CLAUSE 3.—(Local Government Franchise (Men.).)

HC Deb 18 June 1917 vol 94 cc1497-580

A man shall be entitled to be registered as a Local Government elector for a Local Government electoral area if he—

1. (a) is on the last day of the qualifying period occupying jointly or severally, as owner or tenant (but not as a lodger), any land or premises in that area; and
2. (b) has, during the whole of the qualifying period, so occupied any land or premises in that area, or, if that area is not an administrative county or a county borough, in the administrative county or county borough in which the area is wholly or partly situate:

Provided that the occupation of 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.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

I beg to move, after the word "area" [Local Government electoral area,"], to insert the words "in England and Wales."

This is an Amendment to confine the proposals in this Clause with regard to local government franchise to England and Wales in order that they shall not be applicable to Scotland. I would have preferred postponing this matter until the application Clause for Scotland was reached, but I understand from you that it is necessary the matter should be raised here before we come to Clause 4, which deals with the question of women's suffrage. The Parliamentary franchise there given to women is based upon the local government franchise dealt with in this Clause. If any change is to be made in the local government franchise in Scotland it will affect the provisions of Clause 4 dealing with the Parliamentary franchise for women, and the matter, therefore, is one which ought to be raised on this Clause and at an effective part of this Clause in order that the Government may clearly announce their intentions with regard to Scotland, and so that we shall have those intentions before us when Clause 4 is reached. I was a member of the Conference which was presided over by the Speaker, and which presented the Report upon which this Bill is based; and so far as the unanimous recommendations of that Conference are concerned, and so far as the compromise there arrived at is concerned, I, as a member of that Conference, am bound by them, and I have not considered myself free as an individual in this House to depart from them. But in moving this Amendment that this Clause as it at present stands should not apply to Scotland, I am not in any way doing so. It is rather the Bill itself, as at present drafted, which departs from the recommendations of the Conference. Up to the present the local government franchise in I Scotland has been different from the local government franchise in England. It has been much broader and more generous in the extent to which it has given the vote. The result is that the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, which was framed with a single eye to England, and indeed not with regard to the requirements of local government at all, but with the arrière pensêe of providing a formula on which Women's Parliamentary franchise should be based, would have a large disfranchising effect upon Scotland. The Members from Scotland present at the Conference raised these questions, and so much was the Conference impressed by the difficulties of applying the proposal in the Bill to Scotland that they unanimously agreed to make no recommendation whatever with regard to the local government franchise in Scotland.

Sir G. YOUNGER

They ran away from it and yet faced the difficulties of the Parliamentary franchise.

Mr. SCOTT

What does that phrase, "will make no recommendation with regard to the local government franchise,'' embodied in the Report of the Conference, somewhat vague and difficult to interpret, mean? Does it mean positively, "We recommend this provision shall not apply to Scotland"? I do not think that it does. I think it simply amounts to this. The Conference looked the difficulty in the face and passed on. "These matter from Scotland are too deep for us. We will confine ourselves to the local government franchise in England and leave the question of the local government franchise in Scotland to be dealt with in the House when the Bill is reached." I raise these question of the Speaker's Conference in order to make it clear that as a member of the Conference I am not in any way departing from the compromise which was arrived at and by which I consider myself bound.

The next question is what precise effect the proposal in the Clause here will have with regard to Scotland. The Bill introduces two different principles, one for the Parliamentary franchise and one for the local government franchise. The principle for the Parliamentary franchise is residence. The principle for the local government franchise is not residence, but is the occupation of premises whether as owner or as tenant. It is an occupation franchise which is given. So far as the greater part and the more important part of the local government elections in England are concerned, this will not mean any serious change with the exception of London, but with regard to Scotland it will amount to a disfranchising measure on a very large scale, and whatever else was intended this Bill was certainly not intended to be a disfranchising measure on a large scale. In Scotland in addition to the occupiers, all the lodgers who are on the roll as lodgers have a vote for local government purposes, and all persons who hold a service qualification, whether as a manager of a bank occupying the premises of the bank, or as an agricultural labourer living in a house belonging to the farmer, have votes. There is a third class who have votes for local government purposes in Scotland, and that is the non-resident owner, or the owner who is not himself the occupier. It cannot be denied that the owner is in a different position in Scotland from what he is in England, because in Scotland he pays his share of the rates in each of the parishes in which he owns property and so is interested in the administration of local affairs. I cannot say exactly how many people would be disfranchised by the proposal of the Bill in Scotland. In Glasgow 39,000 people would be disfranchised as lodgers, and throughout the whole of Scotland I have heard it estimated in the rough that probably 100,000 people would be so disfranchised. Those are people who have taken a very profound interest in local government in the past and indeed have exercised considerable influence upon the complexion of the various councils, urban and county. There would be the very strongest opposition from Scotland if the proposals of the Bill for local government franchise were passed in anything like the form in which they stand at present.

I would ask the Government to give particular attention to this fact that the opposition which comes from Scotland will not be from any one party, Liberal, Labour or Conservative. I understand they are all united in opposing the provisions as they stand so far as they relate to Scotland, and they demand as a minimum that we should have added to the provisions of the Bill the various classes whom I have shown the Bill would disfranchise. I think the Secretary for Scotland will by this time have received pretty fair evidence of the feeling in Scotland on this subject. I have recently received two representations which cover the greater part of urban and rural areas of Scotland. In the first place I have here a representation in a Resolution passed by the Parliamentary Bills Committee of the Convention of Burghs in Scotland which embraces most of the important burghs. They represent that it is their desire that in Scotland we should have the same franchise for local government purposes as for Parliamentary purposes. To-day there has also reached me a representation from the Executive Committee of the Association of County Councils in Scotland in which they are unanimous in making the same representation that the local government register should be identical with the Parliamentary register, and that we should have the same register for both purposes. This, it might no doubt be contended, would upset the balance of the Bill so far as England is concerned if applied to England, but I do not think it can be pretended that the conditions in Scotland are not different. After all it is a matter which would only affect us in Scotland.

Mr. MAURICE HEALY

Why has the hon. Gentleman undertaken to legislate for Ireland as this Amendment does?

Mr. SCOTT

I think my hon. Friend cannot have read the Amendment.

Mr. HEALY

I have. The Clause as it stands applies to Ireland. My hon. Friend proposes that it shall be limited in its application to England and Wales. Therefore, if his Amendment is carried, it will no longer apply to Ireland.

Mr. SCOTT

I apologise; but I am quite ready to agree that the Clause should refer to Ireland, if the people of Ireland desire it. I understood that Ireland was in the same position as Scotland.

Mr. HEALY

It is quite plain that some legislation on the municipal vote is necessary. If this Amendment is carried there will be none.

Mr. SCOTT

I would be quite willing to accept any Amendment with regard to Ireland which my hon. Friend desires. In this matter England is not concerned at all, and it really has no effect on the English municipalities or constituencies that Scottish municipalities should be elected on a different franchise, either direct or indirect. If it so happens that the people of Scotland are unanimous in desiring that their franchise as it exists at present should not be cut down, then I think the English members will be making no concession whatever if they simply say, "That is a matter which concerns yourselves, and we agree that it should be settled in accordance with the views of the Scottish people." There are two ways in which it might be settled. The first way is that we should have the same franchise for Parliamentary as for local government purposes. A second and more restricted way would be to propose that there should be added to the provisions of this Bill extra provisions which would secure that the persons entitled to vote as lodgers, service voters, or as owners, but for the passage of this Bill should have the franchise restored to them for local government purposes in Scotland. So far as the substance is concerned, I think it is six of one and half a dozen of the other, and in that aspect it does not matter very much which method you adopt. Practically the same people will be enfranchised, because when you add to the very broad occupation franchise of the Bill all the lodgers and all the service voters, there are practically very few left who would have got the franchise otherwise than on a residential basis. If, however, the Government is not willing to adopt the simple and plain way, there remains the other way, of adding to the provisions of this Bill for Scotland the lodgers' service, and owners' franchises. Though that will give the substance, it will have the considerable drawback of setting up very complicated machinery. One of the chief objects of this Bill is to secure simplicity in registration and one, clear, simple, direct franchise that does not require to be interpreted by lawyers and registration agents and all the political machinery which is usually required for registration purposes at present. There would be set up not only occupation fran- chise, but also lodgers', service, and owners' franchises, and some of the statutes down to be repealed in the Schedules would have to be retained so far as 'Scotland is concerned. It will give rise to complicated and difficult machinery which might have been swept away A simpler method of doing it would be to give us the same register for Parliamentary as for local government purposes. The demand is endorsed by two of the most representative bodies in Scotland, representing the burghs and the county councils.

There is one other difficulty, and that is the question of women's suffrage. I do rot intend to speak of my own personal views with regard to this question. I take it for granted for the purpose of this Clause that women's suffrage is passed, and that we have got to face the problem of how it has got to be extended to Scotland. If you make a different local government franchise in Scotland from that which obtains in England you will have the immediate difficulty that the Clause giving women the Parliamentary franchise in the Bill is based on the local government franchise. This House would not approve or I suppose would strongly object to a different Parliamentary franchise in Scotland from that which obtains in England. I do not know what the view of the House would be, but personally if the principle of women's suffrage is once granted, I see no difficulty in having it on a different basis in Scotland from England. Bu; we will accept the view that it must be on the same basis in Scotland and in England. That can be easily secured, and simply by a consequential Amendment dealing with women's suffrage. Instead of having women's Parliamentary franchise in Scotland based on the local government franchise, all one requires to do is to pick out the actual conditions of women's suffrage in England, embody them as a separate Clause, and state that those shall be the conditions under which women shall be entitled in Scotland. It would read somewhat in this way: "In Scotland a woman shall be entitled to be placed on the Parliamentary register if in the first place she is aged thirty years, and if in the second place she is an occupier, and if in the third place she has occupied for the qualifying period, or alternatively if her husband has been an occupier for the qualifying period." That would give us in Scotland exactly the same women's suffrage as in England. There is really no difficulty in that respect, I submit, with the exigencies of the suffrage Clause, which can be made separately, at any rate, to stand between us obtaining the local government suffrage such as is desired by the people of Scotland practically without exception. I hope very much that the Secretary for Scotland will be able to make some announcement which will set Scottish Members free in this respect with regard to the rest of this Clause. Unless that announcement is made, and if it is insisted that this Clause shall apply to Scotland in its present form, there will be not only considerable opposition in this House, but very widespread agitation in Scotland, where the people desire to retain their existing rights.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I desire to support the Amendment, particularly with the reservation of which my hon. Friend has spoken, and which deals with the Parliamentary franchise. The only difficulty I should have had in restoring the status quo in Scotland is that it would have placed the Parliamentary franchise on a different basis in regard to the women to that which we are proposing to enact, respecting the men. That, on the whole, would probably not have been satisfactory to this House. I must confess that I do not know that it reflects very great credit on the Speaker's Conference that when they came up against "snags" of this sort they looked them in the face—and passed on We are told that we are to accept the decisions of the Speaker's Conference; yet we find, when they come up against a difficulty they look at it and run away. It is not very satisfactory, and not very creditable, I think. We have been left to find a way out, and a way must be found out. it is very unfortunate, no doubt, to interfere in any way with the local government franchise in Scotland. We have the service and various other franchises in Scotland, and it would be very unfortunate, however necessary, to have to interfere with them. If it is possible—and I hope the Secretary for Scotland will agree—to follow out the suggestion of my hon. Friend, there would be no objection to the Amendment being accepted. I very much hope the Secretary for Scotland will see his way to accept it.

Mr. WARDLE

I do not quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down as to the Speaker's Conference looking at a thing and then passing on. I think, if the truth had to be told, it would probably be found that the members from Scotland were too deep, and did not point out to the rest of the Conference the entire signification of the reservation which was made by their representatives that the local government franchise of Scotland should not be interfered with by the Conference or by this House. But there the fact remains. The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division is rightly stating the case when he says that the raising of this question, so far as Scotland is concerned, is in no sense a breach of the agreement which was come to upstairs. I hope we shall hear less of that as we get along. The thing we have to remember is that the Speaker's Conference was composed of a set of human beings who undertook a very difficult task, and tried their very best to come to arrangements upon a large number of exceedingly difficult and intricate problems. If in the midst of all their labours there happens to be a few things of difficulty, like the present one, which were not faced, and not settled- it is not for the House to throw out insinuations of the kind which have just been made. On the contrary, when the range of subjects to which I have referred is taken into account, I think it will be found that an exceedingly valuable piece of work was done. In regard to this particular matter, I think there is a great deal to be said for a solution of it suggested by the hon. Member—at least, some part of a solution. I think, in view of the express statements which appear in the report of the Speaker's Conference, we cannot interfere, for ordinary municipal purposes, with the local government franchise in Scotland. That, I think, is clear. The hon. Member has referred to petitions and representations which have reached him from Scotland. Similar representations have reached myself and others. But as the recommendations in the Report distinctly state that this matter has practically not to be altered, I venture to think that the Government can find a way out by leaving the local government provisions in Scotland for local purposes as they are at present.

An HON. MEMBER

What about London?

Mr. WARDLE

When we come to that afterwards I shall have something to say on the matter. I am only now dealing with Scotland. In regard to Scotland I think the case is clear. When we reach the Clause relating to Women's Suffrage we must have the same franchise for women in Scotland as we have in this country. If provision can be made to meet these two separate and distinct cases I venture to hope that the Government may see their way to do it.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro)

The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division has raised a very important question upon this Amendment. It may be convenient at this stage that I should indicate the course that I propose to pursue in regard to it. The hon. Member is quite right in saying that representations have been made from most influential quarters on the lines of his Amendment and that resolutions, numerous and weighty, have reached me on the subject. The position of Scotland in this matter is entirely different from that in England. Recognising that fact, the Speaker's Conference, m Clause 31, says this in regard to the local government franchise: The Conference makes no recommendation in regard to the local government franchise in Scotland or Ireland. Whatever that recommendation may mean, it does not say in terms that the franchise in Scotland should remain unaltered, but it certainly does not mean that Scotland should follow the English model in dealing with the local government franchise. That is perfectly clear. That is a recommendation which the Speaker's Conference deliberately abstained from making. The reason is not far to seek. When you compare the two local government franchises on this side and the other side of the Border you will find that for years we have had a much more generous local government franchise in Scotland than obtains in England. It therefore follows that if there was an attempt made to follow the English model in this regard you would disfranchise far more people in Scotland than would be disfranchised in England. My hon. Friend probably is near the mark when he suggested that if the Bill stands in its present form about one hundred thousand Scottish Government electors would be disfranchised, and that although the Speaker's Conference made no recommendation whatever to that effect. In these circumstances, having had representations made to me from all parties in Scotland and from all my colleagues in Scotland, I am prepared to give effect to their wishes in this way. I propose, when the Scottish Clause is reached, to move Amendments which will have the result of continuing more or less in its present form the local government franchise in Scotland. I give no pledge—I can give no pledge—that I shall retain precisely the present form, but I will offer this undertaking: that I shall endeavour to find words which will have the result of substantially continuing the local government franchise in Scotland as it is to-day and preventing the disfranchisement of local government electors, which would result if the Bill were passed as it is at present. Having said that, I want to add this—to make it perfectly clear—so far as the women's Parliamentary franchise is concerned, that must obviously depend on the same considerations and rest upon the same basis in both countries. That is perfectly clear. To legislate otherwise would be to disturb the whole scheme of the Conference. While an endeavour will be made to preserve intact the local government franchise, at the same time provision will be made which will secure that so far as the women's Parliamentary franchise hinges upon the local government franchise the scheme will rest on precisely the same basis in Scotland as in England. In these circumstances I hope my hon. Friend may see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Lord H. CECIL

How do I understand the Secretary for Scotland when he says that the women's franchise will be placed on the same basis? If it is to be on the same basis in substance other words must be put in somewhere in the Bill in order that the franchise in Scotland shall be the same as in England.

Mr. MUNRO

That is precisely what I meant. I hope, as the Noble Lord has suggested, to insert words so as to produce the same result in Scotland as in England. That is exactly what I propose to do. The Committee may, therefore, take it in dealing with this Clause that words will be inserted in the Scottish Clause to prevent the application of Clause 3 in its present form applying to Scotland and to secure the substantial agreement to which I have referred. Perhaps my hon. Friend will now see his way to withdraw the Amendment he has moved.

Mr. WATSON

I welcome very cordially what has been told us about the prospective Amendments, and their application to the Clause relating to Scotland. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should be so good as to let us see his proposed Amendments in ample time and before they reach the state at which we take them. I ask that for this reason. It is very important as to whether or not a roll is to be made for the local government franchise. If so it will obviously either be a totally separate and new roll, additional to the Parliamentary franchise roll which means a vast amount of expense, or else it will mean a Parliamentary franchise roll plus an additional roll which will cover those who would otherwise be disenfranchised under the present Clause of the Bill relating to the local government franchise. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will keep this in mind, and will if possible, give us due notice of what Amendments ho is going to put forward.

7.0 P.M

Sir C. JOHNSTON

I am against going further, as was suggested by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment and who proposed that the local government franchise should be completely assimilated for the Parliamentary franchise. Representation and taxation, as we have often been told are supposed to go together. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not now!"] I suppose one of the reasons on which that is based is that the people tax themselves. That does not appeal to me in one shape because if I am going to be taxed against my will I would rather be taxed by a despot than by a majority. But there is one aspect of the matter which appeals to me, and that is that those who impose the taxes themselves should bear their share of the burden. We are in some danger in regard to this matter of local government of losing altogether sight of that principle. At the present moment, in Scotland lodgers are upon the municipal roll. They are, however, a much more restricted class than those which will be enfranchised under the new Parliamentary franchise. There is a good deal of the artificial at present about the lodger franchise, the nominal qualification of which is sole occupancy for the whole of a year of a room of—so it is said—the annual value, if unfurnished, of £10. That makes a considerable restriction upon the number of people who live in lodgings, and who are qualified for the franchise. Again, it is true that under the Small House Letting Act there are a number of people, like the compound householders in England, who do not pay rates directly but have the municipal franchise. These people, through their rent, have a pretty -intimate, if not an altogether satisfactory, relation with the rates; therefore it cannot be said that they altogether violate the principle that taxation and representation go together. But the very fact that there are so many recently admitted to the municipal franchise who do not directly pay rates is an argument against going further, because if we go much further we should be in this position in Scotland, that the vast majority in a great number of municipal areas who impose the rates would be people who do not pay rates. That would not, I think, make for efficiency or economy. There is another aspect of the question which is not unimportant, and that is that there is a very large fluctuating population who must under this Parliamentary scheme carry their franchise about with them. If they ate entitled to vote they must vote somewhere, and that place will be the place where they have been resident for six months. But, after ail, that is a national and not purely a local concern. I have been very familiar for many years with the county of Perth, which is extremely rich in water. Large waterworks are constructed from time to time, and for that purpose a large immigrant population is brought in, it may be for nine or twelve months. Those people will carry the votes with them, and will have the Parliamentary franchise in Perthshire, but it is quite unreasonable that a parish there should be swamped by 100 or 200 of this immigrant population with regard to local government. Therefore I think it is a good reason why we should not extend further the present local government franchise in Scotland.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am very glad the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has reminded the Committee that in the old days Liberals thought taxation and representation should go together—an excellent doctrine, and one which I wish had never been forgotten; but I am afraid it is a little too late in the day to bring forward that doctrine, because it is the last thing which the majority of Members in this House would support. I think in all probability the hon. Member and myself, and possibly one or two other sensible men, would be the only Members in this House who would support that doctrine. I do not want to enter into a discussion upon the question of Scottish local government. I do not understand it, and I should not like to set myself up as an authority, or in any way intervene between two Scottish Members when they seem to have come to such a very friendly agreement as has been come to between my hon. Friend behind me and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But there is such a place as England, and I would just like to know how far England is going to be affected by this change of front. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two or three questions, to which I hope he will kindly reply. Why was this put into the Bill if it were going to be abandoned at once? I presume it was put in because the Government considered it, and I presume they asked the opinion of the Scottish Law Officers, or some other eminent Scottish person. I do not know for the moment who is the Secretary for Scotland. I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon—I thought he was the Lord Advocate. I think he was a short time ago. There are so many changes that it is almost impossible to remember where we are. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman tell the Cabinet when this Clause was under consideration that this was a wrong Clause, and ought not to be inserted? [An HON. MEMBER: "There is no Cabinet!"] Then who is the despot who decides? The hon. Gentleman opposite said he likes to be taxed by despots. If there is no Cabinet, somebody must have decided. I am afraid I am rather unfortunate in my description of the powers-that-be. My ideas date from a prehistoric time, I presume, but at any rate somebody must have been consulted by the Government, and I want to knew why we are put to all this discussion when it might have been so easily avoided by simply putting into the Bill the fact that this Clause only applies to England and Wales?

The second question I want to ask is this: I understood from the right hon. Gentleman that, though he did not give a direct pledge, what he practically said was this, "I will undertake to preserve, as far as possible, or as nearly as possible, the existing law of our local government in Scotland." I think I am not misinterpreting the right hon. Gentleman. Why are we not having the existing law in England maintained as well? Why should we be treated differently in England and Wales? I am not objecting to Scotland being left in the same position, but why on earth are not England and Wales left in the same position? I know nothing about Scottish law, and I do not know much about English law, but if my hon. Friend opposite challenges me, I can show him there are very vital alterations as regards England. Under the Bill as it stands, a person can vote for a local authority in England, although he does not pay rates and has no intention of paying rates, but occupies something of no value, or only of small annual value. I do not, however, wish to raise that now, but I do want to know why England and Wales are going to be let down. Apparently the reason of all this alteration is that women may get the vote. This is really nothing to do with the description of the clause "Local Government Franchise (Men)." It is in order that women may get the vote, and the right hon. Gentleman has made a further promise that while the present law relating to the local government franchise in Scotland is to remain the same as it is now, there is to be some other law made which will allow women to have the vote under certain circumstances. May I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary why that should not apply also to England and Wales? What is being done, if this Amendment is accepted, is that the law as to local administration will remain as it is in Scotland, but it will not remain as it is in England and Wales, and what I want to know is, why should not England and Wales be treated in exactly the same way as Scotland?

Mr. R. McNEILL

There is one small circumstance connected with this Amendment which I think worth mentioning. The hon. Member in introducing his Amendment gave a number of reasons for saying that the Bill as it stands is quite inapplicable to Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland endorsed all that the hon. Member said, pointed out there was no rcommendation from the Speaker's Conference in the direction of the Bill, and used language something to the effect that any attempt to introduce the local government franchise into Scotland which obtains in England would be intolerable. The right hon. Gentleman is one of the sponsors of this Bill, and I want to know why he allowed the Bill to be drafted in the form in which it is now, and at this stage gets up on an Amendment and says that the Bill as it stands would be intolerable to Scotland.

Mr. H. P. HARRIS

I think that as the Secretary for Scotland has accepted the principle of the Amendment, if not the Amendment itself, we ought to know what is going to be done in the other cases. Take the case of London.

The CHAIRMAN

I am going to call an Amendment almost immediately in order to raise that point. I do not think it is necessary to raise that now.

Mr. BARRIE

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill that we in Ireland view the extension of this alteration to Ireland with some misgiving. Our Local Government Act is the most recent Local Government Act and is working harmoniously and satisfactorily in all parts of the country, and we are at a loss to understand why, without any request for an alteration, we are to have this proposal put upon us at this time. We think we suffer sufficiently if we have this Bill imposed upon us without redistribution of seats. What we do decidedly object to is that when our Act is under twenty years old, we should have a new local government franchise imposed upon us which gives a power for non-residential voters to be manufactured in sufficient numbers so as to come in and swamp the local electors. I would have preferred that we should have had an explanation now from the Home Secretary as to why this local government franchise should be imposed upon us.

Captain Sir OWEN PHILIPPS

I am reluctant to intrude in this Scottish Debate, but I have listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton and the other Scottish Members who have spoken in the discussion, and I also observed with interest that they induced the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland practically to give them what they want. What I would like to know is, what effect it is going to have on England and Wales. I had to live seven years of my life north of the Border, and during that time I learnt that the laws of Scotland were very much better than the laws of England and Wales, and very much cheaper when you went to law. We have been told that at the Speaker's Conference the Scottish members got to the windward of the English members in introducing that Clause which was read to us by the Secretary for Scotland. I would ask that when the Bill is altered in the way suggested by the Secretary for Scotland that the Home Secretary will see that the Bill, when altered in that way to meet the views of the Scottish members, will not be altered in such a way as to be to the detriment of England and Wales.

Sir G. CAVE

As regards the application of this proposal to England and Wales, I think we ought to defer that question to a later Amendment which deals in terms with England and Wales. The concession which has been made only applies to Scotland, and it cannot affect the state of matters in England and Wales, which will be dealt with hereafter. With regard to the other question asked by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, he says if you are going to do this why have you drawn the Bill as it is drawn? I confess that in this instance, and this only, I find some inconsistency in the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, and this is the only case in which I find a little difficulty in understanding what it means. They have recommended that women's suffrage should follow the local government franchise throughout the Kingdom, and. of course, that assumes a uniform local government franchise throughout the Kingdom. I have already stated why the Bill is drawn as it is. With regard to Ireland we are asked why the concession does not apply to that country. All I can say is-that if it is asked for by Irish representatives we will deal with that request. I am rather doubtful, from the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chester (Sir Owen Philipps), whether he desires this proposal to apply to Ireland, and I think his remarks rather tended the other way. Of course, I do not bind him to what he has said to-day, but when we come to the Irish Clause, if he asks for a concession of this kind, we shall have to deal with it.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

I am sure the announcements which have been made by the Home Secretary will give universal satisfaction in Scotland among the members of all parties, and I think it will have the effect of making the Bill, so far as Scotland is concerned, what we desire to be an agreed Bill. Some questions of detail will arise. For these reasons I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: After the word "he" ["electoral area if he—"] insert the words "is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity and"—[Sir G. Cave.]

Mr. ADAMSON

I beg to move to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert instead thereof the words "is registered as a Parliamentary elector."

I was pleased to hear the announcement made by the Secretary for Scotland as to the manner in which he proposes to deal with the local government franchise. I wish to point out, however, that my Amendment goes further than Scotland, and if it is given effect to it would to a considerable degree relieve the anxiety of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). If my Amendment is given effect to it will simplify the register very much. It provides that the Parliamentary register shall be the local government register, and I am sure this is a principle which is desired by a considerable number of Scottish people. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. MacCallum Scott), when moving his Amendment, said he had received representations asking why the Parliamentary register should not foe made the local government register. T think most Scottish members will be in the same position. The County Councils Association for Scotland desire that this should be done with a view of reducing enormously the work of the parties who will be responsible for the making up of the register.

If the Secretary for Scotland would seriously look at this Amendment. I think he would come to the conclusion that if it was given effect to it would remove many of the difficulties which we shall be face to face with when the Amendment is put down to secure the local government vote on exactly the same conditions as it is at the present time in Scotland. The local government vote is quite as important as the Parliamentary vote, and it is quite as essential in the interests of good government that the administration of the law should be well looked after as it is for the laws to be well made. I am sure that there are many of those who would be given a vote for local government purposes if my Amendment was given effect to who are very anxious to secure this vote. It is quite as important for this purpose that they should have a say in the administration of the law as that they should have a say in the making of the laws. If this Amendment is given effect to it will take away many of the difficulties that would otherwise arise regarding the lodger vote, not only in Scotland and Ireland, but also in the London area. I hope that the Home Secretary will see his way to give effect to the Amendment which stands in my name, and which I have moved.

Mr. GILBERT

I should like to support this Amendment because, perhaps, it is in a simpler form than the one I nave down on the Paper raising practically the same question of the London local government elector. At the present time the Parliamentary elector in London has the local government franchise, and by the Clause as drafted it is proposed to exclude the lodger vote from the local government franchise. The reason I am supporting the Amendment before the Committee is that this proposal will do in a simpler form what I wish. We have had in London for local government purposes the vote given to all persons who had the Parliamentary franchise, and amongst them were the lodgers living in both furnished and unfurnished lodgings. When I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he was prepared to leave the Scottish franchise alone I hoped that he would be prepared to leave the lodger voter the local government franchise also. This is a question upon which some of us in London feel very keenly. We have in round figures, with the twelve months' qualification, about 180,000 lodger voters, and with the new six months' franchise I estimate we shall at least double that number, and it seems to me that this is a very strange kind of Franchise Bill if you are going first of all to increase the number of your Parliamentary electors while at the same time you disfranchise a great number of your local government electors. I hope the Government will be able to tell us that they will accept this Amendment, and save us the trouble of moving the other Amendments specially dealing with the case of London.

Sir F. BANBURY

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment because it is a great departure from the Resolutions of the Conference, and certainly it would be an extraordinary alteration in the franchise dealing with local government matters. The result of this would be that any person occupying two rooms and having grown-up children living with him, in that case the children would pay no rates and practically would have no interest in the locality except that they happen to reside there for a short time with their parents, and they would have votes and would be able to impose rates upon others in the constituency, and they might vote for any foolish thing. They might say, "What does it matter to us if it is going to give us a little comfort or pleasure for the moment. We shall be gone afterwards and we shall have nothing to pay." It is a ridiculous Amendment, and I really hope that, at any rate, on this occasion the Speaker's Conference will be regarded as sacred, and that the Resolutions will not be departed from.

Sir G. CAVE

I thought when I heard my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) speaking just now that it was difficult to reconcile what he said with what he stated a while ago. As regards this particular Amendment we must look at the Bill as a whole. It is not right because we quarrel with one particular Clause in it to ask that that Clause should be amended, and at the same time to take back one of the concessions which you have made. The hon. Member for West Newington (Mr. Gilbert) is under a misapprehension as to the effect of this Amendment. This Amendment does not have the effect that he desires of restoring the lodger franchise in London and elsewhere, but it would have the effect of conferring a new vote altogether which is not now enjoyed for any purpose If this Amendment were carried you would have every resident given a local government vote. It has been said that there is a special peculiarity about the local government franchise. It is one thing to say that every man or every resident should have a Parliamentary vote, and another when you are spending rates to say that everybody who is living in the area, whether he occupies premises or not, should have a vote for local government matters. The two things are different. I think the Conference recognised that and Parliament has recognised it too. They have laid it down that a man "shall be an occupier as owner or tenant of land or premises." That, of course, is a narrower definition than the definition of residence, and I hope we shall adhere to it. I think we had 'better not go now into the question, which will arise later, as to what is the meaning of that definition. I do not want to quarrel now about the lodger. We shall have enough about him during the discussion on later stages of the Bill. This Amendment goes much further than has been stated and the Government cannot accept it, for it would mean a serious alteration in the Bill.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

I should like to ask the Home Secretary what would be his attitude when we reach the Amendment later on? If I understand the Report of the Speaker's Conference aright, it was intended that any measure brought in on the basis of that Report should disfranchise nobody. As a matter of fact you are disfranchising some 300,000 people under the proposals of the Bill, one-third of them in London, and you are materially reducing the register. It will be no satisfaction to persons who hitherto have been enjoying the vote if they themselves are disfranchised to be told that other people are to be enfranchised. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot adopt this particular Amendment I hope he will be more friendly to the Amendments later on in which we give such a definition of premises as will give those persons who are residents, and who do occupy parts of premises as lodgers, and who do in their rent pay rates, whether directly or otherwise, the local government vote.

The CHAIRMAN

That is rather unfair to hon. Members who are waiting for that particular point to arise, and I have been anxious to preserve the opportunity.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

I am very sorry to trespass, but I only wanted to know whether the Home Secretary would indicate what his attitude towards the Amendments to which I have referred would be before we vote on this Amendment.

Lord H. CECIL

The Home Secretary made an excellent speech. He adopted a principle which I am greatly in sympathy with. If I followed his argument, which hardly seemed consistent with the Bill, I understood him to say that in regulating this miserable franchise you want to build on the principle that people who have no responsibility, who do not pay taxation, ought not to be enfranchised. I think that is most reasonable. You want a certain sense of responsibility in your voter, who, if he has not a burden upon him in relation to it, ought not to have a voice in the government of his locality. The right hon. Gentleman is prepared to press this principle so far as to cut out from the franchise those who are now exercising it. It seems to me a sound principle, and he is prepared to act up to it with consistency, even up to removing from the franchise those who now exercise it. But it is an amazing proposition, is it not, that persons who are fit for the Parliamentary vote and who now have the municipal vote are to be removed from the franchise? If the theory of franchise is right, that these various qualifications are only designed to get at the fit voter—at the person who is himself fit for the municipal or Parliamentary franchise—you have to argue that a person who pays rates is fit for the Parliamentary franchise, but he is not fit for the municipal franchise even though he has exercised a municipal franchise already. I need not say that the conclusion I should draw is not that this Amendment should be accepted, but that the Government should have modified other parts of their Bill so as to make the Parliamentary franchise depend upon essentially the same principle as the local government franchise. I cannot help feeling that to base a settlement of the franchise question on a contradiction is not good legislation. The whole defence for this Bill is that it is called a comprehensive settlement. Comprehensive settlements are always rather alarming. This is called a comprehensive settlement, and the theory is that we are not to have another Franchise Bill for a considerable time. You will not get permanency of settlement if you have not a coherent theory, if you have not something underlying your franchise which everyone knows and which can be appealed to as the principle on which it is based and which makes it stable and firm and lasting for a number of years. You are now erecting a visibly unstable structure. You are making your local government franchise rest on one basis and your Parliamentary franchise on quite a different one, not merely m the matter of form, but in substance and reality. I do not think that will be a plan that will have in it any elements of finality. I hope the Government will on subsequent stages of the Bill reconsider the Parliamentary franchise and put it on a proper basis.

Mr. H. SAMUEL

There may be a good deal to be said in theory for the ultimate amalgamation of the Parliamentary and local franchises, but I rise to point out what has not hitherto been mentioned, namely, what would be the effect if this apparently comparatively unimportant Amendment moved by my hon. Friend opposite were accepted and were incorporated in the Bill. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is going to a Division, but if he were to do so, and were successful, one incidental effect would be to change the women's suffrage clause, which comes on later. That clause provides that a woman who is qualified and upon the local government register shall have the Parliamentary franchise. My hon. Friend's Amendment would make the local government franchise the residential franchise which has already been passed in a previous clause. The consequence would be that every woman who is a resident in the place would have a local government franchise, and consequently under a later clause would also have conferred upon her the Parliamentary franchise. If my hon. Friend has his way, and if the remainder of the Bill remains as stands, he will be enfranchising by his apparently innocent proposal 7,000,000 women for the Parliamentary vote. The right way to deal with the question of disenfranchisement is on the Amendment which is put down later in the name of the hon. Member for St. Pancras. If we vote against this Amendment if it goes to a Division, it must not be assumed that we are voting in favour of disfranchising any existing local government electors. That is the question which will come up on a subsequent Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill) to leave out paragraph (a) is not in order in the form in which it appears on the Paper.

Mr. R. McNEILL

I do not propose to move that nor the next Amendment in my name to leave out the words ("is on the last day of the qualifying period"), and insert "has for the last thirty days of the qualifying period been." My right hon. Friend will remember that a discussion took place on Clause 1 when I moved Amendments having the same object in view. On that occasion, after some discussion which I do not wish to recall, my right hon. Friend proposed an alternative form of Amendment to those which I had on the Paper, with the object of carrying out the intention of my Amendment in a way which he thought more convenient. I therefore do not propose now to trouble my right hon. Friend with these Amendments. I accept the form in which my right. Friend proposes to deal with this matter. I have not got the terms of his Amendment before me, and I have not been able to see them, but I know their purpose, and I will only say now that I have put down at a later part of this Clause an Amendment which my right hon. Friend will find oh the Paper, and which substantially, at all events, follows the line of his Amendment in Clause 1, with a slight alteration which I shall have an opportunity of explaining when we come to that Amendment. In the meantime I will merely say that these two Amendments which we have now reached need not be moved for the reason I have given. My right hon. Friend will know that the matter will be dealt with in its own place later on. I do not move.

Major NEWMAN

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word "as" ["as owner or tenant"].

I put this Amendment down largely to get information from the Home Secretary, or from the Government, as to what the word "occupying" means. Of course, the qualification of the local government elector is known at the present time, but that qualification differs very widely from what will be the case under this Bill if it becomes an Act, or if Clause 3, if passed, should stand in its present form. At the present moment a local government elector may be a man or a woman, but must be of full age, and must for twelve months have been in the occupation, joint or j several, of a house, warehouse, counting house, shop, or other building, in the parish, or he must, during the same period, be an occupier as owner or tenant of some land or tenements in the parish of the yearly value of rot less than £10. Of course, this is a very big difference to what we get now under this Bill.

Mr. M. HEALY

Is it in order to move an Amendment which, if accepted, would make nonsense of the Clause? If this word is omitted the Clause will be meaningless.

Major NEWMAN

If the hon. Gentleman will refer lower down he will see that I have further Amendments which will not make the Clause nonsense. If my Amendment and the consequential Amendments were accepted, the beginning of paragraph (a) would read, "Is on the last day of the qualifying period jointly or severally owner or tenant." As I was saying, this particular Clause, if passed as it stands at present, will make a great difference, to the local government elector in the qualifications he will need to have. All he has to have now is any land or premises. There is no question about being the owner of a house, warehouse, shop, or other building; neither is there anything about a £10 qualification. All he has to do is to have, as owner or tenant, some land or premises in that area. What does occupying mean? I will just put this to the Home Secretary as an obvious example. Take the case of a firm of billposters. They have their business office, we will say, somewhere in London. They own or rent all over the country certain stations, for which they pay £l a year. As far as I can make out, under this particular Clause, taking each of these bill stations at a rent of £l per annum, the owner of that bill station has a vote, and then, of course, each of the partners in this billposting business in London also has a vote for the bill-posting station worth £1 a year, and they can, therefore, as a matter of fact, have votes as local government electors, these three gentlemen, all over the country in respect of their various stations, at a rent of £l. That may be an extreme instance, but it is worth considering, and shows how widely this particular Clause is drawn, and what an enormous number of electors it will add to the local government register. I should like to obtain from the Home Secretary a statement as to whether he really means in this particular case that the occupying owner need be not an occupying owner at all, but only an owner. If so, in that case any tenant will also have a vote in respect of the same property. I imagine from what he told us that he means that under this Bill the local government elector, as distinct from the Parliamentary elector, ought to have some sort of possession, be it small or be it great, in the area where he is going to vote as a local government elector. Where he votes as a Parliamen- tary elector that will do, but where he votes as a local government elector mere residence will not do. We want something else, be it only something small. If that were done then we should have some sort of definition as to what "occupying" means, and, to my mind, it would be simpler, of course, and more in accordance with the intentions of those who drafted the Bill if we left out the word "occupying" and made the beginning of paragraph (a) read: "Is on the last day of the qualifying period jointly or severally owner or tenant." As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has been action after action as to what is meant by "occupying." Thousands of pounds have been wasted on lawyers in trying to find out what occupying means'. I suggest that if we omit the word now we shall make the Bill somewhat simpler and more in accordance with what the trainers of the measure meant.

Sir G. CAVE

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not mentioned what is really the most important effect of his Amendments taken together, and that is to give a vote to the absentee owner. If you take away the word "occupying" it gives the vote to anybody who is an owner or tenant of property in the district, and will give a vote to the owner who is not occupying. One of the most important changes made in the local franchise is that we take away the vote of the absentee owner and confine the local government vote to occupiers, whether as owner or tenant. The question of the meaning of "occupying" has been the subject of so much discussion that I think it is well understood by lawyers and others, and that it is a word which there will be no difficulty in defining under this Bill. A subtenant is, I have no doubt, an occupying tenant. On the other hand, a billposter is not a tenant at all, and will not come within this Clause. You must have a man who, as owner or tenant, occupies land or premises. I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment or the consequential Amendments because they would very seriously alter the whole basis of the Clause in this respect, and in others.

Lord H. CECIL

I cannot refrain from pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman that with every speech he makes he carries the confusion further. He objects now to this Amendment because it would enfranchise the absentee owner. The absentee owner pays rates, and if the basis of the franchise was to be the payment of rates, as he argued last time he addressed the House, then the absentee owner is as much entitled to vote as anyone else. If, on the other hand, the basis of the franchise is to be residence, then he ought to have resisted the last Amendment. If the basis of the franchise is to be that whoever pays and contributes to the cost of municipal government is to have a vote, then there is no reason why an absentee landlord should not have the vote. If, on the other hand, you want residence, then the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member who proposed to ignore the rate-paying qualification and to depend substantially on residence.

Sir G. CAVE

It would not be the absentee owner but the tenant who pays the rates.

Lord H. CECIL

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, nothing is so difficult to ascertain as the precise incidence of rates, but it is obvious that if a landowner is letting his property in a highly rated district the high rates the tenant will have to pay will tend to make the rent received by the landlord less. To say that an absentee landowner does not pay rates would be to go against a great many important authorities. Indeed, if I recollect aright, very eminent writers have advocated rates on the ground that the owner of the soil is the person who bears the cost. I submit that the Government are baaing their franchise on an inconsistency. This is one of the results on trying to make what you call a compromise. You cannot have efficient legislation and legislation based on sound principles, if what you have always to consider is whether you have given a halfpenny of advantage to the Liberals or a farthingsworth of advantage to the Conservatives instead of considering sound principles of legislation. The practical importance of this inconsistency is that what you are doing will not last. If you do not have sound principles you will not have a staple erection and hon. Members who are supporting this Bill in the hope that this will be the last Franchise Bill for many years will find themselves disappointed.

Sir F. BANBURY

I can well understand the explanation given to my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Newman), who is quite justified in putting forward his Amendment. I understand the ex- planation, especially with regard to a man occupying billposting stations, is that the law would hold that a man did not occupy a billposting station because he did not pay rent.

Sir G. CAVE

I say he would not be an occupier because he is an absentee and not a tenant.

Sir F. BANBURY

Then it must be with regard to something my Noble Friend (Lord H. Cecil) said that the question of rates came in. Surely occupying a station for certain purposes is occupying it for business purposes. You take a station to post placards on it, for the purpose of occupying it for your business, just in the same way as you take an office for your business. It seems to me quite possible for the billposter to say that he keeps this particular station for the purpose of his business, and that therefore he ought to have a vote for the local franchise Then there comes in the question of rates. I hope I have not made a mistake, but I certainly understood the Home Secretary to say that rates were part of the provision which was necessary in order to enable a man to appear on a local register. There is, however, nothing I can see in the Clause about that. Perhaps I misunderstood him?

Sir G. CAVE

indicated assent.

Sir F. BANBURY

Then I will not pursue that, as there is an important Amendment with regard to rates later on. I think we ought to have a definition of rates later on, and that it would be a good thing. I do not quite understand what the effect is, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, legal decisions often differ, and even people like judges do not always hold the same view upon legal questions. I do not want to pursue the remarks of my Noble Friend when he talked of a halfpenny of advantage to Liberals and a farthing's worth of advantage to Conservatives. I have never seen the advantage to the Conservatives, and I do not think that if I sat through the whole of the Debates on this Bill I should ever see any.

Major NEWMAN

May I ask one question? It seems to me that there is a difference between a county council vote in London and in the country. In London all persons on any Parliamentary or parochial list are entitled to vote for a county council election, and this includes non-resident owners and lodgers, whereas outside London the non-resident owners and lodgers are not entitled to vote in an election for a county council. From what the right hon. Gentleman has cold us, I take it that so far as London goes the owner of property will not be able to vote at a county council election unless he is resident on a particular property. Is that so?

Sir G. CAVE

indicated assent.

Major NEWMAN

Then that will make a change.

Amendment negatived.

Colonel L. WILSON

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words "jointly or severally."

I am moving this Amendment in order to get some clearer definition from the Government than we have at present. The Home Secretary entirely agrees with me that it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this municipal vote, and, as he has just said, the vote should not be given to everybody living in a place whether he occupies premises or whether he does not. If you read the whole of this Clause and take in the words "jointly or severally." it appears to me that anyone can get the municipal vote so long as he joins in with any number of other people. Let me take a case of an allotment inside the municipal area. There you may have one, two, or ten or twenty, or even thirty or forty joint occupiers who jointly or severally occupy this land or premises. I do not in the least desire to limit this franchise, but in view of the great importance of the municipal vote, I should like some clearer definition from the Government on the subject. If the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton), I should be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment I have moved now.

8.0 P.M

Mr. R. McNEILL

My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment spoke too modestly with regard to its merits, because he was apparently willing to use it for the purpose of getting information from the Home Secretary. I had also given notice of a similar Amendment, and I hope very strongly that my hon. and gallant Friend will press his Amendment, because it is one of very great substance. If the Clause remains as it stands, will my right hon. Friend consider the effect of it I The tenant of any house can arrange to have all the members of his family, except his wife, tenants with him, and all qualifying for the local government franchise. In that way he can take one of his sons or daughters as tenant of one of the rooms of his house and qualify them. My right hon. Friend has already said, in reply to another Amendment, that there is no intention here of giving a vote to- the absentee owner. Why should we any more give a vote to the absentee occupier?—because that is exactly what the Clause will do as it stands—and when we remember that the Parliamentary franchise is now to rest solely upon residence, it becomes all the more obligatory upon us, I think, to see that those who get the local government franchise should also be bondâ fide; residents. But under this Clause a number of persons doing business in some neighbouring town, or in the country, might be made joint owners or tenants with the same occupier. In the Bill they will all get on to the local government list without having anything whatever to do with the place where they were entitled to vote, beyond the fact that they were nominally joint tenants of a house. That obviously also opens the door to any amount of gerrymandering. It does not require very much imagination to see that under the Clause as it stands an astute election agent in the local government area would see a way of getting a greater number of voters on the list, who would have no concern with the interests of the place, who would be in no sense of the word ratepayers in that area, and who, in fact, would be bogus voters. What is the object of keeping the words "jointly or severally" unless it is to enable bogus voters of that sort to qualify? There may be a certain number of instances—I do not believe there will be many—where there may be a hard lease created by cutting out these words. But there is a vast number of potential voters who would qualify. Therefore I strongly support the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend, and I believe it is so important that he should go to a Division unless the Home Secretary is able to meet him.

Mr. MAURICE HEALY

I do agree that there should be some strong limitation of the number of joint tenants. We have already in Clause 1 reaffirmed the existing law which prevents you having a certain number of joint occupants in the county. Under the existing law you had joint occu- pation, but you had the limitation of money value. I could not support a proposal of this kind, because I think the limitation here would be objectionable. I think the right to get the vote should be limited to those who are bondâ fide; people. It is the wish of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment to provide safeguards, but they should seek to do it, not by a vote which would exclude from the franchise those entitled to be on it, but to limit it in a way that would restrict it to the bondâ fide; occupation.

Sir G. CAVE

I am in accord with much that has been said by the hon. Member for Cork. Why should two partners who are joint occupiers of a shop or premises both be disfranchised? You will have a considerable value of capital, and surely both partners should have the right to vote in respect to those premises. The proper way to deal with it will not be by taking out the words, but by providing some limit as to the vote in respect of premises jointly occupied. I think the hon. Member for East Cork would limit the number to five. Clause t limited the number to two. If that is a more reasonable number, I do not want to lay down any rule now, but what I suggest is that is the way to deal with it, instead of cutting out these words. Perhaps the hon. Member will consider on Report whether an Amendment can be framed to deal with the question in the way I have indicated.

Mr. McNEILL

It is not so much a question of numbers, because nobody wants to exclude anyone who is a bondâ fide;, voter. If, under a colourable pretence, it were limited to five, such a number as that would leave the door open to a great deal of gerrymandering. It may be that the number two is unreasonably small, and it is difficult to apply to what I want to see done in limitation of numbers. I suggest that if you should devise some better form of security, some such words as "joint tenancy" of people bondâ fide; in the course of business, they will be more satisfactory than any others perhaps. If I were driven to name a number, though I think it might unjustly give rise to disfranchising a bondâ fide; case, I would prefer two instead of five.

Colonel GRETTON

The matter really goes further than is generally understood. I think my hon. and learned Friend says it is likely to open the door to faggot voting, and the difficulty appears to arise from the fear that we are disfranchising a number of ratepapers. There is a kind of vague idea in this Clause that occupation should be a sufficient qualification. The old qualification was that the occupier should be resident there and contribute to the local rates, and be interested in local administration. If you do away with that qualification you land yourself in an extreme difficulty. That is the difficulty which the Government has now struck. Everyone will agree that faggot voting is a very undesirable thing. You want bondâ fide; qualifications, and bondâ fide; reasons for the vote; and what better qualification can you have than that the man or woman who is a voter dealing with local government questions should also be a ratepayer? I think the Government will come back to that conclusion when they investigate this matter more closely and find out in what way they can best prevent faggot voting in local government elections. This actually goes a great deal further than it stands. When hon. Members are required to meet the Clause they will find that the local government qualification as regards women is thirty years of age, and it is also to be the Parliamentary qualification, and if the Government do not get this local government register right and get bondâ fide; qualifications they will have any number of faggot votes in the women's franchise. The Government should be very careful how they deal with this matter, and should examine the Bill, which was drafted under great pressure. Certain divisions have been able, cither owing to the courtesies of those in charge of the Bill or their own astuteness, to emphasise many loopholes through which a coach-and-four may be driven. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman raised the point that the Amendment shall be struck out of the Bill; he pointed out the great error in regard to this Clause winch will have to be rectified, as a fundamental matter, not a matter of detail striking at the root of the whole Clause and the whole of the qualifications with regard to the local government vote.

Colonel L.WILSON

In view of what has been said by hon. Members of the House, and that the Government have acknowledged themselves that there are loopholes if those words stand as they are in the Bill I cannot ask leave to withdraw the Amendment unless the Government will give the House some assurance that I they will introduce an Amendment in the House to deal with the matter. The importance of it cannot be exaggerated. In view of Clause 4 and the possibility of gerrymandering, it is essential that the matter should be dealt with.

Sir G. CAVE

I can give that assurance. If an Amendment is not put down by some hon. Member, we will put it down ourselves.

Colonel WILSON

In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MULDOON

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "severally," to insert the words "or in common.

Under the law as it at present stands the occupier must be the sole owner. It has been decided in Ireland—I have no knowledge of what is the fact in England—that a joint tenant was not entitled to the household franchise because he was not the sole owner, and the same thing was also decided in the case of a tenant in several. It was also held that where a tenant's interest was as a tenant in common he was not entitled to the household franchise. The Bill enfranchises joint tenants and tenants in several, but it leaves out tenants in common. That affects us to a considerable extent in Ireland, and would disfranchise a considerable number of people. I have no objection whatever to limiting the number of people that may come in, but, like the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy), I should prefer that there were some general words showing that the occupation in all cases must be bondâ fide; and for a specific purpose, rather than that we should introduce any limitation as regards number. If the Clause is to be honestly administered it must be decided in every case that the occupation is bondâ fide;.

Sir G. CAVE

We have certainly no desire to exclude tenants in common. Tenants in common are included in these words.

Mr. MULDOON

Each of them?

Sir G. CAVE

I quite agree that taking the word "jointly" in a strict legal sense it only applies to joint owners who, in the case of death, succeed to each other's interest in property, while on the death of a tenant in common the surviving tenant in common does not succeed. The words "jointly or severally" are not used in the strict legal sense here, but in the ordinary sense of the words. They have appeared in Acts of Parliament for many years in this connection. No one has asked that in England, or, I think, in Ireland, that tenants in common shall come under the words "jointly or severally." The hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong. Until I am convinced otherwise, it seems to me that these words cover both cases. "Jointly or severally" means where there is one person or where there are more acting together as tenants or owners. In these circumstances the words "or in common" are unnecessary, and it is undesirable to depart from the old law. I am quite ready, if my hon. Friend desires to go into the matter, to discuss it with him before the Report stage, but to-day my own view is that the words are not required.

Mr. MULDOON

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. DICKINSON

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words "(but not as a lodger.)"

When this Bill was read a second time I pointed out that these words had been inserted but were not in the Report of the Conference. I understand that they have been put in because there was some uncertainty in the minds of those who drafted the Bill as to what was the meaning of the Conference. On this point there is some difficulty, but I think I can make it clear that the Conference did not mean to exclude everybody who at present is called a lodger. We are now dealing with a compromise which was come to at the Conference. Personally, I was always in favour of giving the municipal vote as widely as the Parliamentary vote. My own proposal has always been that everybody who had a Parliamentary vote should be entitled to the municipal vote. The Conference, however, did not accept that proposition. Their view was, as the Home Secretary has just stated, that it woud not be fair to add 2,000,000 new residential Parliamentary voters to the municipal register. We are bound, therefore, to find a class of voter more directly connected with the provision and expenditure of money through the rates. That, of course, would knock out the ordinary lodger, that is to say, the man or woman who takes a furnished apartment and lives in it for a short time, comes under the ordinary category of a lodger. Unfortunately, the Courts have extended the meaning of the word "lodger" very much further than that. Many hon. Members are aware of the position and I need not elaborate it. The result of the various decisions has been that a large class of persons in towns, who take unfurnished floors in the poorer dwellings, have not been regarded as lodgers for no other reason than that their immediate landlord lives on the premises. The Courts have always recognised that if a man owns a house and lets out all the floors to different families, the occupier of each floor has been deemed to be an occupier and has obtained the Parliamentary vote, but when the landlord of the house lives on the premises—and that is the case in thousands of instances in London and the large towns—perhaps occupying the poorest part, or the very basement, and lets out all the other floors in order to make a profit, that has disfranchised all the occupiers on the other floors, on the ground that they were not lodgers.

It was distinctly understood in our discussion in the Conference that that obligation was to be done away with, and that it was to be made perfectly clear that anyone who was paying rates indirectly through his rent, whether he was a ratepayer himself or whether he was not, was to have the new municipal franchise. It is very difficult to define in statutory language the particular class we wish to enfranchise. The way I suggest and which is considered by those who have thought about the matter to be the only practical way, is to divide the lodger into two classes, first, a lodger who occupies furnished apartments, and secondly, a lodger who takes an unfurnished dwelling, however small it may be—it may be only one room or two rooms—and goes to the expense of furnishing it himself and thereby, to all intents and purposes, stands on the same footing as an ordinary dweller in a West-End flat, whose apartments are his own. He has practically full control over them, notwithstanding the fact that the landlord lives in the house. I propose, if the Committee agrees to strike out the words "not as a lodger," later on to move a proviso, "that for the purposes of this section the word 'tenant' shall not include a person who occupies a room or rooms as a lodger except where such room or rooms are let to him in an unfurnished state." Of course even with an Amendment like that the Clause undoubtedly disfranchises a very considerable number of municipal voters in London and in Scotland, but in London particularly. There are about 108,000 persons on the lodger list as Parliamentary voters at present. Of these about 65,000 occupy unfurnished lodgings—those which I described just now—and about 43,000 occupy furnished, therefore even if this proposal is carried, which I suggest as being in exact compliance with the report of the Speaker's Conference, it operates undoubtedly as a disfranchising measure to a certain number of municipal voters who at present have their votes for the county council in London. Of course it is only in London that this occurs. In all the larger cities in England and Wales the municipal vote is still limited. The burgess vote is an occupation vote and does not include the lodger or the service franchise voter as it does in London, and therefore it is that this Amendment in effect really has an important bearing chiefly upon London, so far as England and Wales is concerned, and I therefore hope that in view of the feeling which has been aroused in London from the fact that it appears to be a very wide disfranchising measure this more limited proposal which I put forward may commend itself to the Home Secretary.

Sir G. CAVE

Taken altogether these two Amendments seem to me to give effect to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. There is considerable confusion now in the local government franchise as regards lodgers. In the county council and borough council elections they have no vote at all. In London and in the district councils in the county lodgers have a vote. In Scotland the female lodger has a vote. We want now to get some sort of uniformity in the local government franchise. The Speaker's Conference recommended that we should give the local government franchise to persons who occupy premises as owners or tenants. There is, I agree, ambiguity about that, and it was quite right to raise the point. I think the draftsman thought that occupation as a tenant did not include the position of a lodger, and I doubt very much whether it does include the position of the lodger as we understand it here—a person who has the benefit of occupying furnished rooms and certain other benefits. I doubt whether he comes within the terms of an occupier as tenant. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that if we are not careful we may exclude from the franchise persons who occupy unfurnished rooms. There is a very old controversy about which lawyers have made, considerable profits during the last two years as to how much control on the part of a landlord will prevent a man being entitled to a vote. We want to put an end to that if we can, and I think it is some advantage to get rid of the word "lodger." The effect of the two Amendments together is that the tenant of an unfurnished room is entitled to the vote, while the lodger occupying furnished rooms is not. That is, I think, a fail-reading of the report of the Speaker's Conference. I think we might fairly accept the two Amendments together, so as to meet all reasonable objections.

Mr. T. WILSON

I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has moved this Amendment and thought it necessary to put down the later Amendment. In London, and in quite a number of our large provincial towns as well, the custom has been going on for some years of firms and men who have built large premises furnishing them and letting them as flats, etc., to tenants. I cannot for the life of me see the difference between a man paying 10s. a week for unfurnished rooms and paying 15s. for furnished rooms and one man having a vote and the other not. This custom is growing very rapidly in London, and is also growing in our large provincial towns. My Amendment would cover the whole thing. It would give the vote to both. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment and accept that in my name, that a sub-tenant shall have a vote whether he takes the rooms furnished or unfurnished. I am quite satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman has not gone into the matter as thoroughly as he generally goes into these matters. I was surprised to hear him supporting what I call a limiting Amendment; that is, taking the franchise away from people who already have it. But there is something more. The right hon. Gentleman's second Amendment will lend itself to gerrymandering—to a person taking a room and buying furniture at a nominal rent, and when he leaves the premises he will leave the furniture. In the interests of the purity of the franchise, to put it no higher than that, the right hon. Gentleman should allow me to move my Amendment, which I am satisfied will meet with the approval of a very large number of people in London who, under his Amendment, will be disfranchised, and it will also be appreciated by people in our large provincial towns and cities. I hope the Attorney-General will not close his mind to my Amendment, which I put down prior to his, and which, in my opinion, and in that of the party with which I am associated, covers the whole ground so far as lodgers are concerned.

Sir J. SIMON

I think very many of us will sympathise a good deal with what has just been said by my hon. Friend, but at the same time I propose to support what I understand the Home Secretary suggests and that is the adoption of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson). I do so for two reasons. In the first place we have to remember that this is another matter on which there is a good deal of divergent opinion. As the law stands now it is net the case that every lodger in furnished or unfurnished rooms necessarily gets the vote, because there is limitation in value. This proposal removes that limitation in value, and I think that is a good and democratic change. The hon. Member asks what possible difference is there between the case of a man who occupies furnished rooms and the man who occupies unfurnished rooms. I am bound to say that I think in many cases there is a real distinction. The man who occupies unfurnished rooms in a great many cases is in exactly the same practical position as an occupier, for though the landlord may have a theoretic right to go in, as a matter of fact the landlord does not go in, and if he did go in his invasion would be very hotly resented, because there is no reason why he should go in. It is because the rooms that happen to be in the house are more than the landlord himself proposes to use that a portion of the house is let off in the form of unfurnished lodgings. Does that apply in the case of furnished lodgings? I do not think it is the same case. In the case of the furnished lodging the furniture belongs to the landlord, and it not infrequently happens that it is a little difficult to say whether the lodger has exclusive use of the room. There is often some portion of it, at any rate, that is a matter of common service. Every- body who has had experience can furnish examples of that sort, and it is very difficult indeed to draw a precise line between furnished lodgings and something which is not as much as furnished lodgings. Therefore, I respectfully recommend that we should recognise that the Home Secretary is correcting this matter in a very material way and in the direction which the Conference certainly intended. We never really intended to exclude all those who are technically called lodgers. I remember the discussion. On the other hand, we must not go to the other extreme, since we are dealing with local government and not with the Parliamentary franchise. Though I sincerely sympathise with what the hon. Member (Mr. Tyson Wilson) has said, I do hope we may find ourselves in agreement in getting this important change in the Bill. In London, I understand, it will bring in something like 60,000 people who would, as the Bill is at present drafted, be excluded. So far as London and one or two large towns are concerned, the circumstances may be such that you find people living in unfurnished lodgings who in another town would be living in a house. That is due to the circumstances of the case. We want, as far as we may, to make the rule the same all the country over and to get rid of these anomalies and unnecessary distinctions. For that reason this is not bringing in new voters, but it is saving people who ought not to be excluded. It is a very substantial saving, and I hope the Committee will agree to the Amendment.

Colonel GRETTON

There is another side to the argument. As the Bill stands, it means disfranchising a very large number of voters in London who as lodgers at present exercise the municipal vote. If the Amendment which is now proposed is accepted, it means enfranchising a certain number of those who would otherwise be disenfranchised in London, and it means enfranchising in provincial towns a very large number who are not able to exercise the municipal vote. That will apply no doubt to county council elections and so forth. It does not seem to have been observed that the conditions in some of the provincial towns are not the same as those in London. It is a very common thing, I am informed, in some of the large provincial towns for the poorest classes, the least stable classes, either through character or misfortune, to occupy unfur- nished rooms. Sometimes migratory Irishmen come over and are employed for a year or two, and then return to Ireland. That class is accustomed to take unfurnished apartments simply because they have not the means to take furnished apartments. On the other hand, a person who takes furnished apartments is generally a person of more substance or character and more responsibility in the community.

The effect of this Amendment would be that those persons who are in the lowest strata of the community would get votes. There are, as I know, in some of these provincial towns houses called "rookeries." They may have a number of rooms, and a family may live in a room with practically no furniture. The circumstances are almost as wretched as could be conceived. These people will have a vote, but persons of more responsibility and more position in the community, by their work and so on, are not to exercise the vote. I do not think that can be intended, and there is a great defect in this Amendment because it will allow that state of things to go on. I do not think the Amendment can be understood either by the right hon. Gentleman who has proposed it or those who have supported it or the Government who have accepted it. I think it requires a great deal more consideration. A person who may pay practically nothing for his unfurnished apartments, which may be of a most wretched description, will get a vote, but a man who occupies furnished rooms and pays substantially for them, and contributes in that substantial rent towards the local rates, is not to be; able to exercise the municipal vote. This Amendment goes further than appears on the surface. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), in supporting this Amendment, pointed out that we are not dealing with the Parliamentary franchise for men. But it must be remembered that Clause 4 has yet to be decided, and the House may decide that women are to have the Parliamentary vote on the municipal franchise. Therefore, we cannot allow these very wide anomalies. I think I have given good reasons why this Amendment should not be hastily adopted. It needs further consideration, and I hope it will be considered in all its bearings before any decision is taken.

Mr. HEMMERDE

I want to get quite clear in my own mind what exactly this Amendment to the Clause is going to do. I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for West Houghton in what he said just now about furnished apartments, but I cannot see how you are going to limit it, because if you were to take the Amendment that was suggested to leave out the words "but not as a lodger" now that we have abolished all question of values, we are going to be in this position, that we are going to have the old scheme of the creation of lodger votes carried on to an extent that would be simply appalling. It is only the value that has kept revising barristers from allowing a great many of these claims. I do not say that it is not a perfectly possible position to encourage these lodger claims with a view to getting practically an adult suffrage for municipal purposes as well. Personally I think that there is a lot to be said for it, but we cannot do that without realising what we are doing and I am anxious that we should not do it at this stage, and in that way overburden other parts of the Bill, which is essentially a compromise Bill. Immediately we should come to the claim about the women, which would be a great difficulty. For that reason I shall not support this proposal. I am not satisfied by the limitation put in the Bill by what the Government say they are prepared to accept.

Mr. GILBERT

I am very sorry that the Government are not prepared to go further than accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson). I have very much sympathy with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Houghton, and I have an Amendment further down on the Paper' which would have the effect of putting the whole of these lodgers on the local government register. I propose to insert after the word "premises" the words "or residing in any premises." It would practically give the lodger the same franchise for local government purposes as is already given for Parliamentary purposes. I have taken a great deal of interest in franchise reform for a great many years, and I did not think it would be my misfortune to have to listen to a speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow arguing that people should not have the franchise We have had in London for a great many years a local government fran- chise which includes furnished lodgers and unfurnished lodgers. It is quite true that there is nominal value in the room, and it is quite true that there was the old tenancy occupation of twelve months from a certain date. It does seem to me that this is a very extraordinary Bill in which you are going to say that the persons who reside in a house occupying furnished or unfurnished 'rooms are going to get the Parliamentary franchise, but directly it is a question of the lodger franchise, which in a great many London elections is almost as important as the Parliamentary franchise, because county council elections in London are fought almost as strongly as Parliamentary elections, you say to a man who resides in a furnished room, "you shall not have the franchise," but to a man who resides in an unfurnished room in the same house you say "you shall have the franchise for local government purposes."

I am in favour of this Bill and I voted for it all the way through because I want simplicity in our electoral law, but it seems to me that what the Government are going to accept, and what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras proposes is not simplicity, but is going to make complexity in London elections. At the present time in London we have practically one register for all electoral purposes. In London we have a great many elections, parliamentary, county council, borough and guardians. All those elections are held on the same register, and, with the exception of where, for local government purposes, you have the division 3 which is the women who have the local government vote, which is added to division 1 and division 2, and the lodger list for Parliamentary purposes, from the point of view of simplicity in elections you have practically one register for all purposes. But the result of what the Government are going to accept in this Amendment is that you are going to have two registers. Take the case of a father with two, three or four sons, as very often happens under the existing system, who are over 21 years of age, who claim as lodgers and have got the Parliamentary franchise and the local government franchise. Under this Bill the father is going to get the Parliamentary franchise and the sons, it does not matter what kind of rooms they occupy, or how they occupy them, are also going to get the Parliamentary franchise. But the father gets the local government franchise, and the sons do not get it, because the sons in that case would be what are called furnished lodger voters.

There are heaps of houses in London which are let out as furnished lodgings to people who are in occupation who reside in town for only a part of the year. They do not furnish apartments entirely on their own account. People of this kind are going to be deprived of the local government franchise. It does seem to me that this is what you might call a disfranchiseing Bill from the local government point of view. I noticed a short time ago when the Glasgow members were putting forward the case of the Glasgow lodgers, the Government immediately gave way to the case made by the hon. Member for Glasgow. I have looked up the case which was circulated to members by the corporation of Glasgow. The total number of lodgers in Glasgow—they do not differentiate whether they are furnished or unfurnished—is only 39,000. As the right hon. Member for St. Pancras has said by accepting this compromise you are going to disfranchise at once 43,000 furnished lodger voters on the existing register who occupy furnished rooms of a value for a year. On the six months qualification which you have adopted in Clause 1 of your Bill you are going to at least double that 43,000 lodgers in metropolitan constituencies and you are going to disfranchise that number of people from your local government franchise. This is not a progressive method to adopt. Speaking as a London member, who has been intimately associated with one branch of local government elections in London, I very strongly oppose this Amendment, which is going to be accepted by the Government with the idea of disfranchising furnished lodgers. I want to go very much further. I think that we ought not to take the local government franchise away from the people who have it and from the people who would be entitled to it under this new Bill, and I am very sorry that the Government cannot see their way to accept the furnished lodger.

Mr. H. P. HARRIS

As a London Member I wish to enter a caveat on this subject. I think that I should have been prepared to acquiesce in the proposal of this Bill if it were applied all round, but after the concession which has been made to-day to Glasgow I think that we are going to have very considerable pressure in London that the same treatment should be applied to London as to Glasgow. London stands in quite an exceptional position. London is the only place where lodgers and service franchise occupiers have not only the parochial vote, but also the county council franchise. If it is proposed to take that away from everybody, I would be prepared to acquiesce, but I doubt whether the London lodgers would be content to be disfranchised if they found that it was to be retained by the people in Glasgow. I do, therefore, enter the caveat that this matter may have to be considered at a later stage. One was rather taken by surprise by the concession made to Glasgow to-day. I was disposed to accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras as being a sort of reasonable compromise, because there is a certain distinction to be drawn between furnished and unfurnished lodgings, but I feel bound at this stage to enter a caveat in case we may desire to raise this matter on the Report stage.

9.0 P.M

Mr. RAWLINSON

I do not see eye to eye with the hon. Member below the Gangway opposite (Mr. Gilbert) in many ways, but on this occasion I do agree with him. Look at the position. There was a Speaker's Conference which arranged certain matters. They were embodied first in the Resolutions, and afterwards in this Bill, upon the back of which are a number of very distinguished names. The Bill effects a serious alteration in the municipal franchise. It disfranchises the lodger, so that even if he were an occupier he would be unable to obtain the franchise either in London or in the country. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), who with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) is very largely responsible, thought that was going rather too far, and he has suggested that it was not inconsistent with the intentions of the Conference that this very radical change should be made; whilst the right hon. and learned Member for Walthamstow has explained that it was really not very different from what the Conference recommended. Is there a single word in the Resolutions suggesting this most fantastic distinction between the lodger who has a furnished room and the lodger who has an unfurnished room? There is not one single word. Is this Speaker's Conference to be taken as sacred, or not? There is not a suggestion in the Bill, either, for this fantastic distinction which is brought in for the first time this evening, and a proposal for an alteration to the detriment of the people concerned on the one side and not to the detriment of the people concerned on the other side is rather a poor form of compromise. It is well that the Committee should know what we are doing. I quite agree that Clause 3 as it stands goes very far indeed in disfranchising different people. It introduces changes and goes even further than I would do. It reintroduces plural voting in the strongest possible form, and it disfranchises all lodgers. Now by a stroke of the pen you are suddenly going to alter that and let in all lodgers who are in unfurnished rooms. If you alter it at all, there can be no sort of reason for excluding the "furnished" lodger whilst including the "unfurnished" lodger. The distinction will lead to every sort of evasion and to all sort of difficulties on the part of the registration officer in coming to a right view.

Under the old system you had the qualification of an annual value of £10 per room. That qualification is abolished, and there is no value put in its place. A person who takes a furnished lodging has only to make two tenancies of it, by taking a room unfurnished and then hiring the furniture from the landlord, and you have the bogus voter. It is an invitation to the very astute people who no doubt look after the registration for local government purposes in St. Pancras. Local government matters have been known, I believe, to be-run on very strict party lines in some parts of London, and it will be a premium to them to set up these votes so as to evade the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras. I feel most strongly that the Committee is not being treated very fairly in this matter. It is a most drastic change. For good or for evil, you are by a stroke of the pen altering the Bill and enfranchising some 60,000 people in a comparatively small area. There is no sort of logical reason why you should not enfranchise a larger number of people, and, if you do not, they can enfranchise themselves by the subterfuge to which I have referred. It is true that the Scottish people have got out of this Clause. This Bill reminds me of some discussions we have had about corporal punishment. Everybody is tremendously in favour of it as applied to somebody else, but not as applied to himself. We first had the Scottish Members coming and getting relief altogether from the Clause. We now have the London Members coming and saying that it is monstrous it should apply to them. Other people will bring the same pressure to bear on the Government. The Committee have been treated somewhat harshly by the Government in accepting an Amendment of this magnitude after apparently arranging the matter with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras. If there is a Division, I shall certainly oppose it, not because I object to the extension of the franchise for municipal purposes, but because the Bill should either go as it stands or you should do this on common-sense lines and extend it to the "furnished" lodger as well as to the "unfurnished" lodger. The proposal is absolutely contrary to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference and to the provisions of the Bill.

Sir S. COLLINS

I was inclined at first to favour and to support the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, but after listening to the hon. Member for West Newington (Mr. Gilbert) I agree with him, and I am here as a London Member to raise my protest at the way London, the premier city, is being treated in this respect. Some of us said when this Bill was first discussed that it looked as if it were going to be a disfranchising Bill. If this modification which the Home Secretary has said he will accept be carried, London, to a large extent, will be disfranchised, and some tens of thousands of people will no longer have the vote. Scotland generally gets its way, and I do not see why London should not get its way. I hope that every London Member will speak out to-night and join the protest of the hon. Member for Newington. The Home Secretary said just now that hitherto the lawyers had been having a good time. If this is carried they will still have a good time. We ought to try and have simplicity in franchise matters, but we are not doing so, and are going to mystify people and raise a great deal of discontent in London. I strongly urge on the Government not to accept this proviso. It is very seldom I disagree with the right hon. Member for St. Pancras. I suppose that in his charity he is willing to accept what he can get. I hope he will repent of it now and will support the hon. Member for Newington—I am sure he does so in his heart. Sometimes we have to compromise, but there are times when it is better to stand your ground. A bad compromise is a bad bargain. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his proposal, and I would ask the Home Secretary to go one better and do London justice.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

My name is associated with the Amendment we are discussing, and you will notice the names of a number of other London Members representing different parties in the House and different parties in municipal politics. But no name is associated with the proviso except the right hon. Gentleman. I was quite unaware when joining with me in putting down this Amendment that that proviso was intended to be moved. I protest against it. After all, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said, what is the difference between a man who resides in premises furnished by himself or in premises furnished by someone else? The effect of this would be to prevent the disfranchisement of 60,000 persons, who in London now have got the municipal franchise for many years, and to bring about the disfranchisement of over 40,000. Why should that be? We understood that the whole proposals of this Bill were to enfranchise people and not to strike them off the register. Hitherto persons occupying furnished and unfurnished rooms have had full privileges of citizenship in municipal politics. My right hon. Friend, who discoursed so eloquently about the civic spirit of London, does not realise that this will kill the civic spirit of a large number of people. Is not a man who occupies a furnished apartment interested in local affairs? He is supposed, because he does not pay rates directly, not to be interested in local administration. His health and the conditions of his life are just as much affected by the administration of the locality as in the case of the ratepayer who pays rates direct. He has just as good a right to the security which the vote gives him as a person who occupies unfurnished apartments. I protest against the proviso whilst I welcome the Amendment. I should be extremely glad if the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to either accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend opposite or else leave the proviso out and allow us to deal with the other Amendments later on in my name and in the names of some other hon. Members, and which would have the effect of enabling the bonâ fide residents who occupied furnished apartments as well as unfurnished apartments to take their part in civic life.

Colonel SANDERS

It seems to me we are rather arguing at cross purposes. As I understand the Amendment before us is to leave out the words "but not as a lodger." I understand that everyone who has spoken has agreed, save that one or two entered a caveat, but that is as far as anyone has gone in not agreeing with the Amendment. But I do not understand that the acceptance of this Amendment will debar the hon. Gentleman below the gang way from moving an Amendment putting in "apartments" or will debar the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken from moving his Amendment. I do want to know exactly where we stand. If we pass this Amendment, does the Government make it clear that they accept the subsequent proviso—[HON. MEMBERS: "They said so!"]—and that they will not accept any further extension of it?

Mr. HAYES FISHER

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already stated that the Government accept this Amendment on the condition that the proviso is inserted which is proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson).

Colonel SANDERS

And no further.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

And no further.

Mr. RAWLINSON

Surely we ought to have some further explanations as to why the Bill is departed from at all. This was said to be an agreed Bill, and here is a tremendous change introduced in a small Committee. Why has the Government consented to this change of so far-reaching a character? I think we should get some additional reason for the change and what we understood was a perfectly sacred agreement—namely, the Bill as settled by the Speaker's Conference.

Sir R. ADKINS

May I say a word in reply to the hon. Gentleman? The Bill as it appeared before the acceptance by the Government of this Amendment and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), was not, in the opinion of many of us who were members of the Speaker's Conference, a complete carrying out of the agreement arrived at by that Conference. I believe that the Bill as it will now be amended is much nearer what was intended by the Speaker's Conference than it was in the original form in which it appeared.

Colonel GRETTON

It is quite clear there is a difference of opinion as to what the Speaker's Conference intended in this matter. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen get up and say that the Bill is not in accordance with what they intended or with what was really meant. We cannot expect that the Conference was absolutely agreed upon its compromises in all points. No doubt it did its work very perfectly, but some part of it was bound to escape attention. There is really nothing sacred about the decisions of the Conference. Here is a matter about which clearly there is a division of opinion. The Government took one view, but they are persuaded by astute gentlemen who moved these Amendments that something else might be put in its place. If the Speaker's Conference is to override us here then the Committee is a farce, and we need not sit at all. We are here surely to consider these matters. The Government really has raised a great and important principle. This is not a drafting Amendment, but an Amendment cutting at the root of the whole local government vote. I am strongly opposed to the suggestion that anyone who has a genuine qualification under the present law should be disqualified, or be deprived of his vote. Anyone who has a substantial interest or substantial residence, or qualification of any kind in a local constituency should be able to vote in local affairs. But we want some definition of these things. It to consider these matters. The Government proposes does not meet the case. The London case has been argued, but no one has argued the case of the great constituencies in the country, and the great towns like Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham. The reason is that the hon. Members for those great centres are not here. The matter has come on unexpectedly. Hon. Members ought to have been warned. The Committee consequently has not the advantage of the advice and knowledge of the hon. Members representing these places. I would suggest that the proper course to adopt is, that if we have to come to a decision to-night that the Bill should stand as it is, that any further Amendments on this particular matter should be reconsidered between mm and the Report stage, after the main Clauses of the Bill have been decided, and the full effects of the Parliamentary franchise has been realised and understood.

Mr. JARDINE

I agree with the hon. Member for Lambeth. We simple people want something we can understand. As I read the Bill, so far as we have got now, it appears to me—not being an election agent—that at present anyone who is not in a workhouse and is not a lunatic can, by means of an astute electioneering agent, have this franchise. There is no limitation at all in this Bill. If a lodger has lodgings, furnished or unfurnished, he can get the vote, assuming that the lodgings are being occupied constantly. It may be that there are twenty, fifty, or a hundred occupying jointly, and paying, it may be, a pound a year in relation to this matter. In such a case there is really no difficulty in getting a vote. I should like some member of the Government to tell the House, and to tell me, what is to prevent anyone outside lunatics, paupers, or prisoners, getting the vote under this Bill. We have spent an hour or more whilst the Government have been straining at the lodger and much more than swallowing the camel of other matters. Will the Government please state whom they wish to disfranchise, what class they wish to disfranchise, and why? Then we simple people may be able to understand what is proposed by the Government.

Mr. P. A. HARRIS

When the Conservative Government was in power in 1900, the County Councils (Special Qualifications) Act was passed, which laid down special qualifications for the conduct of London elections. I cannot help thinking that some special concession to meet the case of local government in London might very well be made in the same way as the concession that has been made to meet the special circumstances of Glasgow. In most parts of the country, in the provinces, the problem does not arise. The population is much less fluid and much more permanent, and the rents of dwelling-houses are very much lower. The consequence is that a very large majority of the people have either tenements, or flats, or own separate houses. In London the case is different. It may be due to high rents and the very large area of the place, but a very large percentage of the working-class people find it quite impossible to have separate houses. Rates and rents are quite prohibitive, and this applies with special force to those whose work necessitates that they should live near the docks or other similar places. In the district with which I have been associated on the London County Council for many years—I refer to Bethnal Green—you will find rows and rows of houses which, in practically every case, are occupied by more than one family. If the present arrangement of the Bill is not altered in all these houses, one family is to be disfranchised. In some parts of London, in some boroughs in London, the percentage of lodger votes under the present franchise amounts to over 26 per cent., while in a dozen or fifteen districts the lodger votes come to 20 per cent, of the whole. If the Bill remains unaltered, this Bill for local government purposes will be a disfranchising Bill. We know the reason.

The Amendment in its present form has been moved to meet the problem of the women's franchise. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras wants the local government franchise to take a particular form so as to simplify the problem of giving votes to the women. I venture to suggest that the interests of local government should not be sacrificed to those of another part of the Bill. That it is not necessary has been proved by the fact that the Secretary for Scotland has accepted an Amendment, a similar one to which would entirely meet the case of London. I suggest that that example should be followed, and that a special Clause should be put forward on the Report stage to meet the special circumstances of the London electorate. I know there are a lot of people who would suggest that the case of the lodgers, who do not pay their rates direct, does not very much matter, and that they should not be entitled to take part in local government. This is a pure fallacy. Such an argument might be used with equal force against the people who live in flats; they do not pay their rates direct, but in the rent. The same thing applies to lodgers. If the one should have the vote so should the other. The lodgers in London have to pay very high rents to their landlords, they are in many cases permanent lodgers, and in the majority of cases they are just as much interested in the local government of the place as anyone occupying a house. They have to send their children to school, and to submit to the form of education provided by the local authority. They have to suffer if the local administration is inefficient, the drainage or the sanitation bad, and slum-dum left; or, if in the discharge of its duty to the ratepayers, the local authority does not do its work well. I am sure it will be little short of disastrous if the Bill, the main object of which is to enfranchise people, to add to the number of the electors, and to give to all citizens the right to vote, is to have the effect actually of depriving a great percentage of the voters, the citizens of London—over 100,000—of the right to take their share in the government of the city.

Mr. RAWLINSON

May I be allowed to read the Resolution of the Speaker's Conference? In substitution for all existing franchises— including, of course, the lodgers' franchise— for local government purposes every person who for a period of six months has occupied as owner or tenant any land or premises. That is perfectly plain, and has been brought up perfectly plainly in the Bill as set out in Clause 4. Now this change, which is one of very great magnitude, does not deal merely with local government. The object of the Amendment, I gather, has nothing to do with local government. It has, of course, to do with woman suffrage, and the Bill would exclude female lodgers. It would be far too great a change to be passed at this time of night for the considerations given.

Sir F. BANBURY

This subject was one in which I took considerable interest many years ago. Lodgers were not included in the Bill which originally constituted the London County Council. For a good number of years lodgers were excluded, and they were included on a Motion made by Sir John Blundell Maple during the time that a Conservative Government was in office. Sir John Blundell Maple took the view that lodgers ought to be included for local government purposes in exactly the same way that they were included for the Parliamentary franchise. I myself took the contrary view. I thought Sir John Blundell Maple was making a mistake in introducing the alteration that he proposed, and in conjunction with the late Member for Chelsea (Mr. Whitmore) I opposed to the utmost of my ability the inclusion of lodgers on the local government register. I need not go into the reasons which animated Sir John Blundell Maple at that time. I would only point out that the original proposals which constituted the London County Council and which set up machinery by which people should vote for that' institution, and also for the borough councils, did not include lodgers, and they did not include lodgers for the very simple reason that the lodgers made no contribution to the rates. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said lodgers made contributions indirectly through the rent which they paid to their landlord; That receives a very faint cheer. At that time I had the honour of representing Peckham, and I had considerable knowledge, owing to my having made a personal canvass of the constituency, of what took place.

Let us see who are the lodgers. In the majority of cases they occur in this way. Two people would rent a house in Peck-ham; that is to say, one family would rent the ground floor and the basement and the other family would rent the first floor and the second floor. In order to increase their ways and means, they would take in a lodger, who might remain there for a few weeks, a few months, or a few years. The question of rent was not in any way dependent on the rates. In many cases the people who took in a lodger did not pay rates themselves. They took a portion of a house and the rates were paid by their landlord, and the lodger, even if he made up his mind when he took a room that he was going to stay there for any length of time, was certainly in no way interested in economy. It might be he was told that by his vote he would do something, let us say, to extend tramways, whether they paid or did not pay. I take that illustration because probably that is an illustration which will allow hon. Members who are against me the fullest scope to reply. He did not care whether they paid or did not pay, but during the few weeks, or months, or whatever time he stayed, and whatever he paid for his room, it would save him a little trouble if he could get on the tramway. That is not the sort of man you want, especially in these days, when the consideration of economy is going to be very necessary, to increase the rates in order that he may, without contributing a single farthing out of his own pocket, have some personal convenience, because that is what it really comes to.

My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) has pointed out—being a lawyer he sets it more clearly than I do—that this is a direct infringement of the compromise come to by the Speakers' Conference. I understand my hon. and learned Friend adheres to that statement. Let us know where we are. If we are going to alter the decisions arrived at by the Speaker's Conference—either they are good or. bad reasons; it does not matter which—do let us have no more talk about the Speaker's Conference. Let us take this Bill as a Bill, and consider whether or not it is a bad Bill, and try to amend it, and let us drop altogether the idea that this is a compromise founded upon something which can never be altered. Personally I have always held the view that the Speaker's Conference represented nobody except himself, and therefore it is absurd to say that no alteration can be made. Now, apparently, the Government are coming round to my view, I am very glad it is so. I very often find that, although I take an unpopular view at the moment, people come round to it, and that my action is not always wrong, but that it does not suit everyone's convenience to say so at the moment, though altered circumstances enable them to say so later on. Under those circumstances, I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. WILSON

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "tenant" ["as owner or tenant"] to insert the words "or sub-tenant." Of course, the arguments used in connection with the Amendment which has been disposed of cover the ground, but I do want to put this to the Government in connection with this Amendment. If I take an office in the City at 5s. a week, and spend 10s. on a desk and 10s. on a couple of chairs, the office is furnished, and I have a municipal vote, but if I take furnished apartments and pay 30s. a week for them I do not have the vote. I submit that the proposition of the Government is absolutely absurd.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacLean)

I am afraid we cannot have the hon. Member's speech all over again. He will remember that that was the speech he made on the previous Amendment. Any remarks that he makes on this Amend- ment must be either different remarks or the other remarks very considerably condensed.

Mr. WILSON

With all due deference to you, Mr. Maclean, I never gave the illustration of taking an office. But. I would like to say this—and I am moving this Amendment in the name of the party with whom I am associated—that as I read the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, this Amendment does not in any way conflict with the recommendations of the Conference. But if the Report of the Speaker's Conference was a compromise on the part of the members of the Conference, am I to understand that the whole House of Commons is compromised by the compromise of the members of that Committee? If that is so, then the best thing the House can do is to adjourn and let the Committee pass the Bill. It was not in the mind of the Speaker's Conference that anyone should be disfranchised. For these reasons I desire to insert the words "or sub-tenant" in the Clause. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this proposal I am sure it will prevent much irritation and resentment on the part of a large number of people who will be affected by this Bill.

Sir G. CAVE

I only desire to point out to my hon. Friend that this Amendment is quite unnecessary because a sub-tenant is a tenant, and therefore the words he proposes would not have the effect which lie desires.

Amendment negatived.

Colonel GRETTON

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "land," to insert the words "of the yearly value of not less than five pounds."

This Amendment will make a little difference in the amount provided as a qualification for land or premises for the Parliamentary vote and the municipal vote. As regards land for the Parliamentary vote the value is to be not less than £10, but as regards the land qualification for municipal purposes you use simply the word land and there is no definition of what is meant by land, or whether it is to be used for trade or other purposes, or as to what value it must be. Under the existing law land has to be of £10 yearly value to secure the municipal or local vote, but apparently it is the intention of the Government that the land may be so small or inconsiderable that it need be of no value at all or at any rate of a mere nominal value. My argument is that some definition of what land is for the purposes of the municipal vote is surely necessary at this stage of the Clause. I suggest that £10 qualification is too high, and I propose therefore that the value of the land shall be reduced from £10 to £5. I am not very particular as to the precise figure, and if the Government can show a good reason why another figure should be substituted I am willing to accept it if it is of a substantial character.

On this question of land there is an opportunity for any amount of creation of faggot votes. I know we are giving the Parliamentary vote to women and that there is a double Parliamentary qualification in this case. I do not think we should allow unlimited faggot voting in this way. If hon. Members will refer to Clause 4 Sub-section (1), they will see it is provided that a woman shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector if she has attained the age of thirty years and is entitled to be registered as a local government elector in respect of land or premises in that constituency, or is the wife of a husband entitled to be so registered. All you have to do to secure the vote for a man's wife will be that the man will have his qualification, and in some neighbouring constituency he will be registered as the owner of some land, and this will qualify his wife for the dual vote, and so on.

I know that there is a provision further en that they shall not be entitled to vote as local government voters for the same property, but that does not meet the case, and if some value is not placed on the land both women and men will be able to get an unlimited number of municipal votes for land of no value whatever. It may be a plot of land upon which a stall may be erected or a hoarding, the latter having the value and the land being of no value. It might even be a piece of ground taken to put the ashpan on at some particular spot for the convenience of the dust collector. A qualification of that kind cannot be intended to carry the municipal vote, and, in the case of a woman, the Parliamentary vote. This is a serious loophole in the Bill, and surely some definition is wanted of what is meant by land. The only reasonable definition appears to me to be that it should be of some substantial value and not of a faggot and unsubstantial kind, which would only encourage plural voting en a scale unquestionably hitherto unknown in the elections of this country.

Sir G. CAVE

The present franchise is given to occupiers of houses and buildings without any limit, and the occupiers of land with a limit of £10. The effect of this Amendment would be to inflict a limit of £5 on the value of the land. I think this is a very small point indeed, and you can hardly conceive of an occupation of land under £5. The hon. and gallant Member spoke of hoardings, but a man is rarely a tenant or occupier of a hoarding, and he is almost in all cases a licensee with a right to use the land for certain purposes, and he is not the tenant as a rule. Therefore, it seems to me to be quite unnecessary, and this is a small alteration which is hardly worth mentioning.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not know whether an Amendment was made in Clause 1; I do not remember one being made. The Home Secretary now says that Clause 1 enacts that there will be a limit of yearly value of £10 for land. That is not so at all, unless there was an Amendment to Clause 1, which I do not remember. The expression "business premises" in this Section means premises of the yearly value of not less than £10 occupied for the purpose of business, profession, or trade by the person to be registered. Therefore for a man to obtain the Parliamentary vote under the occupation franchise it is necessary for him to occupy premises or land of the yearly value of not less than £10. Now we come to Clause 3, and there it says "a man shall be entitled to be registered if during the whole of the qualifying period he has so occupied any land or premises in that area." There is no limitation as to the value of those premises. Let us consider what that means. You must take this Clause as dealing only with the local franchise. This Clause enfranchises women for the Parliamentary register, and therefore you have this anomaly—which I think the Home Secretary could not have seen, for if he had he would not have passed it by in that way—that while you enact that a man cannot get the Parliamentary vote unless he occupies premises or land of not less value than £10 yearly, you at the same time enact that the wife of a man who occupies premises or land of practically no value at all shall get the vote. No one can gainsay that that is the case as the matter stands now. I do not think I have put it clearly, but no doubt my meaning will be grasped. The Home Secretary says this is not an Amendment of any importance, because land or premises will not be of such a small value as £5 a year. I am sorry my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Gretton) did not put in £10, because that would have made it similar to the other qualification. I am sure that if we are to give the vote to women we should give it to them on similar conditions to men. We should not differentiate between one and the other. The Home Secretary says, "What is the use of £5; there is no such thing as occupying premises or land of the annual value of £5." May I put this to the Home Secretary: "What about an allotment?" There are many allotments which are let at a few shillings a year, and probably there will be more as time goes on. What is to prevent a man who lives in a particular constituency in any county you like to name, say, Suffolk, who is told that there is a small majority in the neighbouring constituency and that there are plenty of allotments vacant, getting an allotment there at a few shillings a year? His wife then becomes qualified to vote in that particular constituency.

Mr. H. SAMUEL

She already has a vote for the place in which her husband lives.

Sir F. BANBURY

Yes, but she can have two votes under this arrangement, and there is nothing, as far as I know, in the Bill to prevent anyone registering themselves, even if you did away with the plural vote in the constituency. This is one of the great defects of the Bill, and it is a very serious matter. I do not want in any way to indulge in any recrimination, but this arises from the Bill being put through in too great a hurry. For some reason or other, I do not know why it is there are many loopholes of this sort in the Bill which I am certain the Government has not foreseen. I do not believe they would desire to enable faggot voting of this kind to be created, but as certain as I am standing here if this Clause is passed without an Amendment of the description moved by my hon. and gallant Friend, you are opening the door for the creation of an enormous number of faggot voters, and under these circumstances, while perhaps it is too much to expect the Government to accept any Amendment moved by a member of the Unionist party, I do hope that at any rate they will acknowledge that we have honestly and sincerely made a case which deserves consideration, and that they will give some sort of promise that between this and the Report stage they will consider the statements made, and if there is any foundation for what we have said, decide whether or not they cannot take steps to meet the difficulty.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Cave) will reconsider what he has said. This is really a very important thing, because it deals with a peculiar point. A woman may be qualified, in respect of her husband's holding, in respect of the local government franchise, while he himself is not qualified as a Parlamentary elector. She may vote twice and he only once. Under these circumstances I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to look into the matter. Those who have advised me tell me that it is as I have stated, and I shall be only too glad to hear if it is not so.

Sir G. CAVE

I have an Amendment.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I know nothing about that. What I say is, the Bill as it is at present drafted does confer this extraordinary privilege upon the wife, and at the same time deprives the husband of having the double vote, which she would have. I think the qualification of £10 is necessary to secure the local government franchise. This Bill wipes away the whole-of that and puts no value whatever in its place. Therefore this Bill might qualify all sorts of people and create faggot votes to a very considerable extent. I do think the matter is one which requires very close attention from the Home Secretary. I can only say I do not believe for a moment those in charge of this Bill had any intention whatever of creating this extra ordinary anomaly. Those who have been looking into it are quite sure that it is-created, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is put right.

Sir G. CAVE

I understood quite well the point which was put by my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Frederick Banbury). I assure him that we appreciate the seriousness of the point raised, and we will before the Report stage look into his argument, and if there is anything in it we shall endeavour to meet it. I cannot say anything more than that.

Colonel GRETTON

The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary did not understand that this case applied to land. He was, therefore, in some difficulty, and said this Amendment was such a small one that it was really not wanted. This Amendment is one which deals with a very serious principle and all the right hon. Gentleman says is that he will look at it again. Really that is a very unsatisfactory state of things, and I think he has treated this Amendment much less seriously than it deserves. If the fault that he finds with it is that £5 is too low a value, then I will agree to another value if the Government desire some other value. The point is the question of principle, namely, that a man shall have something substantial and not a mere scrap which is occupied, perhaps to put a chair on in the summer or for part of the year, and for which a rate of a shilling or two may be paid. That is the kind of vote we want to prevent, and the Government might have considered this question and dealt with it to-night. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to give this matter serious consideration—and I rely on the facts of my Amendment and not on the arguments that I used—I do not want to press the matter to a Division, and I shall agree to withdraw the Amendment when hon. Members have said what they desire to say.

Mr. H. SAMUEL

The effect of the conversation that has taken place on this Amendment rather leaves the impression that there is more in it than at first sight many of us thought, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has promised to consider this between now and the Report stage, because all one's tendencies are against anything in the nature of a value qualification, and consequently one's prejudices were against this Amendment. Unfortunately, however, this Bill still perpetuates, and necessarily, as part of the compromise agreed to, the plural vote, against which one's feelings are even stronger, and if the effect of abolishing all forms of limitation by value is to increase very largely the number of possible plural votes, the advantage of having some limit of value may be greater than the disadvantage. It does seem to be a quite possible thing, taking the neighbourhood of some borough, for example, that quite a small field might be taken and split up into a number of exceedingly small allotments. Each allotment would give a qualification for a local government vote, and consequently would give a qualification for a female Parliamentary vote, and a very large number of persons who were never intended by the Conference to have dual votes would in fact get dual votes. If this were done as an organised thing all over the country a considerable scandal would arise, and we should have to legislate afresh. If there is anything which prevents it, well and good. It may be that there is some check concealed in a provision of the Bill which we have overlooked, but, if not, I think this matter ought to have. very serious consideration between now and the Report stage.

Mr. HOLT

I should also like the Home Secretary to consider the possibility that if a money limit is accepted the bonâ fide tenant of agricultural land in a district where agricultural land is of very low value, who takes agricultural land without any premises, might be deprived of his local government vote altogether. I am familiar with cases in the North of England and Scotland where a limit of £5 might mean a very considerable area of land, and a man might be engaged on bonâ fide agricultural operations—take the ease of hill land for grazing purposes—and yet be deprived of a vote if this Amendment were accepted. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider that there is a possibility of easily depriving a man in a district where land is really of low value of a vote while trying to prevent a fraudulent person obtaining a vote for his wife.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.0 P.M

The CHAIRMAN

I think the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Enfield (Major Newman), is part of a proposal with which we have dealt.

Major NEWMAN

No.

The CHAIRMAN

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain.

Major NEWMAN

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word "premises" ["any land or premises"], and to insert instead thereof the words "house, warehouse, counting house, shop, or other building."

I move this Amendment with two objects. Firstly, to provide a definition of the word "premises," which I do not think we have at present; and secondly, to carry out what the Home Secretary agrees with—namely, that the local government elector shall have something substantial in his possession for his vote. We have heard already from the Home Secretary that as far as land goes he must be really in possession of a substantial piece of land, but the man who rents a bill-posting corner at £l a year and his three or four partners, together with his wife and the wives of his three or four partners, will not get votes, as I understand it, in respect of that £1 a year bill-posting corner. That being so in respect of land, I think we ought to see to it in respect of premises. Whatever "premises" may be, there should be some substantial possession in respect of this man's vote as a local government elector. I should like to ask the Home Secretary—it may have been answered already, but I have not heard the answer—whether a stall in a market-place is a "premises"? Then there is also the famous case of the man who erected a windmill to pump up some water. It was an erection on a small platform, which platform was on a tripod, and the mill was erected on it for drawing water. The man held that he was entitled to a vote in respect of this erection. The case went before the Courts, a lot of money was spent, and it was in fact decided that he could have a vote—that is to say, a Parliamentary vote. I do not think myself that it can be meant by the authors of this Bill that a man should be given a municipal vote for such a small and trivial thing as a windmill or a stall in a market-place. If you refer to the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882 you will find it is laid down that a person shall not be entitled to be enrolled as a burgess unless ho is qualified as follows:

"As in occupation, joint or several, of any house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building (in this Act referred to as qualifying property) in the borough."

It goes on:

"The terms house, warehouse, counting house, shop, or other buildings, includes any part of a house, where that part is separately occupied for the purpose of any trade, business, or profession."

Then, of course, you have the £10 qualification besides. That, at any rate, lays down definitely what the qualification is. It is something substantial; it is certainly bricks and mortar; it is not a windmill or a stall in a market-place. When you refer again to the Registration Order of 1895, which is a very big, codified Order, you find that it is precisely laid down as to when and how a man should have a vote, what the registration officer shall do, and what he shall not do, how he shall do it; and so on. But you will find that the word "premises" is not mentioned. It is unknown. This particular word r' premises," which we see in so many places in this; Bill we are now discussing, is really something new and novel altogether. In previous Acts and previous Orders "premises" was not mentioned. It was too general, too indefinite, and the premises were aways attempted to be defined. You find dwelling house and tenement mentioned, and the expression. "possession," but you do not find "premises." Therefore I suggest, in order to carry out the intention of the Government, it would be much better if we inserted here something substantial, such as house, warehouse, counting house, shop, or other building.

Sir G. CAVE

In these Amendments there is something of the words of the old Statute. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went back to the limitation on the value of land. Now the gallant Gentleman goes back to the old words which define a building. I think the two points hang together, and I should like to consider them in the course of a day or two, when I may be prepared to meet them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir R. ADKINS

In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. W. H. Dickinson) I beg to move, after paragraph (b), to insert the words "Provided that for the purposes of this Section the word 'tenant' shall not include a person who occupies a room or rooms as a lodger except where such room or rooms are let to him in an unfurnished state."

I believe the Amendment only carries out what has been arrived at in discussion, and I do not propose to detain the House on it.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I understand the Amendment if it is carried in its present state, puts an end to the question whether a lodger with a furnished room can have a vote or not. I submit that the Amendment in its present form allowing lodgers unfurnished to be included is contrary to the Act at the present time, and to the decision of the Speaker's Conference, which, in Section 31, sets out perfectly and plainly what is arranged. It is not a substitution of all existing franchisement; any person occupying as owner or tenant certain premises will qualify as a lodger. It seems to me if you want to make an alteration at all there is some more reason why a furnished lodger should be considered more than an unfurnished lodger. If the Amendment is going to be extended to furnished lodgers as well as unfurnished lodgers I say the Amendment is wrong.

Mr. R. McNEILL

I was not able to be present when the quest on was discussed on the previous Amendment, and I wish to ask the Home Secretary how he reconciles the acceptance of this Amendment with the statement he made to my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel L. Wilson) and myself to leave out the words "jointly and severally." You will remember that when we moved to leave them out it was said that it left the door open for bringing in a considerable number of bogus voters who, under coverable pretexts, might be brought in. My right hon. Friend recognised the point, and promised that before the Report stage some limiting words which would meet our point would be introduced. I cannot understand how any limiting words can he can introduce would be of any avail if people are to come in not merely as joint tenants but as lodgers, whether in furnished or unfurnished premises, and by so doing are given votes. It would be possible to have two or more under this. As I pointed out on a former Amendment the owner of a house could manipulate matters so as to make the members of his own family to appear as lodgers, and the whole probability of bogus voters would be reintroduced under these provisions. Will he explain why at one and the same time he was willing to accept this Amendment and to meet the case we presented to him earlier in the Debate?

Mr. HEMMERDE

How if that Clause is inserted are you to meet the case of a man who goes to rooms which are as a matter of fact furnished, but which may in a reasonably short time have the furniture removed, and then the man pays rent for the unfurnished room. How can you prevent this applying to the lodger?

Sir G. CAVE

I am not prepared to accept the Amendment. It appears to represent what the Speaker's Conference discussed, but I am not able to follow the hon. Gentleman who says we are going beyond the Speaker's Conference. It can be so read, it may be fairly so read, to deal with the local franchise. But a person taking an unfurnished room is not what we know in this country as a lodger. He is in the true sense a tenant, a tenant of a room.

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill) said that connected with this Amendment was one which I think is totally severed from it. We were dealing a short time ago with a proposal for the enfranchising of joint occupiers of premises. It was then pointed out that if you put no limit upon the joint occupation it would be possible to put twenty or even fifty persons into the nominal joint occupation of the premises and so create a number of faggot voters. I said then that on Report we proposed to say that that shall not be, and to limit the number of joint occupiers. This proposal is a totally different thing. Here the man in question is, by hypothesis, the only tenant of the premises in which he lives and which, he occupies. That man we think ought to have the vote. He has the vote in most cases to-day—in all cases in London and in most cases in the provinces. It is a totally different thing from the joint occupation with which we were dealing just now. With regard to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hemmerde), he assumes a fraud. He assumes that a man is going to become a lodger occupying a furnished room who, in order to give himself the vote, arranges to take a room unfurnished and to take the furniture separately. If that is done I believe he would fail to get the vote, because we can "trust the registration officer to sec through a fraud of that kind. For the reasons which I have given before I think this is a fair Amendment, and I hope the Committee will agree to it.

Mr. LOUGH

As representing a small constituency in which there are a great many lodgers, I desire to thank the Home Secretary for the concession he has made here. I attach very great importance to it. I must say that I agree with a remark made by one hon. Gentleman on this side of the Committee that there is no logical reason why the tenant of a furnished room should not receive the same consideration. The Home Secretary might consider that point a little more. The discussion about "jointly or severally" might well be left out of this argument. We have got an important concession from the Government. If I remember rightly, in London there are 60,000 voters who are now qualified, but who would be disqualified if the furnished room is not included as well as the unfurnished room. I believe it is true that in London there are more unfurnished rooms, the figures being 100,000 in that case and 60,000 in the other. I see no reason why both should not receive the vote. I hope the Home Secretary will not think that I am pressing him unfairly if I ask him not to make two bites at the cherry, but that, in the same generous spirit in which he has proceeded this evening, he will make this concession to a very deserving class of people.

Colonel YATE

I desire to appeal to the Home Secretary to exclude both. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough) wants to include the lodger in a furnished room as well as the lodger in an unfurnished room. We have already excluded one. Let us exclude both.

Mr. McNEILL

With reference to the reply made by the Home Secretary to the point I put, may I say that I do not think that the intricate way in which the local government franchise is now being mixed up with the Parliamentary franchise and the effect which that may have are sufficiently realised? May I point out what may happen under a, provision of this sort? A man has a house in a borough, and has a married daughter living in the country. All he has to do is to give his son-in-law a nominal tenancy and make him a lodger in a room in his house in London or in some other borough, and by so doing he gives his married daughter the Parliamentary vote. It cannot be intended that the Parliamentary vote should be intended in that way, and it is perfectly obvious not only that it can be but that it will be done. Under the new system which is being brought into play now various electioneering agents will be scrutinising this Act with a microscope to see how they can create votes in every possible direction, and why in the world we should go out of our way now to extend in this way the local government franchise beyond what it is at present in a way which may introduce a great number not only of local government voters who have no concern whatever with the area in which they will have votes, but they will also get Parliamentary votes in an area in which they likewise are entirely without real interest or stake.

Major NEWMAN

I should like to support my hon. Friend. I think we are making a mistake. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson) talks of a person, and we have all, except my hon. Friend (Mr. McNeill), been arguing as if that person was a man. As a matter of fact, the importance of this is that it applies to a woman. It is a woman who will get the Parliamentary vote very easily indeed if this Amendment is included in the Bill. I will put a case to the Home Secretary. We will imagine that three maiden ladies, all professing to be over thirty, take a studio in which they put no furniture except some easels and paint boxes. As I take it, they get a vote in respect of that room, and, if that is so, is it meant? If it is meant, surely there is an easy way for any active agent to gerrymander or create a great number of faggot voters which the Act does not intend. I suggest, therefore, that this Amendment ought not to be included in the Bill without very mature deliberation on the part of the Committee and the Government.

Mr. RAWLINSON

The Home Secretary differed from me in my construction of the Speaker's Conference. I do not want to get into a legal argument with him. I thought, in view of the different decisions, the difference between a lodger and a tenant was pretty clearly understood. But the case does not rest there. The result of the Speaker's Conference was drawn up in a draft Bill. It was not left to a Parliamentary draftsman, as many such Bills are, but it was the subject of the closest possible concentration of members of the Government, who went through it Clause by Clause, and people were invited to send in suggestions, and they sat day by day. Here was this statement staring them in the face, and people who endorsed this Bill must have seen it perfectly plainly, namely, these words in Clause 3, which we have just omitted—"but not as a lodger." The Second Reading was taken and never a suggestion made that there was a slip or an incorrect idea of what the Speaker's Conference meant.

Mr. DICKINSON

I took that objection on the Second Reading.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I apologise. I was not aware the right hon. Gentleman did. The Government certainly did not support him in those far off days, and they never put down an Amendment to remedy it. If it was called to their attention, surely it was their duty directly the Bill had passed the Second Reading to put down an Amendment, and then we should have known where we were. Can it be said for a moment to be a mistake? I had already read what was reduced to writing of the Speaker's Conference. Can anyone suggest that at the Speaker's Conference this difference between furnished and unfurnished lodgings was ever deleted, or suggested, or thought of—thought of, possibly, but not mentioned. The distinction between the furnished and unfurnished lodging may have been thought of, but certainly no one spoke of it. By this Amendment restricting it to the unfurnished lodgings we are introducing a vast change into the Bill, which applies not only to the municipal franchise but the Parliamentary franchise for women as well. The Government made no suggestion as to the difference in number that will make from the Parliamentary point of view, though they gave us astonishingly large figures from the municipal point of view. Applied throughout the country, it will make a big difference. London members were objecting to this clause a short time ago, but they apparently do so no longer. The restriction to unfurnished lodgings appears to me to be absolutely illogical and quite contrary to the Bill and to the Resolution of the Speaker's Conference. If anyone divides against this Amendment I shall support them.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS

It was the desire of the Speaker's Conference to wipe away all the sophistry about the latchkey holders and so on. That matter was discussed, and it was desired to establish a perfectly simple qualification, whether the man was tenant of certain rooms, and not to raise the question of whether he was tenant as tenant merely or tenant as lodger, whether he had a latchkey, and whether there was someone on the premises who had control of the front door or anything of that sort. It was our desire to wipe away that sort of thing. Speaking for myself, it was in my mind that these words which we use, which are perfectly correctly printed in Mr. Speaker's letter to the Prime Minister, would have that effect, and would enfranchise all those who took rooms, whether the owner lived on the premises or not. Anybody who took an unfurnished room would be admitted. I am perfectly certain that it was distinctly said that we wished to wipe away all the sophistry about the latchkey voter. I think, therefore, that the conclusion the Government has come to carries out exactly in its spirit the decision that was come to by Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Captain Sir O. PHILIPPS

The hon. Member (Mr. A. Williams) has explained to the Committee that it was the desire of the Speaker's Conference to wipe away all the old sophistry of the franchise. With that I am sure every Member of this Committee is in entire agreement; but I do feel that the speakers on this Amendment have made out a case for more consideration than it has received from the Home Secretary. I feel the result will be that while we wipe away many of the old franchises we shall introduce other ways in which clever election agents can produce another form of that old abuse, the faggot voter. I am strongly in favour of improvement in the franchise law, and in making it clear exactly who is and who is not entitled to a vote and to make it practically impossible for a clever election agent to add people to the register to whom Parliament did not intend to grant a vote. Therefore I hope, on further consideration, the Home Secretary will see his way to deal with the objections that have been raised.

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

I have been trying to think, while the Debate was proceeding, whether it would be possible by this process in the case of middle-class voters, to put on a very considerable number of persons who would not otherwise have the franchise. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, told us that 6,000,000 women would come on the franchise, of whom about 5,000,000, it was calculated, would be married women. Having regard to the size of the constituencies, I do not suppose that the number of persons put on by this Clause would affect the issue in the generality of constituencies, but I can conceive places where the majority either on one side or the other is narrow, and, after all, with a very considerable number of constituencies the majority is apt to be narrow at election times. Under these words an election agent on one side or the other could bring in a considerable number of voters belonging to one particular class who would materially affect the issue not only of that particular election but of a whole General Election. I do not imagine that that particular case was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman when he accepted these words. I do not suppose that it is his intention that by any means election agents should be enabled to create a class of faggot voters. I do not think that he has met the objection raised by both sides as to the possibility of this occurring. I should be very glad if he could reassure us on this particular head. In any one particular constituency which is purely an industrial one, it would be possible under these words to put on something like 500 or 600 faggot voters. With the majority which the electors of that constituency have been good enough to give me it would not make any difference, but it might in future make a very considerable difference to the real opinion of the ordinary proper voters. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would let me have some idea as to the number of voters which he things these words would put on the electorate and whether he thinks that there is any real danger, and if so, whether any means can be found of preventing the creation of faggot voters.

Sir G. CAVE

The number which I gave on the Second Reading was on the assumption that it was read as I proposed to read it. The estimate is not affected at all. Of course there is always a possibility of getting what are called faggot voters of either of the middle class or any other class, but surely we should not for that reason refrain from giving the franchise to persons to whom he refers. We must trust the persons to act honestly, and if they act honetly the registration officer and agents will find them out. I agree that in all classes there is a danger of creating these voters, but I do not think that this affects it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McNEILL

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, ''Provided that a man, though he may have been occupying land or premises in the area on the last day of the qualifying period, shall not be entitled to be so registered if he commenced to occupy the said land or premises within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period unless, on claiming to be so registered, he satisfies the registration officer that he has continued in occupation of the said land or premises for thirty days from the time he commenced such occupation."

This Amendment is designed to bring Clause 3 into line with Clause 1. The Committee will remember that in Clause? I moved an Amendment the effect of which, would be that in order to qualify for the vote the resident must reside not merely on the last day but throughout the last thirty days of the qualifying period. My right hon. Friend, after giving a good deal of encouragement to the Amendment, eventually substituted for it an Amendment of his own for giving effect in a rather different form to the point that I had raised. I now wish to move a proviso, having the same effect but in a slightly different form from the Amendment of my right hon. Friend on Clause 1. My right hon. Friend will appreciate the slight variation which I have introduced. It is in order to put upon the person claiming the vote the onus of proving that he has continued for thirty days before or after the end of the qualifying period. In other words, if the movable voter wants to carry his qualification from one constituency to-another the onus of proof will be upon him to show that he has crossed the border for a good reason and not merely in order to go back. I think my right hon. Friend will realise that this is a very reasonable provision, for let him imagine what the state of affairs will be in large constituencies if it is not so. Take the spring register. The list has to be prepared by the 1st February, and the claims and objections under Rules 8 and 11 of the Schedule will have to be in by 15th February. There would just be a fortnight for investigating any claims of voters who had moved from another constituency. Under those circumstances it would obviously be necessary for the party agent, who could not possibly in that time investigate the true facts of a great number of cases, if my Amendment is not accepted in the form I suggest, to enter a pro forma objection in every case where the voter has moved across during the last few days or few weeks of the qualifying period. What would be the effect of that? That means that the party agents will have an immense amount of work to do, and that we shall be increasing rather than diminishing all the registration expenses and registration work which we were hoping to simplify and get rid of. Not only that, but you will hamper and add to the work of the registration officers themselves. I think that will be apparent if hon. Members wilt look at Rules 12 and 14. Rule 12 states: The registration officer shall, as soon as practicable after receiving any notice of objection, send a copy of the notice to the person in respect of whose registration notice of objection is given. Rule 14 states: The registration officer shall, as soon as practicable, consider all objections of which notice has been given in accordance with these rules, and for that purpose shall give at least three days' notice to the objector and to the person in respect of who registration notice of objection has been given. Therefore, it means, that the party agent having entered objections against every voter who has taken advantage of this provision for moving from one constituency to another, he will have cast upon him the burden of giving all these notices in the very short time in which he has got to do his work. An enormous number of notices, many of which might be quite unnecessary in bonâ fide cases as well as others, simply because there will not have been the possibility in the time afforded under the rules laid down before the investigation could be made to separate the bonâ fide, cases from those which are not Under the rules the whole of the work has to be done in the thirty days, and I do not think it requires a very great effort of the imagination to see, in the very large constituencies which will be created under the Bill, that the work of the registration officer will be enormously and very unnecessarily increased. At any rate, a very large portion of that work can be obviated by the simple plan of throwing the onus of proof on the claimant for a vote. If this were done the objections need not be urged wholesale in the first instance. It would be a very much easier process for the Parliamentary agents or the registration officer in the allotted time to investigate the merits of the claims put in. In any case I think it is a reasonable proposition to lay down that when the ordinary six months' residence, which is the ordinary basis of qualification, is being departed from, and something in the nature of a special privilege is being given to those men who for bonâ fide reasons find it necessary to move, that the onus of proof should be put upon them showing that the move has not been for any bogus reason, and that in spite of that move they are entitled to qualify for a vote, and to be registered in their own constituency. I trust my right hon. Friend will accept my Amendment, which follows his own substantially.

Sir G. CAVE

I appreciate the way in which this Amendment has been moved, but I do not propose to accept it at the present time, and I want to give the Committee reasons why it will be better on this occasion to repeat in this Clause 3 the words which were adopted in Clause 1. The object is to meet the case of the voter who may have moved into a district within the last few days of the qualifying period. The idea was some sort of stability of residence. My hon. Friend, in dealing with the same point, proposes to alter the form, and instead of putting it on the objector to show that the month's residence has not taken place to put the onus upon the voter or would-be voter. I want in all such cases to follow the line of putting the duty upon the registration officer direct, and not upon the claimant to a vote. For that reason I rather prefer my own proposal to that on the Paper. Therefore I hope that this Amendment will be withdrawn in favour of the one that I shall move immediately, in similar words to those of Clause 1. I want to adhere to the statement that I made on the last discussion, that if, on Report, better words can be suggested I shall be quite prepared to consider them both for Clause 1 and this Clause. With that assurance I hope we shall be able to get forward.

Mr. McNEILL

I am afraid I omitted to say as I intended to say in moving the Amendment, that I hoped if my right hon. Friend would take the view, as I was sanguine enough to hope he would, that my form of the Amendment was better than his own, I was going to suggest that he should take that now, and amend Clause I. on the Report stage to bring them into agreement. I think I have some warrant for thinking the right hon. Gentleman might take that view, but, of course, after what he has said, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment now in order that he may keep the whole matter open for the Report stage. But I am a little disappointed with the reception which he has given to my suggestion I venture to submit to him that there is no difference between his form and my form as regards the duty of the registration officer. The duty in any case will he with, the registration officer. The registration officer must have the name brought before him in some way. I mean that if a man moves I agree that the primary duty lies with the registration officer, and if he discovers that man's whereabouts, and he ought to be put on the list, the registration officer will put him on the list. But in a great many cases—I expect in the majority of cases—the voter, at all events if he has any keenness about his vote, will write to the registration officer and say, "I am here. Put me on the list." But whether it is done or not, all that my Amendment does is to throw the onus on to the would-be voter in case of an objection. I do not wish to go over the ground again. I have already pointed out that in these cases there will be a vast number of objections, and I hope my right hon. Friend will not, on grounds which I cannot help calling rather flimsy grounds, object to what I think is a matter of very considerable importance that the party agent should not make the objection in the way I have indicated.

Lord H. CECIL

I understand the difference between the form suggested by the Home Secretary and that of my hon. Friend to amount to this, that if a voter has not got thirty days' residence under the Home Secretary's Clause, if no one objects, he will nevertheless get on the register, whereas under my hon. Friend's form he will only get on the register if he himself can maintain his claim. I do not want to put it controversially, but it does seem to me that, unless you have a very large confidence in the industry and carefulness of the registration officers, you might have very large numbers of cases of neglect, in which voters would be put on the register to whom nobody took the trouble to object, but who were really not entitled to vote. The only answer I can find to that is that the party organisation would in some way or other object. Is not that just what we want to avoid? I understood one of the purposes of the Bill was to lighten the work of party organisations, so that they should not have the whole operative work of registration thrown upon them, but that it should be done either by the voter himself or the registration officer. I am really putting this to the Home Secretary to consider before the Report stage. Would it not be better to throw the onus on the voter? Then in all cases in which he is wrong he would have to make good his case, and be found out. You relieve the burden on the party organisation, who will not always be on the watch to detect sham voters, and you will not be trusting wholly to the registration officer, who may be, and sometimes is, a negligent person.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS

I hope the Home Secretary will adhere to the opinion he has expressed. Clause I will have the effect of preventing there being any false voters, because the people will know that they are certain to be found out. The odd man who moves in or out by pure accident is not of any importance. The real thing of importance is that there should be no organised system of transplanting men in order to make faggot voters, and under Clause 1 that would be impossible, because people will not go to the trouble of doing that if they know that they are certain to be found out, and therefore it will not happen. If the words suggested by the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill) were adopted, there would be a great many people who would move in, and because they did not know the law or the date they would not make their claim, and it, would be just as it is with the lodger franchise. Consequently it would have to be done by the party agent, or it would not be done at all. You would be introducing party agents to a great deal of work, and it would be claimed that the Liberals had done this and the Conservatives had done that, and all the old nonsense that we know so well. As to the argument that there would be wholesale objections taken by the party agents under the system proposed by the Home Secretary, I do not think that would happen, because a party would make itself unpopular by making wholesale objections. They would, no doubt, make their inquiries and make objections in proper cases. For these reasons I hope the Home Secretary will adhere to the opinion he has expressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.0 P.M

Mr. H. P. HARRIS

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words "For the purposes of this Section a man who himself inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, and the dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom he serves in such office, service, or employment, shall be deemed to be a tenant."

My Amendment in general terms applies to the whole country, but I feel bound to point out that there are 21,600 service occupiers entitled in London to the full local government franchise, and I want to know on what principle they are to be disfranchised while the same occupiers in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland are to be allowed to retain that franchise. I should have thought that he best principle to adopt would have been to have one local government franchise for the whole country; but the Government have decided to proceed on other lines, and to allow Glasgow and the rest of Scotland to have a different local government franchise and retain the present franchise. Why should London not be allowed to retain the present franchise? We must proceed on some consistent principle in this matter. In any case, I think that the service occupier has a distinct claim to the local government franchise. Therefore, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Sir G. CAVE

We cannot accept this Amendment. We have given an interpretation of the word "tenant." I do not think it could be suggested that a person who is a servant in a house is the tenant of the house. It is going outside the definition altogether.

Mr. BOYTON

I must express my very great disappointment at the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman has arrived. Under the circumstances of our modern existence large buildings such as blocks of flats and offices are numerous indeed, and you are going to disfranchise a very large number of caretakers and custodians who are put in charge of these buildings, and whose wages are fixed on the basis of so much for service and so much for rent. They are in every sense as good a tenant as an ordinary lodger to whom you seek to give great privileges. To take away the vote from a very large section of the community, and a growing section, is, I think, a great injustice, and I must express my surprise at the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion. I hope the mover of the Amendment will go to a Division, and I shall most gladly support him.

Mr. P. A. HARRIS

To some extent I agree with the last speaker, but not altogether. If you are to have a service franchise I think an overwhelming case can be made out for the service lodger, but to give the franchise to the service man and not to the lodger would be unfair and inconsistent. The proper and right thing is to follow what the Secretary for Scotland stated to meet the Scottish objection. What is good enough for Scotland is good enough for England, and if the argument is strong in Scotland it is far stronger in London, where rents are very much higher and where a large percentage of the population are compelled to get the vote either on the service basis or on the basis of furnished lodgers.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: After the word "that" ["that the occupation of a house"], insert the words,

"(i.) a man, though he may have been occupying land or premises in the area 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 occupy the land or premises within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period and ceased to occupy them within thirty days after the commencement of his occupation,

and (ii.)."—[Sir G. Cave.]

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move to leave out the words "by some other person for a part of the qualifying period not exceeding three months in the whole."

The effect of that Amendment would be to provide that the occupation of a house should 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. I do not quite see what is the object of the words which I propose to leave out, and which qualify the earlier part of the Section. Why should a person who owns a house, who occupies it in the ordinary sense of the word, but which he may for particular reason desire to let furnished—why should he not be allowed to let it furnished for five or six or six or seven months? The people who took it would, in all probability, not be able to have a vote as they had probably not have occupied it long enough. At any rate, if my Amendment is too far-reaching, some limiting period might be put in. I cannot see the object under this particular Clause of preventing a man letting his house furnished if he should so desire. There was a discussion on this subject on Clause 1. I forgot exactly what took place, I think no Amendment was put in, but that some undertaking was given that the matter would be considered.

Sir G. CAVE

These words were actually put in.

Sir F. BANBURY

Was "three months" put in?

Sir G. CAVE

Yes.

Sir F. BANBURY

I could not find it. I do think three months is too short a period, and that a longer period ought to be put in. I move the Amendment in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of saying why he does not think a longer period should be put in.

The CHAIRMAN

That might rather cut out a later Amendment, but perhaps we can take it here instead of the other Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher), which deals with the period.

Sir G. CAVE

It must be remembered that the qualifying period is now reduced to six months, and that the provision of the Bill is that if during that period a man lets his house furnished for a period not longer than three months, he may still be deemed to be the occupier for six months, which is not an unreasonable provision. The effect of the Amendment, however, would be that if he lets the house for the whole six months he would be deemed to occupy the house during that period. The effect is that he gets on, and the tenant gets on.

Mr. M. HEALY

He will get on in the place to which he has gone.

Sir G. CAVE

The tenant gets on as having occupied it. You would get two occupiers for the same house, and you would get a man registered for this house who had not been in it for the whole period of that qualification. The man might let the house for three years, and yet claim to vote as occupier of the premises in that place. I do not think that that is what the House would desire. We want to secure the vote for the occupier and not for a person who does not occupy the house. Besides the other day we put into Clause1 words similar to those which are now in the Bill. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) moved an Amendment to Clause 1 which I accepted, and I think it desirable that we should follow exactly the same form in this Clause as we did in Clause 1.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not want to press the Amendment. There was a weak point in it. I think there should be a limiting period. I should have preferred that it should be five months, but apparently the Government do not consent to that. There is an Amendment later on to extend the period.

The CHAIRMAN

To four months.

Sir F. BANBURY

I will therefore withdraw my Amendment, in order to allow it to be discussed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move to leave out the word "three" ["not exceeding three months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "four."

Sir G. CAVE

When we reduced the qualification to six months it was not unreasonable to reduce this period to three.

Colonel GRETTON

There are houses which are let for six months in the summer, and there are houses in villages on the coast which are let in the summer months to a succession of tenants. The effect of the three months' proviso would be to destroy the voting qualification, though as a fact the places were let only to a single person, and the real occupier is there for a great part of the year. I think four months would give greater elasticity. Take another case, shooting and hunting boxes which are let for a period of four, rive, or six months. I ask the Home Secretary to give that matter a little further consideration and to leave it open to deal with on Report.

Sir J. SIMON

I think there is a good deal of force in what has been said. I do not think four months in the existing Act, because it bore a proportion to twelve, should be taken, for the reason that people let a house from quarter-day to quarter-day, but it very often happens they run over the period, and are just excluded from the four months' period. I cannot help thinking that there is something to be said for the four months' period.

Sir F. BANBURY

Do I understand the matter will be considered?

Sir G. CAVE

Certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, Provided also that—

1. (a) some person must, during the said qualifying period, have been rated to all poor rates made in respect of the qualifying property; and
2. (b) all sums due in respect of the qualifying property on account of any poor rate made and allowed during the twelve months immediately preceding the 24th day of June in case of the spring register and the 24th day of January in case of the autumn register must have been paid on or before the 15th day of January and the 15th day of July, respectively."

As the law stands a person of property must be someone who pays rates, otherwise the qualification is not obtained. The rate collector in many cases has considerable difficulty in obtaining the rates. The old argument was advanced that taxation and representation should go together, but I am speaking from the point of view of the local authorities. At present there is considerable difficulty, in many cases, in collecting the rates from small occupiers, and the rate collector very often says, "Very well, if you don't choose to pay the rate, you will lose your vote." The person is quite capable of paying the rate, and sooner than lose his vote he will pay the rate. Unless something of this sort is put in, the result will be that there will be no obligation to pay any rate at all. Any person who ought to pay the rate may refuse to do so and yet continue to have a vote for local government purposes and settle the expenditure which will devolve upon other people who feel it their duty to fulfil the obligations which are placed upon them. There is this remoter case: Surely it was never intended that where, for instance, large works are undertaken, say, at Rosyth or some similar place, and huts are erected for the workmen who are there for a few months—possibly a year or two years—to carry out those improvements, that the move occupation of a hut for the carrying on of Government or any other large work should confer the local government franchise! Obviously, it would be most unjust to do a thing of that sort. Where a large number of people are imported into a neighbourhood they might overrule the wishes of the permanent inhabitants unless something of this sort were put in. It is really a serious Amend- ment, meant to meet another of those cases which have arisen through the inadvertence of the Government and to stop a loophole which ought never to have been created.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

It would be difficult to accept the Amendment at this place because we should have to accept it in many other places. No doubt it was the intention of Mr. Speaker's Conference and it is the intention of the framers of the Bill to sweep away as many as possible of the old restrictions and conditions, to make the qualification of residence or occupation the one means of obtaining the vote, and that there should be none of the old restrictions by which you must pay your rates by a certain time or anything of that kind. It is deliberately done, and, on the whole, it is wise to sweep away these restrictions and conditions and to frame the qualification for the franchise for the future on the simple condition of residence or occupation. There is not much inducement to the payment of rates. The fact that you are going to be disqualified for the vote just for the time is hardly likely to lead you to make payment of the rates. You probably do not pay your rates because you cannot at the time, or else you do not pay because you mean to avoid payment altogether. If you mean to avoid paying it altogether you are probably not going to be induced to pay it by the fact that you will be disqualified for voting. The same remedies will apply for the recovery of rates that applied before. We lose some of them, and I do not think we strengthen ourselves at all in the matter of obtaining payment of our rates by making it a condition of Qualification for the franchise, either Parliamentary or local government.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I should not have intervened if the Government was not so astonishingly proud of what is so singularly poor a performance. They continue to maintain that the settlement they have made is one which would appeal to the pure light of reason, and that it certainly did not do. The peculiarity of this Bill is that the Government are bringing in a Bill, not founded on reason, not founded on any simple principle, not founded on any logical principle at all, but founded on simple expediency, and that expediency to the advantage of the Radical party. Such is the achievement of statesmanship by a Government which ought to be conducting the War, and thinks it necessary to meddle in every conceivable domestic matter, and is therefore unable to give its attention to what it is doing. This Amendment seeks to make payment of rates a condition of the municipal vote. That is a very reasonable principle. My right hon. Friend says that it is inconsistent with the simplicity of the Bill—the simplicity of a Bill which gives a residential franchise probably to convicts, certainly to vagrants, and an occupation franchise which is founded on no principle at all. It is not a franchise like the Parliamentary franchise, and and it is not a rate-paying franchise. It is purely arbitrary. But acting on such grounds of reason they claim to proceed on a principle so simple that They will not disturb it for fear of spoiling their Bill. Simplicity is not in itself an advantage. It is only an advantage when it has a note of truth and of reason. It has neither the one nor the other in this Bill. We erect two contradictory systems, one for the municipal vote, the other for the Parliamentary. Neither your municipal nor your Parliamentary vote is founded on a reasonable basis. And then you have the debating coming to revile my right hon. Friend and treat his Amendment almost with contempt, because he seeks to place the municipal vote on a sound rate-paying franchise, which is, at any rate, a reasonable basis for a franchise. The Government would do much better to approach this discussion in a spirit of humility.

Colonel GRETTON

By this Amendment it is intended to give the municipal vote to everyone who happens to reside in a municipal or rural constituency, irrespective of the performance of his duties to the State. He is allowed to take part in the management of local public affairs, and the expenditure of other people's money, without contributing his own share to the rates. The only way in which the Government will be able to get rid of his vote would be to put in a distress in the case of every defaulting ratepayer. That is a very strange doctrine. It is no doubt simple, but it is entirely contrary to all the principles of good citizenship. I strongly urge upon the Government to give this matter a little further consideration, and to embody amongst the principles of the Bill this very sound and necessary principle that the voter should be a good citizen, and if he does not perform his duties to the State he should not be allowed to control the affairs of the State and of his fellow citizens. That, I think, is an incontrovertible principle. The Government are leaving the door open, irrespective of those who have been lacking in their duty to the State.

Sir F. BANBURY

I cannot think that the argument of my right hon. Friend is by any manner of means conclusive. It amounts to this, that the Speaker's Conference desired to make everything very simple. In order to make everything very simple the person who is liable for rates and ought to pay his rates, but who refuses to pay, is still to be allowed to have not the Parliamentary vote, but the local government vote, and thereby to exercise influence upon the locality, though he himself refuses, despite the fact that he is perfectly able and is bound by law, to make his contribution to the rates which he himself has already helped to impose. So far as I can see, the original intention of the Speaker's Conference was to deal with the Parliamentary vote. The local government vote came in with the purpose apparently of a desire to give the vote to women, and that is the only way in which it could be done. If it is to be held that simplicity, whatever that means, is to be the guiding principle of this Bill, why not say that everybody shall vote, wherever he lives, for any place, and in any circumstances, provided he has lived in a certain place, or occupied a certain place for a certain number of months? That would be very simple, and there could be no mistake about it, and we might have avoided all this long discussion on these Amendments. The Government will not accept any Amendment which, as my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil) says, possibly redounds or contributes to the advantage of the Conservative party. So long as the fortunes of the Bill confer advantages upon the Radical party then the Speaker's Conference is sacred. Those unfortunate people who by their duty to the State and by hard work have saved a little money, and consequently for the most part belong to the Conservative party, are to be swept away because we are told that everything is to be of the most simple character, and nothing must be done to wreck or alter any decision come to by the Speaker's Conference. It is now nearly 11.30, and most Members have gone—which shows that the majority of Members are not very keenly interested. I should have divided the Committee. In the circumstances I shall not do that, but I shall not withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being half Past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.