instances of private firms which have been turned into private limited companies purely for convenience in dividing the interest in the business in case of death. It seems to me very hard that the directors of a firm, who would have voting power if it was a private firm, because they have turned themselves into private companies should be precluded from having any voting power in the constituency in which they have their business. I think this is a reasonable Amendment and I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to accept it in the modified form suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson).
Sir G. YOUNGER: While there may be strong reasons against giving the Parliamentary vote in this way in respect of companies, there is nothing so very unusual about the representation of companies, because in Scotland we have special representation of limited companies on the Commissions of Supply. These Commissions of Supply used to manage the whole country business and limited companies in the district were allowed to appoint one or more Commissioners. Curiously enough that still continues. The county councils appoint one to every standing joint committee, which controls the capital expenditure of the county, and therefore limited companies are directly represented in that way on

417
the county councils of Scotland, and my hon. Friend no doubt had that precedent in his mind and suggested that it should be extended a little further. When we come to the local government part of the Schedule I think it is worthy of consideration.
Mr. D. MASON: I fail to see why a vote should be allowed for the premises of a joint stock company.
Sir F. BANBURY: Jones and Smith are occupying business premises in the City of London, and they have two votes in addition to their business. Jones and Smith turn themselves into a limited company and then they have none.
Mr. MASON: Unfortunately those men have votes for residences and business premises, and it is quite true that there is an apparent inconsistency because a man turns himself into a private company he loses one of his two votes. Surely that is no reason why we should extend a vicious principle of that kind, and I hope the Home Secretary will adhere to his original intention.
Sir F. BANBURY: Might I suggest that if my hon. Friend will consent to withdraw his Amendment perhaps the Home Secretary between now and the Report stage might consider this point, because I am sure there is something in it? The hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Mason) says that it is a vicious thing to own property, although I do not think he believes in that principle as applied to himself. I throw out the suggestion I have made, and perhaps the Home Secretary will consider it between now and the Report stage, and, if possible, do something to meet this case.
Mr. TERRELL: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. BUTCHER:I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the words last inserted, to insert the words,
"Provided also that the residence in a house shall not be deemed to be interrupted for the purposes of this Section by reason only of permission being given by letting or otherwise for the occupation of the house as a furnished house by some other person for a part of the qualifying period not exceeding three months in the whole."
418
My proposal prevents a man from losing his residential vote merely because he has let his furnished house for a period of three months. It would be a hardship if a man being resident from the 15th January to the 15th July qualified and was placed on the register, but when it came to the following six months from the 15th July to the 15th January he was to lose that vote and be disfranchised because he has let his house for two or three months. Such a result would be absurd enough, but it would be additionally absurd when you observe that in Clause 3 dealing with the local government vote there is a provision substantially to the effect of the proposal I am moving in regard to the residential Parliamentary vote. I think the Home Secretary will see the propriety of assimilating this proviso to the provision in Clause 3, and thus prevent an act of disfranchisement which, under the circumstances, would be entirely unreasonable.
Sir G. CAVE: I confess that I have some sympathy with the arguments which have been put forward by my hon. and learned Friend. We are making a residential qualification, and if a man lets his house furnished during the qualifying period he cannot have resided there for the whole of the qualifying period, and so by reason of that he might lose his vote. Under these circumstances I think the House might fairly accept this Amendment. It is quite true that in Clause 3 under the local government franchise you get similar words, but those words were in the existing Statutes relating to local government. Unless some very strong objection is taken by the House I think we might accept this Amendment.
Mr. MACMASTER: I think this Amendment is perfectly reasonable, and it applies a similar condition to Parliamentary and municipal elections.
Mr. DICKINSON: I do not see any objection whatever to this Amendment—in fact, I wonder why it was not included in the Bill. I assume that the Government were advised that residence, as construed by the Law Courts, included a case of this kind. I think it does, but perhaps it is better that it should be stated in the Bill.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: May I point out that this is already the law not merely for municipal purposes, but also for Parliamentary purposes.
Amendment agreed to.
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the words "For the purpose of this provision the administrative County of London shall be treated as a Parliamentary borough." The effect of my proposal would be to leave London in the same position as it is now. For many years it has been the desire of certain people that London should be treated as one city. Originally it was the desire of the London County Council of which I see the very able representative opposite. It has always been held by those who hold the view that I do, that London is not really one city, but a conglomeration of different towns and cities, some of which are contiguous to each other. There is a great distance between St. George's-in-the-East and Hampstead and between the City of London and Peckham, and there are a variety of different constituencies which go to make up London. There is the City of London with its old charter and associations, the City of Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington, and a large number of other constituencies which although for certain purposes they are called the County of London, do not in any kind of way make up one city.
It will be within the recollection of the older Members of this House and the right hon. the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) that there was a considerable dispute when the Borough Councils in London were first established. London is an immense conglomeration of cities, all with different interests and varying populations, and it cannot be treated the same as old cities like Manchester and Liverpool, which were originally and still remain separate cities. I cannot conceive why this particular clause was put in because it is quite outside the province of the Bill, and it does not increase the franchise. The only ostensible reason for putting it in seems to me that it would enable people to carry their vote from one constituency to another. This clause in regard to successive occupation is going to make the operation of the proviso which was put in by the Home Secretary a short time ago exceedingly difficult to carry out.
If the words I move to omit are left in you will have really a Parliamentary borough or constituency consisting of 5,500,000 inhabitants, extending over an enormous area of ground. How will it be possible in a constituency of that size, in the short space of thirty days, to trace
420
whether a person has resided all that time genuinely or whether he has only moved for one day? It is impossible to do it, and for that reason these words ought to be left out. If they are left in you will enable clever agents to gerrymander London in a way which could not be done in any other part of the Kingdom. Practically there is no local life in London like there is in other big towns. The people of Hammersmith are practically unknown to the people of Camberwell, and the people of Camberwell are unknown to the people of St. Gerge's-in-the-East. In ordinary big towns it is comparatively easy to trace what is going on, although I agree that as the towns get larger that difficulty increases. In a place like London it is absolutely impossible to trace the movements of the people, and unless these words are left out you will be assisting in gerrymandering of the very worst description in a place where it ought not to occur, because London should set an example for the rest of the country. I see no use in the words unless there is something behind them connected with matters which do not arise under this Bill. This Amendment will not disfranchise anybody, because nobody at the present moment has this privilege. I hope, therefore, that the Government will see their way to accept it.
Mr. DICKINSON: I do not know what more the right hon. Gentleman can expect to get for London than he has already got. He has saved the City of London from abolition as a constituency, though, under all the canons that regulate our reform, it ought to disappear altogether. It is a constituency practically with no population, a constituency of absentee persons, but we assented to its continuance at the Conference. Then, unless there is proportional representation, under the new arrangement the system of duplicate voting will be very largely increased in London. At the present moment there are large tracts in London in which persons may have different qualifications and only one vote, but, under the new system, duplicate voting is going to be increased in London, and I believe also in other big cities like Liverpool and Manchester. The right hon. Gentleman wants to disfranchise hundreds of thousands of people. There has been no part of the United Kingdom where the disadvantage of persons losing their votes by moving their residence has been more greatly felt than in London.

421
In many constituencies in London people move two, three, or four times a year. They move indiscriminately from Bethnal Green to Shoreditch or from Kensington to Westminster, and they lose their votes. This Clause is inserted in order to prevent them losing their votes. Under the provisions of this Bill you would only be able to keep your vote if you moved from one constituency to another constituency contiguous to it. You could move from Hammersmith to Kensington, but, unless these words are retained, you could not move from Hammersmith to Westminster and keep your vote.
The whole idea was, as far as we possibly could, to avoid disfranchising persons simply because they move about in the same locality, and we chose the words about which there has been considerable criticism, namely, "one locality to another which is contiguous to it." The only way in which you can safeguard London is by making London for this purpose, and this purpose only, one borough. We know of nothing behind it. We did not draft the words in the Bill. The words we adopted at the Conference were not the same, although I think this is the only way to achieve the two results—first, to safeguard a man's vote if he moves from one part of London to another part, and secondly, to safeguard his vote if he moves anywhere from the surrounding suburbs into London or from London into the surrounding suburbs. There is a great deal of constant movement, especially among the poorer classes of the community, from the County of London into the urban districts which surround it, and therefore to allow London to obtain the full advantage of successive residence running to contiguous constituencies you have got for this purpose to make London one borough. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had left the Conference before we reached this point.
Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, I had.
Mr. DICKINSON: If he had been there, I think we should have been able to persuade him of the justice of this, as we were able to persuade him of the justice of our arguments before he felt it necessary to retire.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend's suspicion, I imagine, has been already allayed, bat even if not, I am sure that he will not suspect me of making any attack on the City of London or of
422
any design to lower the prestige and dignity of the City. I am not quite sure that he himself always does full justice to the City, but I am quite sure that he would not wish to deprive tens of thousands of people of their votes merely because they moved from the county of London into Hertfordshire, or from Hertfordshire into the County of London. I do not credit him with that intention. I imagine he looked at these words and thought that it was the beginning of some attempt on the part of the County to absorb the City; but he has now had the real origin and genesis of this provision. It is entirely designed to protect thousands of voters from losing their qualification. There is nothing else behind it. It is no insidious attempt to lower the prestige of the City of London or to enable the County Council to swallow the City.
Lord H. CECIL: The speech of the right; hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) was an able and powerful appeal against the Amendment. The case he makes is an exceedingly strong one, but I submit that there is a difficulty which I have already mentioned, and to which the Government have not seen their way to reply, though I hope they will devote their minds to it. By all this you attempt to cut out a certain class of labour. It applies with special force in the case of London. I suppose it would be admitted that London, to a greater extent than any other place in the United Kingdom, has a large vagrant population. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I should have thought that was so. I should have thought that there is in London a larger number of persons on the fringe of the criminal class than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Mr. WILES: They come in from the country.
Lord H. CECIL: I should have imagined that was almost a commonplace. At any rate, it is clear that you want to keep somebody out by your residential qualification. Otherwise, you would not have a qualification at all. If you treat London as a Parliamentary borough, does it not knock the bottom out of your residential qualification altogether? People may move about incessantly, they may be absolute vagrants, they may sleep in one lodging-house after another, and yet they will be qualified if London is treated as one Parliamentary

423
borough. That being so, is it rational to have this Clause at all with any of its provisions? There is no use making elaborate provision about residence and then opening a back door which destroys the whole value of the barrier. I think the Government ought to explain who it is that they mean to keep out of the franchise. Then we can judge whether we ought to have this Sub-section or not. If you have this Sub-section you do, so far as London is concerned, destroy the whole value of the qualification. You enfranchise people, however vagrant and criminal. You enfranchise criminals themselves.
Mr. DICKINSON Mr. DICKINSON made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
Lord H. CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman is so grateful to his more disreputable constituents for having sent him here that he will not hear a word said against them. I submit that it is the purpose of the Government, and I suppose even of the Speaker's Conference, to cut out somebody by having any qualification at all, and, if that is the purpose, how can you defend this Sub-section, which destroys the whole value of the qualification?
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: Leave out the word "provision" ["for the purpose of this provision"], and insert instead thereof the word "Sub-section."—[Sir G. Cave.]
Colonel SANDERS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "expression" ["The expression"], to insert the words "'residing in premises' in this Section shall mean separately or jointly occupying as a place of abode a dwelling-house or any part thereof."
This is stepping in where angels fear to tread. It is an attempt to define "residence." I do wish to point out to my right hon. and learned Friend that the further we get with this Bill the more it becomes evident that we must have some definition. I do not want to dogmatise about this particular definition—it is merely a humble attempt on the part of a layman—but I do wish to impress upon him that the want of some definition has already led to considerable difficulty in the discussion of the Bill, and before we are finished it is very likely to lead to a
424
good deal more difficulty. I am quite sure that it will lead to enormous difficulties on the part of registration officers, and I believe it will very likely lead to a good deal of litigation unless we lay down as clearly as we possibly can what we do mean by the terms of the Bill.
Sir G. CAVE: It is very doubtful whether a definition is needed; in fact, I feel certain that it is not, and I am sure that it would be dangerous to adopt this definition. The term "residence," at all events, is an everyday word, and I think it is much better to rely upon it. The effect of this definition would be really to cut out a number of people whom we wish to include For instance, it is rather difficult to say whether a son or a servant living in the house occupies the house.
Colonel SANDERS: My Amendment reads, "or any part thereof."
Sir G. CAVE: It is doubtful whether they occupy any part of the house. The real occupier in law is the householder. It is rather doubtful, therefore, whether the definition would not cut out a number of people whom we desire to include, and I think it is better to rely on the common-sense word "residence" than to attempt to define it by words which might have an effect contrary to our intentions.
7.0 P.M
Major NEWMAN: We were told yester day that "business premises" meant business premises and land. I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether business premises would give a vote to a business man—
The CHAIRMAN: That question is raised by a subsequent Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
The CHAIRMAN: We now come to a group of four Amendments dealing with the further definition of "business premises." The one standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. Coote), which is put down to line 7, is put in a little too soon. Line 8 seems to be the correct place to raise that point.
Colonel SANDERS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "means" ["the expression 'business premises' in this Section, means"], to insert the words "land or other."
What I wish to do is to elicit from the Government whether the word "premises" does or does not include land.

425
I have been trying to find out from various members of the Conference whether it was their wish to include a man who occupied land as well as a man who occupied buildings, or whether they wished to leave him out. If they wish to leave him out, I say it is grossly unfair to give the shopkeeper a privilege which you deny to the farmer. If you mean to put him in, the word "premises" is a very unfortunate one to use. I have been trying to find out what it means, and I am told that it includes all the articles enumerated at the beginning of a document, and that if land is enumerated at the beginning of a document, premises would include that land, but otherwise it would not be so. If I am told by the Home Secretary that the word "premises" includes land, I am perfectly satisfied, but at all events we ought to have a clear statement from the Government as to what they mean exactly by the words "business premises."
Sir G. CAVE: My hon. Friend's object is, I believe, to make it clear that the occupation of a farm or market garden or other property for the purposes of cultivation—
Colonel SANDERS: Which does not necessarily contain buildings.
Sir G. CAVE: But which may not contain a residence or buildings of that kind—
Colonel SANDERS: Which contains no buildings of any sort.
Sir G. CAVE: So far as they are business premises it is our intention that the Bill shall confer that qualification. The proper place to make the intention clear is not at this point, but at the point when we are dealing with businesses. I have no doubt in my own mind that the word "premises" includes land, but I quite understand my hon. and gallant Friend's wish to make it clear that among the businesses, professions, or trades referred to is the business of the cultivation of land.
Mr. R. McNEILL: Where would that come in?
Sir G. CAVE: In line 10. I should have no objection to inserting at the end of line 10 words making it clear that the cultivation of farming land is included among businesses.
Colonel SANDERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman move the words himself?
Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
Mr. PETO: I should like to point out to the Home Secretary, in reference to what he has just said, that in Clause 3, which defines the local government franchise, the Bill expressly says
''has, during the whole of the qualifying period, so occupied any land or premises."
Surely if a few lines lower down it is thought necessary to put in "land or premises," it may very well be held, whatever the Home Secretary may have said here in Committee, that if it was intended to include land the Sub-section would have mentioned it. The Home Secretary said he was willing to define, among businesses, the cultivation of land. That is not the only thing you can do in the way of business with a piece of land which has no buildings upon it. It may be used as a chicken farm or a game run. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or pasture."] Pasture may be held to be covered by the words of the Home Secretary regarding cultivation. It is not necessary in all cases to have buildings in order to carry on business, nor is the only business connected with land and unconnected with buildings the mere cultivation of the land. You may do other things upon it. Perhaps the Home Secretary will, therefore, reconsider his decision as to defining the business, because at present he is sure to leave out something and somebody. It would be better to use the words that are used in Clause 3.
Sir J. SIMON: The matter does not seem to me quite clear. I do not want and I am sure the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel (Sanders) does not want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but it does not seem that what the Home Secretary has suggested quite accomplishes all that the hon. and gallant Member desires. I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point was that supposing you had somebody who was occupying land for the purpose of his business, profession or trade, he ought to be covered, even though the land has not any buildings or structure upon it.
Colonel SANDERS: That is it.
Sir J. SIMON: That is not quite the same point as saying that
"'business premises' in this Section, means premises of a yearly value of—occupied for the purpose,"

427
among other things, say of farming. That still leaves the question whether you must have bricks and mortar to constitute the premises.
Colonel SANDERS: The Home Secretary said it was not necessary to have bricks and mortar.
Sir J. SIMON: I am quite prepared to agree with him. I do not think, with great respect, that the suggestion made to meet the point, entirely meets it, because if you have land which is occupied by an individual for agricultural purposes, it might, as the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Peto) has said, still be a question if that amounted to business premises if it had no buildings upon it. I agree that there is much force in the argument that the man who occupies land for the purpose of business should be in the same position as a man who occupies bricks and mortar for the purposes of business. I would ask the Home Secretary to consider, as I know that that is his intention, whether what he is proposing does quite do what the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires.
Sir G. CAVE: Apparently there is a doubt in some minds as to whether if we use the word "premises" only here, and we have the words "land or premises" in Clause 3, some acute person, possibly a lawyer, might argue that "premises" does not include land. In view of that possibility I have not the least objection to inserting these words.
Mr. M. HEALY: May I suggest that the case would be met by adding at the end the words "or as regards land occupied for the purposes of farming."
Mr. P. A. HARRIS: With great respect to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) and the Home Secretary, I am afraid that the Committee, if they are not careful, will find that the Bill, by these proposals taking the form of not making buildings necessary, will lead to a great opportunity for gerrymandering constituencies. So far as I could learn from the hon. Member for Devizes, if a man likes to take a bit of land for a chicken-run or an allotment, he would be able to get a vote in a constituency as an occupier of business premises. If the words are not carefully framed, this will be a great opportunity for votes to be obtained on artificial franchises.
Mr. ROWLANDS: I should like to endorse what the last speaker has said. We are now opening a very wide door, if we are not careful, to the recreation of the bogus 40s. freeholder, although you are going to call him a man cultivating land.
Colonel SANDERS: It must be of a yearly value of £10.
Mr. ROWLANDS: It means a £10 qualification instead of the 40s. qualification. It will be just as much a bogus vote as that of the old freeholder. You must have some strong definition providing that the land is bonâ fide cultivated for business purposes and not a mere adjunct a person has taken purposely to get a qualification.
Mr. MACMASTER: The sub-section says
"The expression 'business premises' in this section, means premises of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds occupied for the purpose of the business, profession, or trade, of the person to be registered."
As a matter of fact it does not mean anything of the kind. It is an attempt by legislation to define business premises as such. If it is intended that the expression "business premises" includes land, then it should be so stated. If we have the expression "premises or land," that will reconcile this Sub-section with the provision in Clause 3 to which the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) called attention.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: These words appear to require careful consideration. I do not know how far we may be committed by accepting words hastily now, and the point raised by the hon. Member for Dart-ford (Mr. Rowlands) may be a real one. It may be that by inserting these words in Committee now we are enormously enlarging the opportunity for the creation of artificial dual qualifications. We have no desire to exclude bonâ fide agriculturists, and if means can be found to secure that a man has a farm or any genuine business connected with the land in one constituency and resides in another, of course a good case can be made out for giving him two votes if anybody is to have two votes. On the other hand, we ought not to open the door to the creation of a fresh generation of faggot voters.
Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN: There are two Amendments in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), which do not seem to me to be consistent with what the Clause already lays down.
Mr. RAWLINSON: May I say that I put them down as alternatives to one another. As a matter of fact, I put down the second one first and the first one afterwards, because it appeared to express the sense more clearly. I should like to move the first one, which is in Sub-section (3) to leave out the words ''for the purpose of the business, profession, or trade, of," and to insert instead thereof the word "by."
The CHAIRMAN: That is the one I am most doubtful about. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will explain it.
Mr. RAWLINSON: It is a widening of the definition and consequently of the Subsection in a manner not decided in any way by the Committee at the present moment. The object I have in view—and I do not really mind which Amendment is moved—perhaps the original is the better one—is this: As the Clause stands, you would certainly be involved in very difficult considerations. The people who have to make up this register will certainly have no lack of legal conundrums presented to them by this Bill. This particular Section seems to go further than most of them. As regards business premises, they have to be occupied for the purpose of a business, profession, or trade. Take a case like this: A man is a baker by trade or business, and he also has a garage in the neighbouring constituency where he keeps—
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman. Both of his Amendments would have this effect. The clause would read,
"The expression 'business premises' in this Section, means premises of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds occupied by the person to be registered."
That would be to reintroduce the occupation franchise, an Amendment as to which was negatived in an earlier part of the Debate.
Mr. RAWLINSON: The Committee negatived the ownership Clause.
The CHAIRMAN: And the occupier. We decided distinctly on the two things, residence qualification and business qualification.
Mr. RAWLINSON: The only Amendment raised was as regards ownership.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member has been out of the House. There was an Amendment which was negatived by the Committee. However, we cannot raise the occupier qualification. Any Amendment appertaining to this must be relevant to what the Committee decided in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of the Clause.
Mr. RAWLINSON: The words are at the bottom of the first page of the Amendment Paper, "occupied business premises." A person has to occupy business premises, and then you have to decide what business premises are.
The CHAIRMAN: But then the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to decide that business premises might be anything—that is to say, a dwelling-house. He is going back to the decision of the Committee.
Mr. HOLT: I rise to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "registered" ["of the person to be registered"], to insert the words "or any company of which that person is a director or manager."
This Amendment is for the purpose of showing the very peculiar effect of the qualification as it stands. This business qualification, I understand, is to give a second vote to a person engaged in business, but the persons who are to get two votes are not the people who are carrying on large businesses, but those who are carrying on comparatively small personal businesses. For instance, the lawyer, the stockbroker, the accountant, the hairdresser, the stationer, the tobacconist, will all get two votes, but the banker, the manager of an insurance company, the large merchant or manufacturer—
Mr. M. HEALY: Have we not already decided this?
The CHAIRMAN: If that were the point, the same point was raised by the hon. Member for Chippenham, and, if so, the hon. Member is bringing the Clause into ridicule.
Mr. HOLT: I do not wish that at all. I desire to show that unless you allow

431
responsible persons, such as managers of companies, to regard their premises as a qualification for business purposes, then you will fail in the object of enfranchising the business voter.
Mr. ROWLANDS: Was not this point negatived just now on another Amendment?
The CHAIRMAN: As explained by the hon. Member, it certainly is the point which was negatived when moved by the hon. Member for Chippenham.
An HON. MEMBER: It was withdrawn.
Lord H. CECIL: On a point of Order. If it were withdrawn, this is not out of order.
Mr. RAWLINSON: He withdrew it.
The CHAIRMAN: That is perfectly correct. It was withdrawn. At the same time, I do not think that quite disposes of the question. I cannot see how this Amendment would read if inserted in the Sub-section, which runs,
"The expression 'business premises' in this Section means premises of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds occupied for the purpose of the business, profession, or trade of the person to be registered."
Mr. HOLT: "Or any company of which that person is a director or manager."
The CHAIRMAN: It does not say who is to be registered.
Mr. HOLT: I think it does.
The CHAIRMAN: We must have sense.
Lord H. CECIL: Surely it will read all right, "any company" is equivalent to the person registered. That is all right, is it not?
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid even the Noble Lord cannot convince me.
Lord H. CECIL: It is really a question of grammar.
Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "two or more persons, and the aggregate yearly value of the premises is not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint occupiers, each of the joint occupiers shall be treated as occupying business premises of the yearly value of not less than ten
432
pounds," and to insert instead thereof the words "two or more persons, one such person shall be entitled to be registered in respect of such premises for each clear ten pounds rateable value thereof."
I move this Amendment really to ask for information, and I would like to say at the outset that these questions were put to me by a rather big authority on registration and franchise law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I will say this: it was not the hon. Member for Cork. This is one of the points on which there is great doubt as to the exact meaning, and I have put down an alternative paragraph, which may or may not meet the case. Here it is said that where business premises are in the joint occupation of two or more people, each of the joint occupiers will get a vote in respect of each £10. I will take the case of business premises or land of the yearly value of £30 10s. It is perfectly obvious that if there were three partners each would get a vote. But, supposing the value is £29, do only two of those three partners or do none of them get the vote? They have to send in their names, and they will not be allowed, I take it, under this Bill to return two-names and only ask for two qualifications, but will have to say they are three partners. Will two of those persons get the vote and not the third, or will none of them get the vote? And if only two out of three get the vote, which two will they be? Will they be the two eldest, or what will be the deciding factor? Again, supposing the premises or land to be worth £27, would they be allowed to add another £3 to make it £30, in order that all three would get the vote? Then take the case of a number of allotment holders, say, twenty or thirty, in a field worth, say, £100 a year rateable value. How many of the allotment holders will get the vote, and how will they be selected? I think my own Amendment would meet the difficulty in a clear way. But if the Government do not think so, I hope they will give-an explanation.
Sir G. CAVE: I quite understand my hon. and gallant Friend's point. It is this: If there are three partners who occupy business premises of the yearly value of £30, they will get three votes in a borough. If the total yearly value is £27, none of them will get the vote, for this reason: If you divide the occupation equally among the three, not one occupies premises of the yearly value of £10. We

433
are only qualifying a person who in his own individual rights occupies business premises of the annual value of £10, and until there is enough to go round to make it £10 for each partner you cannot give any of the partners the vote. My hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment does not say to which of the partners he is going to give the vote. It does not say the oldest or anything else.
Major NEWMAN: They send in their names.
Sir G. CAVE: The Amendment does not say so, but leaves the question open, and so long as he does not face that question I think he will agree that my argument is right, and we cannot do otherwise than is done in the Bill.
Major NEWMAN: Surely the partners could settle that amongst themselves.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Suppose they are Ulstermen?
Sir G. CAVE: Suppose one is an Ulster-man and the other two are Nationalists. But really, I think, after what I have said, my hon. and gallant Friend will see that the Bill is perfectly logical, because not one of them has the necessary qualification. With regard to the allotment point, that, of course, does not arise, because allotment holders are not joint holders of the whole plot, but each is a separate holder of his particular plot, and probably none of them would be qualified for a vote.
Mr. BUTCHER: Might I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this requires a little more consideration. Take this case: There are five partners occupying business premises to the value of £49 10s. Here you say that, because there is not another 10s., not one shall get a vote. I venture to think the proposal put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly reasonable, namely, that you should give one vote for each £10 of value, and let the partners agree. It was suggested in an interruption from the Irish Benches that partners will not agree. I could conceive situations in Ireland where neither partners nor anyone would agree about anything, but I am considering the ordinary occupier who occupies premises with his business partners. This difficulty of how to get on the register can be entirely got over by framing the clause in such a way as to say that by agreement with the partners so many can be put upon the register. Take the
434
illustration I put of live partners in business premises of the value of £49. That would give four of them the right, to be put upon the register, because there is more than £10 value for each of the four. It would be perfectly easy to frame the clause in such a way as to say that by agreement between the partners you shall put upon the register as many partners as there happens to be £10 of occupation value. I urge the Home Secretary to-consider that before the Report stage and to frame a clause to meet what appears to me to be an injustice as it stands.
Mr. PETO: I am sorry to intervene, again, but I do so in order to enforce this point of view that the Bill, as drafted, does not in my opinion carry out the Resolution of the Speaker's Conference. May I read the Resolution upon which this clause is supposed to be based. It is Resolution 9, under the heading "Reform of the Franchise":
"(a) Every person of full age, not subject to any legal incapacity, who, for the qualifying period, has resided in any premises, or has occupied for the purpose of his business, profession, or trade, any premises of a clear yearly value of not less than £10, shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector.
(b) For the purpose of this resolution no change shall be made in the law relating to the joint occupation of business premises."
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Hear, hear.
Mr. PETO: The case put by the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) is that if business premises of £49 or £490 annual value or any other value are occupied by so many partners that when the value is divided between the partners it does not give a total value of £10 each that therefore the occupation by the partnership is null and void so far as the Parliamentary franchise is concerned. That, at any rate, is not what I understood upstairs. The case has been put to me, and I gave an answer in good faith with respect to the three partners referred to by the Mover of the Amendment. I thought that obviously the intention was, and I hope it is carried out in the Bill, that they would settle among themselves as to who, if any, were going to claim the vote. Three of them could not, but two of them could in the case of premises of £27 value. They are not bound to disclose the fact of their partnership deed, in spite of what the hon. and learned Member for Cork said. I would like to know whether the Home Secretary is quite sure that in every case where there is a junior partner

435
that he is allowed to invalidate the occupation votes of both the partners who have always voted before, and that his admission to the partnership invalidates all the three votes. I submit that nothing is said about the junior partner at all, and that the two senior partners who have always voted for the premises continue to remain upon the register. As this Clause is arranged, it expressly says that if a person occupies premises of £10 value he gets the vote. If the occupation value is two or three times that value, and if he has business relations with too many people to divide the value into £10 each, then nobody is to have a vote at all. I am very glad the Home Secretary made it quite clear, because that certainly is not what was understood or intended by some members of the Conference. The hon. and learned Member for Cork may think otherwise, but if there are any other members of the Conference present, particularly lawyer members, I should like them to say whether it was intended that there should be no vote whatever for premises, the annual value of which did not divide into sums of £10 each, between the partners who made the claim. That is not what I believe was intended or what ought to be put into this Bill.
Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Supposing I gave the Home Secretary a case concerning the letting of land for allotments. Supposing the land was divided amongst a number of working people for allotments before the War and that it remained under that user for some thirty years. As time went on the land increased in value—I mean the building value, which is the only guide which you can have as to the value—and it came, we will say, to a figure representing about £10 per head for each allottee. Assume that the figure is £10. In a case of that sort I want to know whether each of those allottees, being a separate holder, would have a vote under this Bill. If not, why not?
Sir G. CAVE: No, the allotment not being £10 in value.
Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I put a case in which it would be £10 in value.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: We are dealing with the case of a second vote. These gentlemen have already got one vote. They now propose to give two, and the basis on which they get two votes was, according
436
to the Speaker's Conference, providing that the existing law was not disturbed. What was the existing law? The existing law was as the Government proposes, namely, supposing there were three men, and instead of having £30 value they had £29 value, nobody got the vote. Supposing, as it sometimes happens, two partners arrange between themselves to get the vote, then, in order to disfranchise them, you produce the deed of partnership showing there were three, four, or five partners. This Clause is a compact by which you get rid of trouble with the House of Lords over the one man one vote business. Those who are strong on the one man one vote surrendered at the Speaker's Conference and agreed to jettison the one man one vote plea on one particular basis, namely, that the law shall not be extended further in the direction of the second vote. But the moment we reach the House of Commons gentlemen like the hon. and gallant Member who has proposed this Amendment, having got an inch, want to take an ell. I think the Government have already had severe experience this morning in having attempted to depart from the Speaker's Conference, upon which the whole House is practically agreed. Of course, there are some important sections who have not agreed, including the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil), to whom I might pay the compliment of saying that he seems to have renewed his youth in opposing this Bill. He reminds me on the franchise of what was said by Disraeli of his distinguished father, that he was "a master of gibes, flouts, and sneers." I would remind the Committee that we have made a bargain which this House ratified by Resolution, and if the Government depart from it they will be breaking faith not merely with the Speaker's Conference, but with the House which united in thanking Mr. Speaker by a Resolution which approved the text of the document on which this Bill is based.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not wish to give a silent vote on this matter. I feel that the Government is asked to go a good deal too far, not for the reason put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Cork, that there was a sacro sanct agreement in the Committee Room upstairs, but because common sense dictates that if you are to give a second vote the person must occupy business premises to the value of £10 annually. If he occupies them jointly with someone else he does not get the vote unless his share comes to

437
£10. That has always been the law, and I imagine that it is the common-sense view to take of it. The proposition put by the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) is a terrible one to contemplate. He says he cannot support the Government in this Amendment because he, as a member of the Speaker's Conference, did not understand that that was the agreement arrived at upstairs. I have had conversations with many members of the Conference about this Bill, and if we are to carry that part of the Bill which was understood by members of the Conference upstairs the Government would be restricted from carrying this Bill in anything like its entirety. With the exception of the right hon. Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), we should find that there are some points which members of the Conference upstairs did not understand at all. Surely the common-sense view to take is that £10 occupation means £10 in your own right, and that, therefore, there must be a multiple of £10 all round.
Lord H. CECIL: After what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Cork, I feel a little bashful about addressing the Committee. The hon. and learned Member opposes this Amendment. I am not a lawyer, and my conceptions are, therefore, different from his. But is it quite fair and reasonable to say that whereas a man has had a business vote for some time in respect of business premises worth £10, because he takes a partner he has to lose his vote? Why should the man become less fit for the franchise because he has got a partner in his business? All these are ways of arriving at the fitness of the voter. The residential qualification and the business premises qualification are nothing in themselves. There is no charm about living in a house or occupying business pre-
mises. They are merely the means of getting at people who are fit to vote, and it seems absurd that a man should cease to be fit because he takes a partner. He is just the same man, and he has just the same personal fitness for the vote. Accepting the view of this particular arrangement that there is to be a second vote, precisely the same sort of argument applies to the second vote as has been used over and over again in this Committee in defence of the residential vote. It has been pointed out over and over again that you ought not unreasonably to deprive people of votes to which they seem to be entitled. That applies just as much to the second vote as it does to the first vote. The essential factor in the so-called compromise in the Speaker's Conference was that people were to have a second vote in regard to business premises. We are not discussing whether that is reasonable or unreasonable. As I understand it, the view of some concerned is that it is profoundly unreasonable, but that other parts of the Bill make it good. Is it to be said that the balance which the right hon. Member for Walthamstow talks about between these considerations is to be overthrown because you say that the man who always had a voting right for £10 premises is not to lose his vote because he takes a partner? I cannot believe that that makes any essential difference in the principle laid down. There is no essential difference in principle or even in theory. I earnestly hope the hon. and gallant Member will go forward with his Amendment, and if so I shall support him.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; noes, 30.

Division No. 45.]

AYES.

[7.45 p.m.

Adamson, William

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Brookes, Warwick

Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

Agnew, Sir George William

Broughton, Urban Hanion

Craik, Sir Henry

Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

Bull, Sir William James

Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Currie, George W.

Anderson, W. C.

Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

Davies, Timothy (Lincs,, Louth)

Arnold, Sydney

Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

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

Baird, John Lawrence

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Chancellor, Henry George

Denniss, E. R. B.

Baldwin, Stanley

Chapple, Major William Allen

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

Baring, Sir Godfrey

Clancy, John Joseph

Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

Barnett, Captain R. W.

Clough, William

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Bathurst, Captain C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Clyde, J. Avon

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

Bigland, Alfred

Cynes, John R.

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Bird, Alfred

Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

Finney, Samuel

Black, Sir Arthur W.

Collings, Major Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W Hayes (Fulham)

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Bliss, Joseph

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

Goldstone, Frank

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Samuels, Arthur W.

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Maden, Sir John Henry

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

Mallalieu, Frederick William

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

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Manfield, Harry

Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Scanlan, Thomas

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Shaw, Hon. A.

Haslam, Lewis

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

Hazleton, Richard

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

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

Muldoon, John

Spear, Sir John Ward

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Nolan, Joseph

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Hill, Sir James

Nuttall, Harry

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Hinds, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

O'Dowd, John

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Parker, James (Halifax)

Toulmin, Sir George

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Parrott, Sir James Edward

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Hudson, Walter

Perkins, Walter F.

Wardle, George J.

Johnston, Sir Christopher

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pratt, J. W.

Wedgwood, Commander Josiah C.

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

Weigall, Colonel William E. G. A.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Pringle, William M. R.

Whitehouse, John Howard

Jowett, Frederick William

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

Keating, Matthew

Radford, Sir George Heynes

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

Kenyon, Barnet

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

King, Joseph

Rea, Walter Russell

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Larmor, Sir J.

Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rendall, Athelstan

Yeo, Alfred William

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Younger, Sir George

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Yoxall, Sir James H.

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Robinson, Sidney

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B'ghs)

Roch, Walter F.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mackinder, Halford J.

Rowlands, James

Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.

McMicking, Major Gilbert

Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen)

Beck.

Macphorson, James Ian

NOES.

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Fell, Arthur

Remnant, Sir James Farquharson

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gardner, Ernest

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Blair, Reginald

Haddock, Major George Bahr

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Boyton, James

Hanson, Charles Augustin

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Edin., Midlothian)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Butcher, John George

Horne, E.

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Cautley, H. S.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Hunt, Major Rowland

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Coates. Major Sir Edward Feetham

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Major Newman and Mr. Peto.

Mr. MULDOON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the words "ten pounds" ["business premises of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds"], to insert the words "Provided always that not more than five persons shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the joint occupation of the same premises."
I quite admit that the paragraph which I propose to amend conforms to the existing law, and so does the second paragraph; but I want to introduce, if possible, some limitation in this matter. At the present time in a borough there is no doubt that these transactions would not be real. A man might have premises of the value of two hundred pounds, and say: "I have premises that will create
440
twenty votes"; and immediately make a partnership with twenty men and get twenty votes. There is nothing in this Section which says that must be a real transaction. In a county the thing is limited to two votes, and there is a further provision that in a county it must be a bonâ fide transaction. I do not know whether my proposal goes far enough or not, but it is to provide a uniform franchise in this matter, both in counties and boroughs, and to limit the votes that may be made out of partnership occupations to five votes in each case. I think that would be a real reform, and would make for simplicity. Sub-section (3) says:
"Where business premises are in the joint occupation of two or more person and the aggregate yearly value of the

441
premises is not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint occupiers, each of the joint occupiers shall be treated as occupying business premises of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds."
There is nothing in that to provide that the transaction must be a real one, and the mere fact that in the next Clause there are requirements that they must be bonâ fide engaged as partners would enable a person to argue, where the partners make a declaration of trust, that they hold the property for the principal partner in the transaction. My proposal would limit the franchise considerably, but it would enable partners engaged bonâ fide in business to get five votes. I quite admit that these two paragraphs represent the existing law, but I never liked the existing law, and I am perfectly aware that partnerships have been created for the purposes of obtaining votes, and that is what we now all want to avoid.
Sir G. CAVE: I do not at all say that if we wished to depart from the existing law the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman would not have a great deal to recommend it, but my difficulty is that we are asked to follow the existing law. The law is that in a borough there is no limit to the number of joint occupiers who may have votes, but in a county there is a limit. The law differentiates between a borough and a county, and this preserves the existing law. I do not think I could very well assent to a change in the law as regards boroughs unless it were the general wish of the House that the change should be made. We shall come in a moment to a proposal to abolish the limit as regards counties, and to put boroughs and counties on the same footing. Again, I cannot agree to that unless it is the general view. I should like to hear what hon. Members have to say on both points at the proper time, but at the present moment I do not think I can accept the limitation the hon. Gentleman proposes.
Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. Muldoon) that there are many cases where, if this Amendment were carried, great hardship would ensue. Take a big town like London. The tendency is there for very large houses to be built, especially in the city—although it is not only in the city, because
442
anyone walking down Victoria Street would see the same thing—and for there to be in those houses a large number of people occupying rooms for business purposes. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were carried the result would be that in a large house occupied by fifteen to twenty people, which is quite a common thing, for business purposes, only five would ge able to get the vote.
Mr. MULDOON Mr. MULDOON indicated dissent.
Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I may have misunderstood his Amendment, but I do not think so. I understand it to be that only five people should get the vote. If that is so, then I am convinced that very great hardship will ensue for the reasons I have just given. Will the hon. Gentleman explain if I am wrong?
Mr. MULDOON: I think in this case you might have several "premises" in the same building. "Premises" does not necessarily mean the same building. There might be persons engaged in one partnership living in one flat, and others forming another partnership in another flat in the same building. I would only limit them in respect of the same premises.
Sir F. BANBURY: I think I gather that the hon. Gentleman means that he would limit the number of partners.
Mr. MULDOON: The number of votes.
Sir F. BANBURY: The number of people who are partners who can have the vote. I do not know why that should be so, because, supposing there are six or seven partners, why should they not all have a vote? The idea of hon. Members below the Gangway is that everyone ought to have the vote. Why, then, should not everyone who has property have the vote?
Mr. GOLDSTONE: Not two votes!
8.0 P.M.
Sir F. BANBURY: That is part of the compromise, that there should be two votes. The hon. Member is a great supporter of the compromise, and that point does not arise, because that was what the compromise said. It is settled. You cannot question that. That being so, why should not five or six parties, if they happen to occupy premises of the necessary pecuniary qualification, have the same number of votes as anyone who resides in a common lodging-house, or

443
some other locality of that description? I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) agrees with me or not.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am enjoying it.
Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will enjoy it more if I conclude the few remarks I have to make.
Mr. A. SAMUELS: May I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that the necessity of a separate valuation would be introduced if this Amendment were carried? It would cause a great deal of trouble in large business premises in the larger cities, and people would have to go to considerable expense.
Mr. M. HEALY: I do not think that the statement of the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) can be described as relevant to the Amendment. He has put the case of a large building, separately occupied by a considerable number of persons. But that is not the class- of case the Amendment deals with. What the Clause purports to operate on is a joint occupation. The right hon. Gentleman puts the case of fifteen, twenty, or forty persons occupying separate parts of a building. That is a case not of joint occupation, but of separate occupation, to which neither the Clause nor the Amendment would have any application. The right hon. Gentleman puts another case in which I have greater sympathy with him, namely, the case where there is a large building occupied by a partnership consisting of a considerable number of persons. In that I case the Resolution of the Speaker's Conference provides that each partner should have the vote. I think it is a very remote contingency that there would be any attempt to create faggot votes by means of a partnership. I am entirely in agreement with the argument that the law should be the same in the counties as in the boroughs. This is a remnant of the old state of things when there was a different franchise for counties and boroughs. There is no longer any reason for such a difference. I do not care how the similarity is produced, but of this I am quite clear, that there is no rational ground why there should now be a different franchise in counties and boroughs.
Amendment negatived.
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, to leave out the words,
"Provided that in a Parliamentary county not more than two persons, being such joint occupiers, shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same premises unless they are bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on their profession, trade, or business in the premises."
The result of the omission of this paragraph would be to carry out the wish expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just left the Committee. He said he thought the time had come when the old distinctions between counties and boroughs should be abolished, and that the counties should be put in exactly the same position as the boroughs. He did not himself care very much which took place, whether the borough qualification was altered to coincide with the county, or the county qualification was altered to coincide with the borough. We have already passed the borough qualification, and that stands so that joint occupiers may each have a vote, provided the value of their joint occupation comes to a certain sum. Now the words I propose to leave out suggest, or provide, that in a Parliamentary county not more than two persons being such joint occupiers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same premises, unless they are bonâ fide partners carrying on their profession, trade, or business in the premises. I cannot for the life of me see why, if one qualification is allowed in the borough, the same qualification should not be allowed in the Parliamentary county. One of the things which we have been discussing is the decision of the Conference to make everything quite simple, so that there should be no various franchises which would require people to look up various Acts of Parliament. Therefore, it seems to mo that it is a corollary of what has taken place in the Conference that the qualifications for this particular vote should be the same in the counties as it is in the boroughs. After all, it must be remembered that there are towns which are part of the county, fairly large-sized towns, which will come under the county vote. Why should a person, or more than two persons, who happen to live in a town which is in the county, be treated differently to people who live in a town that happens to be a Parliamentary borough owing to its size? Therefore I trust that the Amendment which I move will be accepted. I can see no arguments

445
against it. If there are any I should like to hear them. There can be no argument against it, especially in view of the fact that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has now left the Committee was refused by the Government. If the Government had accepted his Amendment, there might have been something to have been said for refusing mine. They have refused that, and there cannot be any argument advanced for not receiving mine.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have not often agreed with my right hon. Friend in the course of the Amendments he has moved on the Bill, but on the present occasion I think he has said nothing of which I can disapprove, although I may differ from the conclusions to which he has come. Up to the present I have not been able to see why there should be a different law applying to a Parliamentary borough to that which applies to a Parliamentary county. In the Parliamentary borough any number of joint occupiers can vote if the annual value of the property is sufficient to give them £10 each. But in the Parliamentary county only the joint occupiers can give a vote under certain conditions. If we were making the law for the first time, or as the result of an agreement come to by the Speaker's Conference, I have not the slightest doubt that the House would agree, I should certainly agree, and I should gladly accept the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has moved. After all, we have to consider agreements come to by the Speaker's Conference, and one of the agreements was that the law with regard to joint occupation should be the same.
I cannot help thinking that if we had a large attendance in the House at the time it was being discussed, that the House would almost unanimously come to the conclusion that after all it might have expressed an even wiser and better opinion than the Speaker's Conference expressed on this particular matter. But the Committee would not expect me to go over the compromise arrived at by the Speaker's Conference, and accept my right hon. Friend's Amendment to assimilate the counties and the boroughs. They would not expect me to do that in the House without giving any notice to anyone except that which I could give by word of mouth, but I will take a note that my right hon. Friend has moved this Amendment, that I have heard at present
446
no opposition, that I have heard no voice raised against the general adoption of the-principle contained in the Amendment and against the assimilation of the law to make the law in the counties and in the-boroughs the same. I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and we shall have other opportunities, especially on the Report stage and perhaps in a much fuller House, of considering whether we can obtain what is suggested, perhaps with not quite the complete unanimity in the House as prevailed at the Speaker's Conference. But we will sec whether we cannot reconsider the subject when we-come to the Report stage, and whether after consideration the House will not come to the conclusion that my right hon. Friend is right and that it is wiser to-take the opportunity of assimilating the law of the county to the law of the borough.
Mr. GOLDSTONE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not assume, because ho has not heard any voice in opposition, that there is unanimity in the House on this matter. That is far from being the case. If I understand the Amendment rightly, it would have the effect of adding to the number of persons exercising the double: vote. I think I am right. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] The right hon. Baronet agrees. He will recall an incident in the Speaker's Conference that, those who stood for a number of years for one man one vote, went as far as they could in giving this occupation vote for business premises, and you may take it they had grave doubts in going as far as they did. They will certainly be very strongly opposed, I am quite sure of that, to any extension of the dual vote. I hope my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench will observe that there is a very strong feeling against any extension of the double vote as is now proposed. If there is any assimilation it should be the bringing of the borough into line with the county with a view to the abolition, in time, of double voting in both. Therefore I hope the Government will neither accept the Amendment nor give it further consideration on the Report stage.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: May I point out that or: the Notice Paper there are Amendments in the opposite direction? I think it only right to call attention to that, because the right hon. Gentleman spoke as if there had been no suggestion of a

447
course contrary to that proposed by the hon. Baronet. I am sure that if there were to be a free vote in the Committee there would be a general feeling that the two franchises ought to be assimilated by the assimilation of the borough to the Parliamentary county franchise. I myself have an Amendment down to that effect, which I think will be the next to be reached. The only reason why I did not rise to oppose this Amendment was that the right hen. Gentleman opposite rose and that I did not want unnecessarily to take up time in discussing this Amendment before my Amendment was reached.
Sir C. CORY: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he sympathised with the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, but that—
Sir F. BANBURY: That he thought it was right.
Sir C. CORY: But as this was a thin House he did not feel justified in accepting it. Surely the business of the House cannot be stopped because Members go out to their dinner. The proper thing to do would be to accept the Amendment, and then, on the Report stage, if there were a fuller House, they could reverse it. Members have had notice of this Amendment. It is their fault and not the Committee's fault if this is passed. It is all very well to say that this arrangement was come to by the Speaker's Conference. I do not feel myself in any way bound by it. I had nothing to do with the appointment of the Gentlemen who formed the Committee and I hold that I have a perfectly free hand to support or oppose any Amendment that is proposed. I do not see why, because this happens to be the law of the day, if it is a bad law it should be continued. Inasmuch as we are altering the qualification of the franchise now in one respect I do not see why we may not do so in other respects.
Mr. DICKINSON: The reason for the differentiation is that in 1832 they laid down the law for the boroughs, and in 1867 when they were amending the law and making a law for the counties they saw the abuses of and objections to the system in the boroughs, but they did not disturb the system in the boroughs. They simply devised an improved system for the counties. Now my right hon. Friend wants to go back to 1832. If the House wishes to assimilate the two franchises
448
the only way is to accept the improvement which was initiated in 1867. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill intimate that he is prepared to consider this question before the Report stage. It would be a very good thing if he could see his way to assimilate the franchise. The Conference did not recommend this. They recommended that it should be left alone, but that is no reason why the House of Commons should not make this simplification, and if in the meantime the Government will consider this, I hope they will consider the second alternative, not the one which my right hon. Friend suggests which goes back to 1832, but accept, for both counties and boroughs, the system which was adopted in 1867.
Mr. MARSHALL: I was not a member of the Speaker's Conference. I was very much interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench indicate that if the matter was reconsidered it would be reconsidered in the light apparently of the right hon. Baronet's Amendment. I hope that, because the Committee has been very largely silent on this point, it will not be taken for granted that we have nothing to say on the matter. Here is a compromise. The point was raised, and I have no doubt was very adequately discussed. That being so those of us who are against the principle of plural voting—for it is a small portion of that principle that is applied here—will, if the matter is raised, be compelled to deal with it on very strong lines. The compromise is here. If the right hon. Baronet disturbs the compromise it may well be that many more things will result which he will not care for. If the compromise is disturbed on one point, it might easily be disturbed on others, and I want to raise my voice—though I had absolutely no part in the matter—in favour of the compromise contained in the Clause as it stands now, which would be robbed of a most important part if this Amendment were carried. Therefore, I want to emphasise the point of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, who has put down a contrary Amendment, and I hope that the voices of those who Have been silent but who agree with me on this matter will still be heard.
Mr. MULDOON: As I have given notice of an Amendment similar to that of the right hon. Baronet I would like to say one word. I would not have moved to strike out these words had I not made, in

449
a previous section, what I thought was a generous compromise for both counties and boroughs in which I proposed to limit the joint occupation to five, and I would not have given notice to omit these words if I had not previously moved to insert the proviso in the previous Subsection. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite that there is a real abuse of the powers of manufacturing votes out of partners. Notwithstanding what I heard on both sides, I am still on that opinion. I am greatly affected in my view of this by the fact that while in a county there must be bonâ fide partnerships there is not such provision in the case of a borough. There have been cases before the Court of Appeal in Ireland in which it was shown in evidence that registration agents went round on outside cars through the constituency within the qualifying period with partnerships to be signed by proposed partners. Of course, that would not stand for a moment, but it was argued that in those cases, though they might not be real transactions, yet in the borough there was no provision that the transaction would have to be a real transaction. In other words, the words "bonâ fide" were not in the Section. I still think that there is a grievance in this. I attempted to make a compromise between them by giving five, and having a uniform franchise in counties and boroughs. That was not accepted. The right hon. Baronet himself refused it. I think that Re will see later on that he has made a bad bargain.
Mr. PENNEFATHER: I must confess that I am surprised at the way in which we are treated to this word "compromise." We have been told all the time that something or other is a "compromise." Personally I cannot see that there are any compromises whatever in this Clause. I heartily support the Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet because it does not seem so reasonable that if the voters in the boroughs have certain privileges and advantages, the voters in the counties should have similar privileges and advantages.
Mr. ANDERSON: Neither of them should have them.
Mr. PENNEFATHER: My hon. Friend says neither should have them; but the point before the Committee is the Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet,
450
and I am addressing myself to that point, and if voters in the boroughs are entitled to these privileges and advantages I certainly fail to see why the voters in the counties should not have equal rights. It seems to me that some hon. Members are trying to disfranchise certain of the voters. They are very angry if anybody gets up to make a proposal which by any chance disfranchises some of their friends, but when it comes to disfranchising some of the people who are our friends they say, "Disfranchise them, off with their heads, or their votes. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] My hon. Friend says "Yes," but I would point out to him that you do not do that in the boroughs, and are the men in the boroughs to have two votes, while the men in the counties are only to have one? I trust, therefore, that the Government will stick to the suggestion which has been made, and will accept this Amendment now, so that it can be reconsidered on the Report stage.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I have listened very carefully to the arguments of those who opposed this Amendment, and I do not see any ground for thinking that there is anything wrong in the proposal at all. I supported the Government on the last Amendment because I understood its common-sense basis; but why should three people occupying the same premises each of more than £10 annual value not be entitled to get the vote? Why should you limit it, as in the Bill, to not more than two persons being occupiers of business premises?
Mr. GOLDSTONE: Being bonâ fide partners.
Mr. RAWLINSON: These people, if they are not partners, are together in the same premises, each part being of the value of more than £10 a year, and why should there be this limitation to two? I occupy chambers in the City of an annual value of more than £10, and in the same premises there are others occupying portions of the premises each of the annual value of more than £10. We are not partners in any way, but each fulfils the qualification of paying more than £10 a year. Supposing there is an annual value of more than £30, why should not that be divided between three persons. I submit that the proposal of the Bill is rather unreasonable. The hon. Member below me (Mr. Anderson) is perfectly straightforward. He says we should have no such votes at all. But if there is to be a second

451
vote, why should not another person occupying the same premises, and qualified in the same way, also have the vote? I really do not know what can be the reason. In regard to the counties and their representation, I think the lesson we have learned lately should make us do everything possible to favour county representation, especially on the ground that we now realise that the counties mean a very great deal to the nation compared with the boroughs.
Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board raised my hopes to a very high pitch when he commenced his speech by saying that I was right not only in my Amendment but my arguments. I think he went further, and said that I was right for the first time, and I thought that I had found something at last when I was told that I was not only right in my argument but my Amendment also was right. Then my right hon. Friend, having said that, went on to say that he would consider on the Report stage what should be done. That was a very vague promise, and even at the present moment I feel inclined to say that I cannot possibly accept it. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was a question of law, and that it was a thin House in which to come to a decision.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: What I said was that on the Report stage there would be a full House, and that, if there were practically unanimity, then would be the time to arrive at a decision.
Sir F. BANBURY: Then it depends upon whether the House is full or empty. If that is so, I hope the Government will revert to the old practice which obtained between 1890 and 1894, and have an interval from half-past seven to nine o'clock for dinner; otherwise, I shall have a dreadful vista before me, because it will be impossible that hon. Members will not be tempted away to enjoy the luxuries of the dining room between half-past seven and nine o'clock, and at any time between half-past seven and nine there may be a thin House, and no Amendments would be accepted by the Government, and they must all be put off till we come to the Report stage, and then, when the Report stage comes, if by accident this particular Amendment came on during the dinner hour there would again be a thin House,
452
and therefore it would not be possible to consider it at all. Surely, that is not the function of the Committee of this House?
Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: It is the function of the Government to decide rather than of the Committee of the House of Commons.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am a very old-fashioned individual, but I think that it is the Committee of the House which decides, and that the Government is the servant of the 'Committee, or the servant of the House. My hon. Friend thinks differently, and by the new practice the Committee and the House are to be the servants of the Government.
Sir P. MAGNUS: That was not my idea. What I had in mind was this: that the Government had ample opportunity to come to a decision as to whether they would or would not accept the Amendment, and the fact that this was a small House ought to have nothing to do with their decision.
Sir F. BANBURY: I quite agree, and I am very glad that is the attitude taken up by the hon. Member. I intend to press this Amendment. It has been on the Paper since the first possible day, and if the Government have not had sufficient time to consider it, whose fault is it? They have rushed this Bill, and chosen to take up the Committee stage on the day following the return from holidays, and if they have not had time to consider the Amendment it is their fault. The question of a thin House does not arise at all. Then there comes the question of the law. The right hon. Gentleman said it was already the law. What was the object of the Speaker's Conference? All through it was to alter the law. I do not quite know who set up the Conference, but whoever did, it was his object, or their object if more than one, to alter the law, and they succeeded in so doing. The only arguments I have heard advanced have been that it was necessary to alter the law because it was so difficult to understand and because it was necessary to simplify it. I want to simplify it by making the law in the boroughs similar to the law in the counties What is there wrong in that I Even if it does give certain people a second vote, after all, the principle of a second vote was part of the compromise. The plural voter gave up a great deal in order to obtain a second vote in respect

453
of occupation. Why should that be taken away from him because he lives in a county and not in a borough?
Mr. ANDERSON: He has not got it now.
Sir F. BANBURY: He has got more now, since the plural voter with the requisite qualifications can vote in more than two constituencies; but the proposal now is that he can only vote in two constituencies. Unless my Amendment is carried you will go further and say that in certain circumstances if he has a qualification in a borough he can have two votes, but if he has the same qualification in a county he can only have one. I say that is absolutely absurd. There is not a single argument that can be advanced in favour of it, and not one has been advanced. The only argument that has been advanced is that plural voting is bad, but that has got nothing whatever to do with this question. It may be bad, though I think it is right, but I do not want to go into the arguments now, but plural voting has been admitted, and it is no argument to say we ought not to allow it at all. The proper course for hon. Members below the Gangway who object to it is to endeavour to abolish it altogether, and even then I do not know that from their point of view they would really effect very much. They put themselves in this rather awkward position, that having advanced one argument when it
suited them, they cannot fall back on the compromise when it does not suit them. They are bound to the Bill, but I am free and can vote as I like, and under those circumstances I propose to divide the House.
Major HUNT: I agree with the right hon. Baronet that it is most unfair that I you should have a different system for j boroughs and counties. The constitutional party has the greater number of the counties, and I suppose that is why the counties are not in the same position as the boroughs. If the right hon. Baronet goes to a Division I shall be very pleased to support him.
Mr. D. WHITE: I think the Committee is generally agreed that it will be desirable, if possible, that the two arrangements for the borough and county should be assimilated. The question is whether the assimilation should be, as the right hon. Baronet proposes, to the borough franchise, or, as I will propose subsequently, to the county franchise. I ask, therefore, in putting the Amendment, to do so in such a way as to enable me to move the later Amendment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to the word 'in' ["Provided that in"] stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 20.

Division No. 46.]

AYES.

[8.44 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

Hill, Sir James

Adamson, William

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hills, Major John Walter

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hinds, John

Agnew, Sir George William

Currie, George W.

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

Davies, Timothy (Lincs,, Louth)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Anderson, W. C.

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

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Arnold, Sydney

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

Denniss, E. R. B.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Baird, John Lawrence

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

Hudson, Walter

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Johnston, Sir Christopher

Baldwin, Stanley

Edge, Captain William

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Baring, Sir Godfrey

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Barnett, Captain R. W.

Fell, Arthur

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Finney, Samuel

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Bigland, Alfred

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W Hayes (Fulham)

Jowett, Frederick William

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Fleming, Sir J. (Aberdeen, S)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Bliss, Joseph

Gilbert, J. D.

King, Joseph

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Brookes, Warwick

Goldstone, Frank

Larmor, Sir J.

Bull, Sir William James

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Byrne, Alfred

Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

Hanson, Charles Augustin

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Chancellor, Henry George

Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B'ghs)

Chapple, Major William Allen

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Clancy, John Joseph

Haslam, Lewis

Macmaster, Donald

Clough, William

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

Clyde, J. Avon

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

Maden, Sir John Henry

Clynes, John R.

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Manfield, Harry

Collings, Major Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Rea, Walter Russell

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arion)

Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Rendall, Athelstan

Toulmin, Sir George

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Muldoon, John

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wardle, George J.

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

Nclan, Joseph

Robinson, Sidney

Wedgwood, Commander Josiah C.

Nuttall, Harry

Rowlands, James

White, J. Dun das (Glasgow, Tradeston)

O'Dowd, John

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

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

O'Grady, James

Samuels, Arthur W.

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

Parrott, Sir James Edward

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

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

Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Shaw, Hon. A.

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Perkins, Walter F.

Shortt, Edward

Yeo, Alfred William

Peto, Basil Edward

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

Yoxall, Sir James H.

Pratt, J. W.

Spear, Sir John Ward

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

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.

Radford, Sir George Heynes

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Beck.

NOES.

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Horne, E.

Touche, Sir George Alexander

Blair, Reginald

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Boyton, James

Newman, Major John R. P.

Weigall, Colonel William E. G. A.

Carew, C. R. S.

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Cautley, H. S.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Fletcher, John Samuel

Remnant, Sir James Farquharson

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F.

Gardner, Ernest

Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

Banbury and Major Hunt.

Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Edin., Midlothian)

Stewart, Gershom

The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "in a Parliamentary county'' ["Provided that in a Parliamentary county "].
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can move his Amendment, but it seems to me to have been covered by the previous discussion. Any remarks he may have to make must, therefore, I think, be rather brief.
Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "in a Parliamentary county" ["Provided that in a Parliamentary county "]
The previous discussion was confined to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. He, I am sure, would be the first to admit that it turned on the merits of his Amendment, and not on the merits of my Amendment. Therefore I venture to hope, Mr. Maclean, that those who are in favour of my Amendment may be given the same opportunity of discussing it as the supporters of his Amendment were given the opportunity of discussing the one that he moved. In the Bill as it stands, for the practical purposes of the joint occupation voting, the provision reproduces the present law. In the Clause that begins "where business premises are in joint occupation of" it reproduces the law under the Act of 1832 in its application to boroughs. In the pro-
456
viso, "Provided that in a Parliamentary-county," and so on, it reproduces the law as it now applies in Parliamentary counties under the Act of 1867. If there is to be assimilation—and I feel sure the Committee will be pleased to have assimilation—I submit that it would be better that the assimilation should be to the provision in the Act of 1867 than to the Act of 1832. I put that not only on the principle that in legislative work the Legislature generally finds that second thoughts are best; I also put it on its merits, and on the historical ground, if we take the Act of 1832, under that Act joint occupancy was allowed to give votes to the joint occupiers, irrespective of what their numbers were, if the qualification was sufficient to work out the requisite amount for each.
In the years that came between that and 1867 it was found that the multiplication of joint occupiers for voting purposes-was something enormous. On the discussion on the Act of 1867 it was felt that, that could not be allowed to continue in counties; therefore this proviso that limited those who should be entitled to joint occupation to two persons, except where there was a bonâ fide partnership, was introduced. I need hardly remind the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that that 1867 Act was introduced by the party of which he is so-distinguished a member, and I would therefore make an appeal to him, that if

457
he wants assimilation of the franchise, he will seek to assimilate it to the terms of that Act. If we take, on its merits, the distinction between the two, we find this: In the case of Parliamentary boroughs there is no limit to the number of joint occupiers who may qualify in respect of the property except the value of that property. If, for instance, the property is worth £300 or more a year you may have as many as thirty people qualified in respect of it as joint occupiers, whether they are bonâ fide partners or not. I, on the other hand, you take the case of a Parliamentary county, you find that, however valuable the property in joint occupation is, no more than two persons can qualify except in so far as they are bonâ fide partners. Of these two there seems everything to be said in favour of the second provision, which prevents the multiplication of faggot votes, and this is not merely a question of multiplying faggot votes in the old sense. It is a case of multiplying second votes, because each man is, quite apart from this, entitled to one vote under the proposals of this Bill.
All these reasons lead me to think that if assimilation is to take place, it should take place along these lines. While in one sense this difference of qualification, maintaining the existing law as regards counties and as regards boroughs, does not itself affect the franchise directly, it will affect it indirectly and very seriously. I may take, for instance, the case of Scotland, in which under these proposals a good many of the smaller boroughs which have now separate representation as districts or boroughs will be turned into counties. Under present circumstances the joint occupiers in these groups of boroughs will suffer in this way: The joint occupiers come under the borough franchise, and when these boroughs, being too small for separate representation even as districts or boroughs, are thrown into the counties, they will come under the county franchise, and that seems to me an additional reason for assimilation. Of course, the great reason for assimilation is that you can draw no hard and fast line between the country and the town, because the urban limit is often drawn in a populous district which runs half in a borough and the other half in a county. All these things point to the desirability of unifying the franchise in respect of joint ownership and. my Amendment would effect unification along the lines of the Act of 1867, with which
458
the party of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) was associated, and we can safely adopt it as a precedent in this case.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: I do not need to argue as to whether the law of 1832, which applies to boroughs, or the law of 1867, which applies to counties, is the better of the two and whether if you assimilate the franchise in regard to joint occupation you should fall back on the law of 1832 or on that of 1867, because that has been already argued. As the Speaker's Conference laid down so strongly that in their opinion no change should be made in the law relating to joint occupation of business premises, and as this Bill is founded on the Resolutions come to by the Speaker's Conference, I should not, whatever my own personal opinion might be, feel justified on behalf of the Government in accepting any Amendment which would alter the law in a thin House where there is no practical unanimity, and while I think it quite consonant with reason and practice to accept Amendments which go beyond the Speaker's Conference, and in some measure alter it, I think that can only be done where there is substantial unanimity among Members of the, House.
9.0 P.M
Mr. T. DAVIES: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to give a little more encouragement to the Amendment. I think it is a very good one—one of the best we have had this afternoon Why should a borough be treated differently from a county? As a representative of a county and as one living in a borough, I think both ought to be treated alike. I am sorry the Government cannot see its way to meet my hon. Friend.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If my hon. Friend is thinking of dividing I must say a, word to explain the vote I shall give. Every consideration of reason, in my opinion, points in favour of assimilating the franchise in these two matters, and of making the rule that applies now in the counties apply also in boroughs, that is to say, to check the artificial multiplication of votes. But here is a case in which we are put to the test as to the reality and the sincerity of our acceptance of the proposals of the Speaker's Conference, and I do not think we are at liberty, in a matter on which controversy has arisen,

459
to pick and choose and to take the line that suits us when we wish to do so, and at other times to say to those who take a different view from ourselves that they are bound by the proposals of the Speaker's Conference, and are not free to take the line that suits them. I think probably every Member of the House would be of the opinion that the two ought to be assimilated, and everyone is of the same opinion as to the method by which that assimilation should be arrived at, because everyone thinks the other man ought to give way and accept his view. But that, is not a method, unfortunately, which can in practice be adopted, and, for my own part, although I think on a strict view of the merits, my hon. Friend's Amendment is well justified, and would be a great improvement in the law, if the Government-say they feel themselves, in the presence of the opposite opinion expressed by my right hon. Friend and others, bound to adhere to the proposals of the Speaker's Conference, I must support them in the Lobby.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "No person shall be registered as a Parliamentary elector in respect of more than one qualification in the same constituency."
I think this Amendment is necessary to supply an omission in this Bill. In Clause 1 the Bill provides that a man shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a constituency if he has the requisite residential qualification or the requisite business premises qualification. I take that to mean that he can be registered whenever he has a residential and business premises qualification. Therefore it is perfectly clear that he can be registered as a resident in one constituency and as a business man in another constituency. I think the words as they stand now will allow a man to have two registered qualifications in the same constituency, and I do not think the Government intend that should be the case. Certainly the Conference did not mean that a man should have two votes in the same constituency. I do not think there is any question about the point that he should not vote twice in the same constituency.
Really the proper precaution to take is that we should not allow a man to be re-
460
gistered for more than one qualification in the same constituency. That has been the law up to the present in this way, that if a man in the same constituency has two-qualifications he is starred, and can only vote on one occasion and ton one qualification. That arises under the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act of 1878, Section 28, under which the revising barrister has instructions to make-inquiries where he finds that a man is down for two different qualifications, and to place a mark against one of those qualifications for which he is entitled to be a Parliamentary elector. I understand that when there is a question as to whether he is entitled to a municipal vote in each case he is to be kept on the register in both cases. It often happens that a man who has two qualifications in the same borough is entitled to vote only in respect of one of them, and he is starred for one for Parliament, although he can vote for both qualifications in different wards of the borough under the municipal suffrage, but so far as the Parliamentary vote is concerned he can only vote once in the same constituency, and can only be registered as a Parliamentary voter once in that constituency. I understand the section of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, to which I have referred is repealed by this Bill. I do not think we fully understand the effect of the repeals of Acts of Parliament under this. Bill, and I doubt very much whether any Minister in charge of this Bill knows the effect of Schedule No. 6, in regard to which the Home Secretary boasted on the Second Reading of this Bill that he repealed some forty or fifty Acts of Parliament. I doubt whether there is anybody except the draftsman, who knows the full extent of all the repeals made on page 39 of this Bill. It repeals the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, except Sections 1, 2, 11 to 14, and 19. I take it that Section 28 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act of 1878 is repealed, and therefore there is no obligation upon anybody now to go through the list, find out the duplicate entries, and star or knock off the cases where a man is not entitled to use a vote as a Parliamentary elector twice, and therefore ought not to be on the register in respect of two qualifications.
For these reasons I suggest the addition of the words I have moved. If a man is a local government elector, of course he can be registered in respect of two qualifi-

461
cations or perhaps more, but he will have to be distinguished by a mark, probably by starring, in regard to his Parliamentary franchise. I hope I have made my point clear. I know it is a somewhat technical one, and I suggest it in order to make the Bill more perfect. I think it wants this correction, although I know it raises a very difficult point. That matter has been brought to my notice from outside, and this fact shows that it has struck experts outside as being a serious point, and, as far as I read this Bill, I think this Amendment is necessary in order to be perfectly certain of the position that a man is not going to be entitled to vote more than once under any circumstances in the same constituency, whatever other qualifications he has, and it is important that he should be registered only once in the same constituency.
Colonel SANDERS: It seems to me that this is a more important Amendment than the hon. Member who has moved it imagines. He has introduced it as a very innocent affair, and really as a drafting matter, but it is a good deal more than that. Under this Bill, it seems to me that it is very doubtful indeed that a man can be put on the register, and I can see endless claims and objections when the register is being prepared. I think a man who wants to make sure of getting on the register would be wise to have two strings to his bow, and what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do is to destroy one of those strings, or, in other words, he wants to disfranchise a certain number of people.
Mr. DICKINSON: No.
Colonel SANDERS: If a man is only to be allowed one of two qualifications he is going to be cut off the register and disfranchised. He can only get on by making a claim, and he has to go through all the trouble of doing this, whereas in other parts he is put on the register. A man can be put on the register now for two qualifications, and the revising barrister may strike him off for one, but that is a different matter altogether to what is now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. DICKINSON: That is all I want. I wish to provide that when the registration process takes place then the registration officer will take the place of the revising barrister, and he will only be entitled to put a man down for one quali-
462
fication, which I understand is the present procedure. I do not think that any man should be left on the register for two qualifications for the same division.
Colonel SANDERS: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his explanation. I think the difference between us is really on a point of time. I do not object to his suggestion if it means that a man is entitled in the first place to be put on for his two qualifications, and that when the matter comes before the Revision Court he is to be cut off for one or the other. It is absurd to think that there are not going to be Revision Courts. There are going to be two instead of one, conducted by an unskilled man instead of by a. barrister. That is all the difference that this Bill makes. The right hon. Gentleman proposes, I think, that the registration officer, when making up his register, shall only put on a voter in respect of one qualification. I say that in the first place he ought to put him on for any qualification which entitles him to a vote. I have no objection when the Revision Court comes on if he is cut off for one or the other qualification, or starred, or whatever the procedure may be; but he ought in the first place to have his two qualifications if he is entitled to them, so that if objection is made in respect of one qualification the other may still hold good, I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will not accept the Amendment.
Mr. GILBERT: I should like to support the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson). It is a matter which very much affects London. We have a large number of shopkeepers who have a shop in nearly every Parliamentary division in London, and you have now a process, called the star vote, by which, if a man happens to be on for both the east and west divisions, you can have him starred for one of those divisions. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal would put this duty upon the registration officer, and I am very anxious that the whole of the duties of registration should, as far as possible, be carried out by the registration officer, and should not be left in the hands of political parties or associations. The registration officer would get to know the local people thoroughly on his canvass, and, if this Instruction is put into the Bill, he will only put a man on for one of the divisions of the borough, the division in which he wants to vote, and he will take

463
his name off the list for the other division of the borough. This will save a great deal of unnecessary work at election time, and it will save the work of party agents, but without this instruction we shall continue to have all the trouble that we have now.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: I know that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) is a mass of learning on this question of registration, but neither he nor I nor anyone else probably would be able to say that he has completely mastered the many Acts which we hope to repeal when we pass this Bill. I cannot help thinking that with all his learning and despite the great amount of time that he has given to this matter my right hon. Friend has a little overlooked Rule 16 of this Bill. He wishes by the Bill itself to impose upon the registration officer the obligation to see that no person shall be registered as a parliamentary elector in respect of more than one qualification in the same constituency. He wishes, as far as possible, to remove all chance of duplicate entries. So do I, and so does everybody. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken (Mr. Gilbert). We want to make our system of registration as perfect as possible and to have as little necessity for party agents as possible. We want everybody entitled to be put on the register and to be put on it with as little trouble to himself as possible. Now look at Rule 16.
"The registration officer shall make such additions and corrections in the electors lists (including the absent voters list) as are required in order to carry out his decisions on any objections or claims, and shall also make any such corrections in those lists by way of the removal of duplicate entries or the correction of marks placed against the name of an elector or otherwise as he thinks necessary in order to make those lists complete and accurate as a register."
I think any competent registration officer would take the greatest trouble to make his list as perfect as possible.
Mr. WARDLE: What does "duplicate entries" mean?
Mr. FISHER: It means that where a man has two qualifications, perhaps in the same borough—
Mr. WARDLE: Did my right hon. Friend say "perhaps," because that is the whole point?
Mr. FISHER: If a man has two qualifications he is perhaps visited by two different officers from the registration office, and one officer may send his name forward to be put on the register in respect of one qualification, and the other officer may send his name forward to be put on in respect of another qualification. It will be the duty of every registration officer and his staff—and it will be most important that, he should have an adequate staff for the purpose—to look through the list with the greatest possible care and to see that a man is not retained on it in respect of two qualifications in the same constituency. That would be a duplicate entry.
Mr. H. SAMUEL: The case which some of us have in mind is that of a man who has two qualifications of a different kind. He may have a residential qualification in one part of the constituency and a business premises qualification in another part of the constituency. Can you say that it is a duplicate entry if those two qualifications are entered separately? If they are once entered separately I cannot see anything in the Bill—there may be something, but I have not been able to find it—to prevent him voting twice.
Mr. GILBERT: In certain districts of London you have a number of lodging houses and persons owning, perhaps, two, three, or four houses, not adjoining, but in adjoining streets. We only want those persons to be qualified in respect of one house and not in respect of them all.
Sir P. MAGNUS: Is not the difficulty referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. Samuel) covered by Clause 7 of the Bill ("Right of Persons Registered to Vote")?
Mr. WARDLE: No.
Mr. FISHER: I do not think there is any doubt about this point. I think the case put by my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. Samuel) would constitute a duplicate entry, but if there is any real risk the proper place to deal with the matter is when we come to the rules in the Schedule. The Rule may want clarifying, and we are ready to listen to any argument that may be put forward. We want the register to be complete, we want it to be as clean as possible from all duplicate entries, and we want there to be as little temptation as possible to any voter to try and vote twice in the same

465
constituency. We all know that the Bill says that you cannot vote twice. That is provided for in Clause 7. If there is any suspicion that a voter is trying to vote twice he can be asked the usual question, "Have you already voted?" I do not think it is very likely he will try to vote twice in the same constituency. I believe the Bill is strong enough as it is to prevent duplicate entries of the kind we all desire to prevent, but, if it is not, the proper place to raise this question is on the Schedule. I would ask my right hon. Friend not to press this Amendment, because I do not think it is necessary or desirable, by putting in this form of words, to practically make it possible for a penalty of £100 to be imposed under Clause 11 upon the registration officer in a case where, perhaps by some act of neglect, he had failed to detect that somebody had got by him and had been entered twice upon the same register for two qualifications within the same constituency. I think the Bill is adequate to prevent the evil which my right hon. Friend and I wish to prevent, but, if it is not, when we come to consider the Schedule and the Rules we will stiffen up the Rules and try to strengthen the Schedule to make it perfectly certain that we stop any holes of this kind.
Mr. M. HEALY: There is not the slightest doubt that under the existing law if a man appears on the register on the voters' list in respect of a residential qualification, and also in respect of an occupation qualification, those entries are duplicates, and should be treated as such. The existing code of laws contains very elaborate rules directing the revising authority to treat them as duplicates and to strike out one of them. The point made by the Mover of the Amendment is that, whereas this Bill gets rid of that elaborate code of laws, it does not substitute anything for it. While it is quite clear that no man, even if the Bill is left as it stands at present, could vote twice, it ought to be made equally clear that a man could not appear on the register twice, whether he is entitled to vote or not. There is a great temptation to personation if you have duplicates on the register. The duplicate entries ought not to be there, and the register ought to be so prepared that a man's name should only appear on it once. However, I rather share the view of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board that the
466
Schedule is the more appropriate place for providing for a matter of this kind. It is essentially a matter of registration, and the Schedule is the part of the Bill concerned with registration. The Mover of the Amendment was quite right in trying so make it perfectly plain and in insisting upon it being made plain that the law should be that no man should have the right to vote more than once in one constituency and that his name should not appear twice on the register.
Mr. WARDLE: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board has said, it is quite clear that the best place to raise this point is either on the Schedule or on Clause 7. I am not at all convinced myself that Clause 7 makes it clear that a man cannot vote twice in the same constituency. The wording of that Clause will require a little alteration to make it perfectly clear. That being the case, I would ask my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) to withdraw the Amendment.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am rather surprised that this Amendment should have been moved by one of the most prominent members of Mr. Speaker's Conference. We have been told that this is a compromise which we ought to accept, yet here is one of the most prominent members of the Con ferencc—I am not sure that I ought not to say the most prominent member; certainly he is one who had a great deal to do with all the deliberations that took place—and I am not in any way exaggerating when I say that nothing could have taken place there without his knowledge, and I am not at all sure that if I added with his approval I should not be right. That being so, this right hon. Gentleman comes down and admits that the Conference is wrong. He admits that a mistake has been made, and he moves an Amendment, making an alteration in the compromise which has been arrived at. After that, no one can say that those of us who were not present at the Conference, or those of us who left the Conference because we did not approve of what was going on, are in any way bound by what has taken place. If the right hon. Gentleman himself is not bound by the Conference, and it is in his power to come down and move Amendments to the compromise and to receive considerable support, not only from ordinary common Members of the House of Commons, but from an hon. Member

467
like the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite (Mr. Wardle), who himself was a member of the Conference and a party to this compromise and who is supporting the breaking of that compromise—
Mr. WARDLE: No, I am not! The right hon. Baronet is absolutely mistaken. I have not suggested, or said a single word in this Debate, or in any part of it, which would suggest the breaking of the compromise.
Sir F. BANBURY: But the hon. Gentleman supported the Amendment.
Mr. WARDLE: I did not. I asked my hon. Friend to withdraw it.
Sir F. BANBURY: Yes; but he suggested that he should withdraw it because this was not the proper place to discuss it, and not because he did not agree with it.
Mr. WARDLE Mr. WARDLE indicated dissent.
Sir F. BANBURY: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board said that the proper place to discuss it was on the 16th Rule of the First Schedule. I think he is right. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wardle) is very quick to seize Parliamentary points, and at once saw that, too, and he said the Amendment ought to be withdrawn, not because it was wrong, but because it ought to be discussed on Rule 16.
Mr. WARDLE: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board said that the intention was carried out in Rule 16 of the First Schedule, and, therefore, this Amendment does only carry out the compromise.
Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman who said it was the intention of the Schedule to carry out the compromise was not a member of the Conference, and, therefore, did not know what the intention of the Conference was; but my right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment was a member of the Conference, and so was the hon. Gentleman opposite himself. They ought to know what the Conference meant and what the compromise was. I am not at all sure that every member of the Conference did know what they had done, or that they did know the result of their recommendations, or that they fully understand the Bill. That has been one of our points all the
468
way through. Personally, I do not see any objection whatever to the Clause as it stands. I am the last person to want anyone to vote twice in one constituency, and I do not think it is possible under Clause 7, and if I were to make a suggestion it would be that we should not either alter this Clause or Rule 16, but, if there is any doubt in Clause 7 that a man can vote twice in the same constituency, that should be made clear. That is, I think, the proper way of doing it, and if that is done I shall certainly support any alteration that is necessary to do that.
Mr. H. SAMUEL: The recommendation of the Conference do not appear to me to enter into this matter at all. Everyone is agreed with regard to the purpose in view. No one wants to see a single individual vote twice at the same election for the same candidate. Even the right hon. Baronet, with his intense enthusiasm for the plural voter, would not in his wildest flight of fancy allow a plural voter to vote twice at the same election for the same candidate. The only question is whether the Bill does in fact prevent that occurring, and I cannot find anything in the Bill that does prevent an individual who might have succeeded in getting on to the register for two qualifications in the same constituency from using both those qualifications There may be something in the Bill of which I do not know. The Parliamentary Secretary referred me to the Act of 67 Vic, Section 3, and I looked it up in the volume on the Table. I find, in the first place, that that Section of the Statute has nothing to do with the matter, and I find, secondly, that it is repealed.
Sir G. CAVE: Look at Section 7.
Mr. SAMUEL: That also is repealed, I am informed by my right hon. Friend; but it does not deal with the person on the register twice having, the right to vote.
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Section 81.
Mr. SAMUEL: It is a long Section. It may be that that safeguards the position. If that is so, well and good. But I only beg the Government to make sure that, somehow or other, they do not leave such a lacuna in the Bill that, owing to the repeal section of the Act of 1878, we have the absurdity that there is no law in the future to prevent any man who is on the

469
register twice for the same constituency exercising two votes at the same election.
Mr. MARTIN: I submit the proper way to prevent any fraud in voting is not by the Clause which prohibits a man voting, but the Clause for making up the register. I submit that you should not allow a man's name to be on the register unless it is entitled to be there. That is what the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment means. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board says it could be arranged in the rules. I submit not. The rules are not intended to give the qualifications for voters, but merely provide for carrying out the Bill. The Bill itself ought to provide for every qualification and for every disqualification. In any event, supposing none of these reasons are good, I submit that this Section cannot do any harm. Certainly it has nothing to do with the compromise arrived at at the Speaker's Conference. If nothing more can be done to make the Bill clear that it carries out the recommendations of the Conference, I shall be very glad to support the Amendment as drawn. A rule does not provide anything substantial. Rules connected with an Act are mere machinery for carrying out the principles laid down in the Act itself.
Mr. DICKINSON: I really think the Government have not quite appreciated the point, and I do not think any answer has been given by anyone on the Front Bench which has really explained the position. The position is this: By the Act of 1878 it is laid down that:
"Where the name of any person appears to be entered more than once as a Parliamentary voter on the list of voters for the same Parliamentary borough, or more than once as a burgess on the burgess lists for the same municipal borough, the revising barrister shall inquire whether such entries relate to the same person, and on proof being made to him that such entries relate to the same person shall retain one of the entries for voting, and place against the other or others a note to the effect that the person is not entitled to vote in respect of the qualification therein contained for the Parliamentary borough or for the municipal borough, as the case may be, he being on the list for voting in respect of another qualification."
That section, which is the section that obliges the revising barrister to leave
470
only one entry on the register in respect of which the man may vote, is repealed by this Bill, and there is nothing in this. Bill that will render it impossible in the future for there to be more than one entry of the man's name in the same division. It is perfectly true that Rule 16 lays it down that the registration officer is to correct any duplicate entry, but the question of what is a duplicate entry is not dealt with in this Bill at all, and, as far as I am able to read this Bill, a man may be on in the same constituency as an occupier of business premises and on as a resident in his own house, and when he presents himself to vote he is asked the two questions: First of all, "Have you voted in respect of residential qualification?"; and next,. "Have you voted in respect of any business Qualification?"; and those two questions may be asked in the same constituency. Clause 7, which deals with the actual voting, does not say anything different from that, because all it says is that.
"A man shall not vote at a General Election for more than one constituency for which he is registered by virtue of a residence qualification, or for more than one constituency for which be is registered by virtue of other qualifications."
The question as to whether it is the same constituency or two different constituencies is not answered in that sense. It is because of the wording of Section 7, which renders it very uncertain whether it may not be two qualifications in the same constituency, that this question was brought to my notice. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has rather taken me to task, because he says I am trying to upset the Conference. I can assure him that that is not my object. The Bill does not do what the Conference intended, and I do not think the Bill does what the Government intended. I ant I perfectly certain that the Government do not intend that a man shall be enabled to vote twice in the same constituency, and I do not believe they intend that he shall be registered more than once in the same constituency. I believe the Government intend to prevent him being registered more than once in the same constituency. At the present moment no man is registered as a Parliamentary elector twice in the same constituency. It is one of the-tasks of the revising barrister to see that it does not happen. For the future the

471
constituency is to be a division. That is a very important provision in the Conference report and also of this Bill. Therefore, the word "constituency" here means a division, and I am perfectly certain that the Government do not intend that a man should have two qualifications in the same division
Sir F. BANBURY: Is it not possible for a man to be a freeholder in the county and on the register as a freeholder and also be on in respect of his residence in that county?
Mr. DICKINSON: I do not think he is entitled to be registered in such a form that he gets two polling cards. Therefore, the revising barrister, whatever the man's qualifications may be, whether as an owner, an occupant or an ordinary householder, has the duty upon him of seeing that he is only down as a Parliamentary elector on one page in the register. That is the sole object I want to achieve now, and I believe that the words I propose are the best means of doing that.
Sir F. BANBURY: The polling cards are sent out by the political agents, and not by the registration agents.
Mr. DICKINSON: The right hon. Baronet, apparently, does not understand me. I put a simple illustration. I thought everybody would understand -about polling cards. Polling cards are sent to the people on the register and no person ought to have his name on the register for the same division on two different pages of the register. I do not believe they do have now. If they do, I am perfectly certain it is not proper.
Sir F. BANBURY: Several people say they do.
Mr. DICKINSON: Not as a Parliamentary elector. Of course they are down on the register for other purposes, because the register is used for other purposes than for Parliamentary voting. The Parliamentary elector has to be a starred man, and he has to be starred where he has his Parliamentary qualifications. That is the only safeguard that you have. I submit that the Home Secretary would be well advised to consider this question, because this is the place at which we have to fix the right of a man to be on the register. We ought to lay down now what I believe was intended and what the
472
law is, namely, that a man must be on the register in one place only as a Parliamentary elector.
Sir G. CAVE: I want to make quite clear what our intentions are. We desire that a man shall be on the register once only for the same constituency. If by any accident he gets on the register twice he can only vote once, whatever his qualifications are. I believe that is the effect of the Bill as it stands. I may be wrong, but I believe that Clause 1, read with Clause 7 and the Schedule, has that effect. Whether I am right or wrong, it really does not matter. The Section quoted by my right hon. Friend shows that the duty of reducing the entries to one is the duty of the revising barrister, or of the person performing the functions of the revising barrister. Therefore, I take it that it is the duty of the registration officer under this Bill to take care that the same name does not appear twice. I will certainly consider the matter, and if that is not the effect of the Bill we will put in the Schedule an injunction to the registration officer to reduce the entries of the same name to one. We will do that in the Schedule. Then comes the question of voting. That depends on Clause 7 and on the declaration. If there is any doubt we will put in Clause 7 the word "once." It is a very simple alteration, and it will make it quite clear that a man cannot vote more than once for the same constituency. If any further safeguard is needed we will put in a further declaration to cover that point. We have all the same object and hon. Members may be quite certain that we will make that quite clear in the Bill before it leaves this House.
Mr. DICKINSON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Major HUNT: I beg to oppose the Clause. This Clause is the result of collusion between the leaders of the political parties. It is an attempt to create a large number of voters on the pretence of giving votes to soldiers and sailors. That really is what it means. In reality the Bill as it stands now gives hardly any votes to soldiers and sailors. It is to civilians that the Bill gives votes. It is really intended that the Bill should make sure that the

473
numbers of votes given to soldiers and sailors shall be so small that they will make no appreciable difference in an election. That really is at the bottom of this Bill, and I think somebody ought to say it. At all events, I think that is the object, and I think a good many other hon. Members have a very good idea of that too. The Government have no right to bring in any Clause in a franchise Bill which creates new millions of civilian voters. In the middle of a great war, when something like—or over—200 Members are away from the House, I say that the Government have no right to do it, and especially when the sailors and soldiers, who have saved us, have not had a chance of saying whether they approve of it or not. The Government are doing it with out any leave from those men at all. They have not any voice whatsoever in the question. The only Clauses in any Franchise Bill which the present Government is entitled to propose are Clauses to give votes to sailors and soldiers and women who have served abroad during this War, and I say that the Government are entirely unjustified in bringing in this Clause in this Bill at the present time. I say more; I say that a great number of the Members of the House of Commons know it perfectly well, and they know that they ought to vote against it, but at all events, on what used to be called the Unionist side of the House, they are so fond of their political leaders, that although an enormous number of Members are away, and the best of the Members are at the front, hardly any of the Members here will go against their political leaders. It is very odd that they keep on following their political leaders at all—
The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that the hon. and gallant Member is repeating the speech he made on the Second Reading of the Bill. We cannot have that repeated on the proposal that this Clause stand part of the Bill.
Major HUNT: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Whitley, for allowing me to go on so long. At all events, I believe in what I have said, and that a great many other people think the same as I do, but are afraid to say so.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. RAWLINSON: As I understand Clause 1, it is introducing probably the greatest change in our Franchise law ever introduced in this House, and is introducing it in as inefficient a way as
474
could be imagined. The first point is as to residence. The idea of Clause 1, if passed at all, was to make the franchise clear and simple. The people who will have to determine this will not be trained lawyers. The registration officer in these eases need not be a trained lawyer at all, but he will have to consider these questions, and the first question the Government are putting upon him is to determine whether a person has been resident in a particular place for some months. Time after time hon. Members have asked during the discussion on Clause 1 what residence is. The Home Secretary very wisely has declined to tell. I have here a book containing, I think, two or three pages illustrative of what is and what is not residence for Parliamentary purposes. I am not going to read them to the House. They are quite sufficiently difficult to make me fully understand why the Home Secretary did not tell us what residence is. He has told us incidentally that one proof of residence is that you need not sleep at the place every night, but that you must do so on some occasions. You must have an intention to return. He laid great stress on the fact that there was an intention to return to the domicile which you have left. There is the case of where, owing to their actions, people have received free board and lodging from His Majesty's Government. They had every intention of returning after their residence in gaol to the place where they had been residing before. At the same time it has been held that their residence was not the place to which they wished to go go back, but to which they had not been at liberty to return. I give that as an illustration. The cases on these points run very closely indeed, and raise points of the greatest difficulty. And this is in an Act to simplify the franchise and to make perfectly plain whether a person by residence is entitled to a vote or not. That is the first point. The second is that there is to be for certain purposes a modified form of second vote—namely, that a man who has a qualification in another constituency is entitled to a second vote. What is that qualification? It is that he must occupy either land or premises—we have amended that now to land or other premises—of a value of £10 a year upwards. He may do it jointly, but if he does, it is to be done to the extent of the value of the premises of at least £10 for each joint occupant. It has been pointed

475
out that when a person has property worth £27 a year and occupies it with two other persons he loses his vote altogether. That is not altogether an easy point, but it is one. He has to occupy this land, and for the purpose of his business, trade, or profession. Is that a very easy matter to determine? Let us take an ordinary case of business, that of a baker. It is an illustration which I proposed to give in an Amendment which is out of order, because a decision was given on which I cannot lay my hand as regards the question of occupation. A person who is a baker may have in an adjacent constituency a garage where he keeps a certain number of taxi-cabs for hire and makes a profit on them. Is that for the purpose of his trade or business?
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Hear, hear!
Mr. RAWLINSON: The answer is given very confidently in the affirmative by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but all I can say is that it is not so generally understood, and if you asked that man whether that was for the purpose of his business he would not say so. If that is the meaning, why not insert the words "keeps for the purpose of profit." I do not think that is the meaning.
Mr. SCOTT: A man might occupy a furnished house for the purpose of letting it, and that would not be for the purpose of his business.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not think you can occupy a furnished house if you have let it.
Mr. SCOTT: The owner of a furnished house who lets it is the occupier.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Is he? I am afraid I have never heard that before, that the owner of a furnished house who has let it is the occupier. I had proposed an Amendment, which the hon. and learned Member probably voted against, providing that in such cases the man should have the vote. That was rejected, and there is no doubt that he will not get it. What as intended is that whore a person owns a garage in another constituency as part of his business as a job master he will get a vote under this Clause, but that if his business is something else there is a difficulty to be raised on that point. I do not think it will be found that this Clause carries out in any way the clearness which we are told is essential for this simple
476
form of franchise which is coming. There is the question of joint occupation, and the greatest difficulty with regard to residence, while the lesser difficulty comes on the question of the second vote. These are two reasons why I think this Clause is neither clear nor logical, and it is not so clear even to the highly educated mind of those who have been discussing it. There is one other point with reference to this first Clause. It introduces a very drastic change—the inclusion of a very large number of voters. It does away very largely with the question of property qualification which existed before. We must remember at the present time, when it is proposed to pass this Bill, that we are still without the safeguard, as some of us regard it, of the Second Chamber. We are taking a very wide step in the direction of the franchise. No other democracy has passed a Clause like Clause 1 without any sort of safeguard. We are discussing a principle of the very greatest and most vital importance. It is not a question of allegiance to leaders or personal friendships, which I hope may not be affected by a difference of opinion in this matter, but this is a very important change. The United States had the most careful safeguards before they extended the franchise. So, too, did France; they had careful safeguards. We are proposing by Clause 1 to give an extension of the franchise without any safeguard of any sort or kind. We know perfectly well the position of the House of Lords at the present time, and the hon. Member on the Front Bench who laughs was one of those who was pledged to the fact that the setting up of an efficient Second Chamber would brook no delay.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is making a Second Reading speech on the Bill. The House has passed the Second Reading and committed the Bill to the Committee.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I was bound to answer an interruption, Sir, which perhaps you did not notice, as you did not call the hon. Member to order. I maintain that before we pass light-heartedly this first Clause we ought to consider that, with the very small amount of consideration we have been able to give it, we are passing one of the widest extensions of the franchise ever accepted in this country, and probably in any other country, and I say it is a scandal, under the circumstances that exist at present.
Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to say a few words upon the effect of this first Clause. I do not think that the effect of the Clause has been thoroughly understood either by the country or by the House. At an earlier stage in the discussion we had a statement from my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Hayes Fisher) to the effect that in such a thin House he could not do certain things. I think that is a striking comment upon this particular Clause. What is this Clause which causes such a thin House, and upon which, in such a thin House, the then representative of the Government could not take any action upon an Amendment? This particular Clause enacts that a man can be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a constituency, other than a university constituency, if he has a resident qualification, or if he has the requisite business premises qualification. Now I will deal first with the requisite resident qualification. I do not think that people realise what that really means. We have endeavoured to get from the Government a description or a definition of what "resident" is and we have not yet succeeded. I am going to give a definition of what "resident" means. In my opinion the word "resident" means that somebody must at some time or other sleep in a particular place in his constituency. It does not follow that he need occupy or own the place, but he must have resided there some time, and as long as he sleeps in a lodging-house, or in any place where he can lay his head six months, he will qualify. That is a very startling addition to the law. I may be right or I may be wrong, but, it is a very startling alteration in the law, and it is proposed in a thin House.
There is another point upon which I have not been able to get a satisfactory answer from the Government. I put it privately to the Solicitor-General on the Second Reading, but he could not satisfy me on this particular point. Paragraph (a) says a man
"must on the last day of the qualifying period reside in premises in the constituency."
What does that mean? Supposing the last day of the qualifying period was a Sunday and I had gone out into the country from Saturday till Monday. I certainly should not have resided on the last day of the qualifying period in my house in London.
478
No one can say that I had done that. That is particularly emphasised. If it had been merely "residence" it might be held by lawyers that residence does not mean sleeping; it might be held to be residence as long as you are in a room or a house for which you are qualified. But when you go out of the way to say that on a particular day the person in question must be residing there, surely that means lie must be at any rate during some part of that day in that particular residence?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: He may be away on holiday.
Sir F. BANBURY: That is my point, and I think we ought to have some explanation of the matter. I do not wish to press it further, but I cannot understand how a person on the last day of the qualifying period can be said to be residing in premises in the constituency if he is taking holiday anywhere else. If I am not in my house in London but am in Wiltshire, I cannot see how I can be qualified for residence in that constituency. I do not want to go into the question any further upon the merits of the Clause, because I am not quite certain, after what you said to my learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson), that you might not hold that it is a Second Reading speech I am making in this Debate. Therefore, all I say on the point is this, that to make an enormous alteration like this at the present time is, I consider, an outrage which never ought to have been perpetrated.
Sir G. CAVE: There are two proposals in this Clause. The first is to simplify the franchise, and the second is to extend it. My right hon. Friend raises a point about residence at this stage of the Bill. We have argued it time after time, and I think that we have made it clear to the greater part of the House that if my right hon. Friend is on the last day of the qualification period absent from his residence for some temporary purpose he will not lose his vote. We have got beyond that. The point of the decision which the Committee is asked to take is: are we or are we not willing to adopt this part of the Bill, the principle of which is to add to the voters who will have the decision of the great questions that will arise immediately after the War, these 2,000,000 men who, we think, should be put upon the register? I doubt whether there is any man in this House, no matter what party he belongs to, who will answer "no" to that question.
Lord H. CECIL: I think that my right hon. Friend should have taken the opportunity of telling us not only who are to be included in this Clause, but he should also have told us who are to be left without a vote under this Clause. That was the point which, whether deliberately or by inadvertance, he omitted to deal with. It is a reasonable question. I want to know how this Clause differs from manhood suffrage. Does it differ at all? Whom does it exclude?
Sir G. CAVE: Those who have not got the qualification described in the Clause.
Lord H. CECIL: Does my right hon. Friend think that amongst those who ought to be excluded are prisoners? Felons, I suppose, are excluded as such, but are misdemeanants actually in prison excluded? It is a very interesting question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras appeared in a new character this afternoon as the burglar's darling, who is zealous for their rights.
Mr. DICKINSON: All I said was that I represent a constituency in which certain parties were in prison. I did not refer to any crimes of my constituents.
Lord H. CECIL: I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the particular crimes of his constituents or with their general criminal character. But take a place with the prison. When I mentioned this matter before, I thought, at any rate, that people would not be able to vote from residence in a prison, while they were in prison, but I forgot, of course, the absent voters list. The judicious criminal, defended perhaps by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, and advised by him, would take precautions while in prison to keep himself on the absent voters list. He would be justified by residence—prolonged residence. There is no question of him not wishing to come home. That does not arise. No one can doubt that he is residing. Will my right hon. Friend tell me under what provision of the Bill are misdemeanants disqualified? Then take vagrants. Are they disqualified under any provision of this Clause? Is the person, who is admittedly a wastrel, or an latterly worthless person on the fringe of the criminal class, disfranchised, or is it the intention of the Government to disfranchise him? That is what ought to be told. It is not dealing reasonably with the Committee to keep this thing a secret.
The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord will have an opportunity of proposing Amendments in reference to these gentlemen, when we come to Clause 8.
Lord H. CECIL: I am dealing with this-Clause, and I am asking whom this Clause enfranchises and whom it does not enfranchise. Does it enfranchise criminals, miscreants, and vagrants? Can the right hon. Gentleman answer that? He makes a peroration designed to indulge members of his own party when they face their constituents, and intended to furnish capital to his political Friends, but he will not answer my question. It is all very well to say that 2,000,000 persons are competent to be put upon the register, but are not incompetent men included? Is not that question relevant to this Clause? Is it not the fact that persons eminently unfitted to vote are included? My right hon. Friend makes no answer. I do not believe there is any answer. What a Bill! What a Government! They are unable to defend their own Bill, unable to justify it against a charge which is evidently fatal. They have got behind them the war spirit, which makes discussion impossible, and they are satisfying the Liberal and the Labour parties. I think that is shameful and discreditable.
Mr. BUTCHER: I rise to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] These interruptions are most unseemly, and I mean to say what I have to say. I think the question of my Noble Friend opposite does require an answer, and we are entitled to know, and the country, which knows very little about this Bill; is entitled to know, who are being enfranchised and who are not. I am glad to see the Solicitor-General in his place. He has studied, no doubt, the question of misdemeanants and vagrants and other persons, and perhaps he will tell us who are and who are not to be enfranchised by this Clause. Is the man who is lying in prison during the qualifying period? Or the vagrant, the man who roams about the administrative county of London, and adjoining constituencies, who perhaps spends one night in a house and then changes his place from time to time, who has a large area in which to roam about in London during the six months qualifying period that he remains within the administrative county of London, or one or two adjoining constituencies, and therefore his residence would not be broken? We want to know who are being

481
enfranchised? It is a legal question on which we can get an opinion. There are many other questions which might be raised. I should be very grateful, speaking for myself, and I think for many others, if we were told, at any rate, how far this Clause does go and how far it does not go. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman is asked whether the particular classes to whom we have referred are enfranchised or not.
Colonel YATE: I hope the Home Secretary will tell us whether he adheres to the statement that the 2,000,000 who are to be enfranchised are really what he calls qualified voters. Under the Subsection that makes London one Parliamentary borough, so far as I can judge, any vagrant who moves about and may have a moonlight flitting week after week can vote under this Bill. This Clause enfranchises 2,000,000 vagrants, nothing else. Is there anything to stop any man in London who leaves his house week after week and does not pay rent from getting a vote? I see nothing in the Bill to prevent that. No man under this Clause who gets a vote has any stake in the country. He pays no Income Tax or rates. I ask whether he considers those men are duly qualified to vote?
Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to endorse the representations which have been made to the Solicitor-General to answer the questions which have been put. I think it is due to the House that those important questions should be answered before we are asked to vote.
Sir F. BANBURY: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give a reply to my Noble Lord. It really will not delay the progress of the Bill.
Lord H. CECIL: Such a proceeding is quite unprecedented in Parliamentary arrangement. I am fully entitled to move to report Progress, and that you ask leave to sit again if the Government refuse to answer the questions. We asked a perfectly simple question, and that is, who is excluded under this Bill, in classes. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who are excluded under this Clause, or does' this Clause really amount to manhood suffrage? That is a simple question, and why should the right hon. Gentleman treat us with so much discourtesy?
Sir G. CAVE: I thought the questions were rhetorical questions, and no discourtesy was intended. The only question I remember is, who is excluded. After all, that is a question one cannot very well answer except in the way I answered it. The Clause enfranchises everyone who has the qualification laid down by the Bill and who fulfils the requirement of six months' residence, or has the requisite business premises qualification.
Lord H. CECIL: Does it exclude a man who is in prison; has he a vote?
Mr. MACMASTER: A man who has a restraint on his liberty?
Sir G. CAVE: It does not give a vote to a man in respect of his residence in a prison, because he is kept there against his will and would make every effort possible to get out.
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 14.

Division No. 47.]

AYES.

[10.31 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

Brookes, Warwick

Clynes, John R.

Adamson, William

Bull, Sir William James

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Butcher, John George

Collings, Major Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Agnew, Sir George William

Carew, C. R. S.

Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

Anderson, W. C.

Carnegie, Lieut.-Colonel D. G.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Baird, John Lawrence

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Cator, John

Cowan, Sir W. M.

Baldwin, Stanley

Cautley, H. S.

Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

Baring, Sir Godfrey

Cave, Ht. Hon. Sir George

Davies, Timothy (Lincs,, Louth)

Barnett, Captain R. W.

Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

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

Bathurst, Captain C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

Denniss, E. R. B.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Chancellor, Henry George

Devlin, Joseph

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Clancy, John Joseph

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

Bliss, Joseph

Clough, William

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Clyde, J. Avon

Fell, Arthur

Finney, Samuel

Macmaster, Donald

Robinson, Sidney

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W Hayes (Fulham)

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

Rowlands, James

Fleming, Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.)

Macpherson, James Ian

Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen)

Fletcher, John Samuel

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Samuels, Arthur W.

Forster, Philip Staveley

Maden, Sir John Henry

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Mallalieu, Frederick William

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

Gilbert, J. D.

Manfield, Harry

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Goldstone, Frank

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Scanlan, Thomas

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

Martin, Joseph

Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

Hanson, Charles Augustin

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Shaw, Hon. A.

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Shortt, Edward

Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

Muldoon, John

Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Munro Rt. Hon. Robert

Spear, Sir John Ward

Haslam, Lewis

Newman, Major John R. P.

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Hazleton, Richard

Nolan, Joseph

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Nuttall, Harry

Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

O'Dowd, John

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

O'Neill, Capt. Hon. (Antrim, Mid).

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hewart, Sir Gordon

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

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Hill, Sir James

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hinds, John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Toulmin, Sir George

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Parrott, Sir James Edward

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Edin., Midlothian)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Walton, Sir Joseph

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Perkins, Walter F.

Wardle, George J.

Hudson, Walter

Peto, Basil Edward

Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

Philipps, Captain Sir Owen (Chester)

Weigall, Colonel William E. G. A.

Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Johnston, Sir Christopher

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Whitehouse, John Howard

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pratt, J. W.

Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Radford, Sir George Heynes

Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

Jowett, Frederick William

Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

Keating, Matthew

Rea, Walter Russell

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

Winfrey, Sir Richard

King, Joseph

Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

Wolmer, Viscount

Knight, Captain E. A.

Rendall, Athelstan

Yeo, Alfred William

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Larmor, Sir J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Younger, Sir George

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Yoxall, Sir James H.

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Lundon, Thomas

Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

Beck and Mr. James Hope.

Mackinder, Halford J.

NOES.

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

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

Blair, Reginald

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Boyton, James

Meysey-Thompson, Colonel E. C.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Haddock, Major George Bahr

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Major Hunt and Sir F. Banbury.

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

CLAUSE 2.—(University Franchise—Men).
A man shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a university constituency if he has received a degree (other than an honorary degree) at any university forming, or forming part of, the constituency.
Amendment made: After the word "he" insert the words "is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity and."—[Sir G. Cave.]
Sir C. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, after the word "degree" ["an honorary degree"], to insert the words "or holds for the time being a principal or professor's chair."
The object of this Amendment is to secure that those who hold important
484
offices in a university on the teaching staff shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector. There is a more general Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik), but that only covers the case of Scottish universities. The old universities of England are able to look after themselves, but my proposal specially concerns the younger universities, which it is proposed to enlarge. In the latter universities the great majority of the teaching staff are not graduates at the particular university where they teach, and I think it is desirable and certainly consonant with similar universities in Scotland that the teaching staff should be enfranchised. The principals and professors of these universities have as intimate a relation to the

485
universities as the graduates, and that intimate relationship is likely to be of a much longer and more constant character. It seems to me to be only reasonable that they should have a share in the representation of the universities, and they should be entitled just as much as the graduates, who come and go, to a vote on precisely the same conditions. This proposal seems to me to be consonant with our experience in similar universities, and I appeal to the Home Secretary to accept this Amendment.
Sir H. CRAIK: I would like to take this opportunity, in order to save time, of explaining my view in regard to the Amendment standing in my name.
Sir C. JOHNSTON: That Amendment applies only to the Scottish Universities.
Sir H. CRAIK: I am aware of that, but I think it will shorten Debate if I explain my position now. I can quite understand why the proposal of the Bill is made—it, is made in accordance with what we call the sacrosanct decision of the Speaker's Conference. I think that even the members of that Conference will admit that they hardly had the whole of the circumstances under consideration when they made the proposal that the obtaining of a degree should be the qualification. There is no difficulty in the case of the English Universities. You can obtain a degree by examination, but it is necessary to pay large additional fees to get a nominal advance without passing any further examinations. I am certain the English Universities would have been only too glad to correct that. It is no doubt to correct that and to remove that anomaly that the Speaker's Conference has made this serious and very good proposal, but I want to point out this difficulty: It does not apply to the universities which I represent or to the younger universities in England. A graduate of these universities, the moment he becomes so, is qualified as an elector, and he has to pay no further fees. In addition to that the Scottish universities constituency, as fixed by the Act of 1868, embraces a very large number of additional electors, not only the professors and principals, about whom I am not so anxious, but persons like the Lord Rector and Chancellors. I have as my Constituents—I regret that I am not able to count them among my supporters—the late Prime Minister (Mr.
486
Asquith), the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Birrell), the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill), and under the proposal of this Bill they would all be disfranchised.
The CHAIRMAN: I see the hon. Member's point now. It is separate from and a much larger point than the one now raised, and I propose to call his Amendment when this one is disposed of.
Sir H. CRAIK: I thought it would save time and trouble if I explained it now.
The CHAIRMAN: I waited to see if that were the case, but I think the better way would be to dispose of this first and then take the hon. Member's point.
Sir P. MAGNUS: I do not think I can recommend the Home Secretary to adopt the Amendment. From the few remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik), it will be seen that the conditions of representation in the universities of Scotland are different from what they are in some of the universities of Great Britain. The conditions of representation in the universities of Great Britain vary among themselves, and I do not think, therefore, that tiny general proposal such as that contained in the Amendment would have the approval of all the different universities in the United Kingdom. Each must be considered on its own merits. There is only one condition that is common nearly to them all, and that is the condition which is contained in the Report of the Speaker's Conference, namely, that every graduate should be placed on the list of voters. Even that condition does not at present exist in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, or London. That itself will be an addition to the existing state of things. I am not proposing to add to the difficulties which university representation may present by including among those to whom the vote shall be given persons who for the time being act as principals or hold a professor's chair. To begin with, I do not know what my hon. Friend includes in the word "principal." Does he mean the Principal of the university or of any one of the constituent colleges of the university? In the case of the constituent colleges of the university which I represent they are not all called "principal." There is a "rector," a "provost," and various other titles. Therefore one would not know what was meant exactly by the proposal of the

487
hon. Member. On the whole, I am inclined to suggest that this proposal, while it would add considerably to the number of electors in some of our universities, ought not to be accepted by the Committee I should say that the only persons who, under the category of graduates, will not receive a vote in the university which I represent, would be about half a dozen and no more. The question of honorary degrees does not arise in connection with my university, because the only two personages in the kingdom who hold the honorary degree of the University of London are His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen. There, again, there is a great difference. For these reasons I cannot support the Amendment.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): It would be quite impossible for us, after what has been said, to do anything in the way of accepting the Amendment which has been made, not only on the ground of what has been said, but also on the further ground that the basis of Mr. Speaker's Conference with regard to the electoral qualification in regard to university representation was quite clear and unambiguous. That is with regard to this Amendment, but when we come to the next Amendment there is a special case with regard to the Scottish universities, and I shall have something to say on that.
Sir C. JOHNSTON: I do not wish, to press the Amendment, but the Speaker's Conference is being pushed to a farcical extent if a matter of this kind cannot be put forward.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir H. CRAIK: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "or, in the case of the Scottish universities, is qualified, under Section 27 of The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868."
Under the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, the constituency for Scottish Universities were carefully drawn after great consideration. I am certain I should meet with complete assent in Scotland in saying that that has been a completely popular constituency, and that that it has met with no criticism whatever. It is entirely free from the criticisms to which English Universities have been subjected because of the fact
488
that they do not give the vote to all the graduates, but only to those who pay all the additional fees necessary for passing the M.A. degree, a fee which is not accompanied by any additional intellectual test. That has not prevailed in Scotland. Every man when he gets the first degree he can obtain becomes ipso facto a voter in the constituency. Besides that, there are very important elements brought in which are absolutely healthy. Among the governing bodies, the university courts as they are called, there is a large municipal element taken from the great cities. In my own universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen we have in our university courts a considerable element of municipal representation. These governors of the universities acquire, by holding that position, a vote as constituents of the universities. That is a most popular, most liberal, and most useful practice. It has welded together the Scottish universities in their popular aspect with the municipal life of the cities to which they belong. That has been an ancient tradition in those universities, and as their Member I am certain that I am expressing their views when I say that the universities welcome that, and would be extremely sorry to see the lord provosts and the other municipal representatives disfranchised by this Clause. Men drawn from the highest ranks, whose names are well known as household words, retained their votes under the Act of 1868. As I said before, I am not advocating this proposal in any selfish or party spirit. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, and the late Chief Secretary for Ireland recorded, with exceeding regularity, their votes against me, and I should be very sorry if their names were struck off the list and they were lost to my Constituency. Those qualifications were given by a very prudently drawn Clause in the Representation of the People Act, 1868. The Speaker's Conference did not intend to destroy or interfere with the very carefully considered and most welcome arrangement for these Scottish universities.
Mr. CLYDE: We should be willing to accept this Amendment, not because it departs from the Speaker's Conference, but because it gives effect to it. The preservation of Clause 27 should merely have the effect, therefore, of putting the

489
Scottish Universities in substantially, although not technically, in this respect, in the same position as the English Universities.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: We want, as far as possible, to assist legislation by reference in this Bill. Could the Lord Advocate undertake, on the Report stage, to put in the actual words?
Mr. CLYDE: We will certainly consider that.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words: "Provided that no man shall be entitled under this Clause to be registered in respect of more than one University."
A little time ago expression was given from both sides of the House that, in the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), a man should receive only one polling card in respect of any qualification. I do not suggest that the Amendment I am proposing affects a considerable number of persons, but if it is a fact that a substantial number will be entitled to a vote under this University Clause who hold degrees which are not honorary degrees for more than one University, the effect of this Amendment will simply be to provide that they must choose under which University they will he registered.
Sir G. CAVE: Of course, no man can vote for more than one University.
Lord H. CECIL: I do not think it is desirable that we should proceed with this matter at this hour of the night.
It being Eleven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

IRISH PRISONERS.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. BYRNE: This country and our Allies are to-day engaged in the greatest War the world has ever known, and we are told the War is for the protection of small nationalities and for liberty of peoples. I ask Gentlemen on the Front Bench to turn their eyes to Ireland and to see what protection that country is getting at the present moment. Her industries are crushed out, and the best of her blood is to-day in Lewes Prison in solitary confinement and half-starved. I have in my hand, in spite of the fact that the Government would not publish the evidence of the court-martials in Dublin, a copy of the evidence of the trial of the Countess Marckievicz. I can only say that if this evidence of the trial of the Countess Marckievicz is published it would bring shame to the Government that inflicted such a sentence as she is now undergoing.
Mr. KING: Would you publish it?
Mr. BYRNE: I suppose I should be prohibited under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. There was only one witness called, and that witness was an industrial schoolboy, and on his evidence the Countess Marckievicz was sentenced to a term of penal servitude for life. That is protection for the females of Ireland. As regards the male prisoners, the evidence of court-martial which I have received does not justify the brutal sentences imposed upon them by those who composed the court-martial in Ireland. Indeed, it would disgrace the Government on the day that they consented to have the evidence published. In the evidence there is no vindication whatsoever of the hasty shooting or of the brutal treatment of the Irish prisoners.
Compare the treatment of the Irish prisoners to-day with the treatment of the Jameson raiders. I ask you why such differentiation should take place. A few days ago one of the Irish prisoners attempted a hunger strike as a protest against the treatment of himself and his colleagues in prison. That man was taken from the prison and put into a criminal lunatic asylum, into a straight-jacket, and was forcibly fed. That man was an Irishman, and that is the excuse of the British Government. Compare his treatment with the treatment of ex-Inspector Syme, who went on hunger strike and after six days' imprisonment was released.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present—
Mr. BYRNE: Is this an attempt to prevent the public knowing what is going on?
Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order.
Mr. BYRNE: Do you not want the trouble to be known to your Allies?
Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr. BYRNE: British justice!
House counted—
Mr. BYRNE: I will raise this matter on the Motion for Adjournment to-morrow evening, if I get the chance—
And forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at Nine minutes after Eleven o'clock till to-morrow (Friday), pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.