Commons Sitting of 26 November 1917

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating) (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Food Control Committee for Ireland (Constitution) Order, 1917, and Enforcement (England and Wales) Order, 1917, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Seventh Report of the Development Commissioners, being for the year 1916–17 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 159.]
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE) (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 21st November, 1917, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, acting jointly with the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Regulations, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARD (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Regulations with respect to the constitution and proceedings of the Agricultural Wages Board for Ireland made, under the Corn Production Act, 1917, by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BATHING CAPS (EXPORT).
    Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the case that quantities of ladies' bathing caps made of rubber and rubber heels are being sent by post to Switzerland; if so, whether there is any danger of these things being passed through to Germany, or, if not, for what purpose they are being sent?
    Viscount WOLMER (War Trade Department): During the last three months, 1,912 rubber bathing caps, weighing 408 lbs., and 6⅛ tons of rubber heels have been licensed by parcel post. The quantities are within the normal pre-war Swiss requirements as sanctioned by the Allied International Commission in Paris. The parcels are consigned to the SociétéSuisse de Surveillance under guarantee against re-export to enemy countries. There is therefore no danger of the goods finding their way to Germany. I understand the goods are required for ordinary commercial purposes. The quantity of pure rubber contained in the heels is negligible.
    Colonel YATE: Are bathing caps used or suitable at the present time? People do not bathe in Switzerland in winter, and if the goods are not for use in Switzerland must they not go to Germany?
    Viscount WOLMER: I understand that they are used for stocking supplies of bathing caps for next summer.

    COULSDON (RAILWAY FACILITIES).
    Sir STUART COATSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state why it is that passengers holding either season or ordinary tickets can travel by either the South-Eastern or Brighton Railway between Purley and London, while a similar option is denied to passengers from Coulsdon; and will he direct that this privilege shall be extended to the latter, now that both railways are under State control?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): I am inquiring into this question, and will communicate with the hon. Baronet when I receive the necessary information.

    BRITISH DYE WORKS (FOREIGN INTEREST).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked whether any Swiss or other foreign concern has any financial interest in any British dyeing works; and, if so, whether any enemy person or bank is interested in such foreign concern?
    Mr. WARDLE: The Clayton Aniline Company, Limited, of Manchester, is owned by the Society of Chemical Industry, of Basle, and I understand that there is some association between the Sandoz Chemical Company of Switzerland and Messrs. H. N. Morris and Company, Limited. I have no reason to believe that either of the Swiss companies named is under any enemy influence, and both of them have rendered substantial services to the British textile and dyeing industries during the War.

    BRITISH TRADE CORPORATION (AGENTS IN RUSSIA).
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he is aware that an announcement has been made that Messrs. William Higgs and Company, of Moscow, have been appointed by the British Trade Corporation to act as intermediary for the operations of the corporation in Russia; and will he state the grounds for appointing this firm?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am not aware of any such announcement, and I am informed that the British Trade Corporation have not appointed the firm in question to be their representatives in Russia.

    INDIAN ARMY (OFFICERS).
    Major H. TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for India whether officers in the Indian Army whose term of service has expired and who are over fifty-five years of age are, though unemployed, not allowed to leave India; whether such officers whilst unemployed receive any, and, if so, what pay beyond the pensions they have earned; will he say by what authority such officers are forbidden to return to England; and will he explain why such officers should be compelled to remain in India at their own expense and without pay?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): No information has been received to this effect, but inquiry will be made.
    Major TERRELLasked whether officers in the Indian Army who have, during the War, been engaged on Staff work in France have been recalled to India and there employed in various subordinate positions where their experience of Staff work on active service is of no use; and whether the Government will take steps to prevent such waste of Staff experience and see that experienced Staff officers are employed on Staff work?
    Mr. FISHER: The Secretary of State for India must leave it to the judgment of the Commander-in-Chief in India to employ officers recalled from France to duty in India to the best advantage having regard to their individual qualifications and capacities, as to which he is fully informed, and to the special needs for the time being of the Indian Army. At present experienced officers with knowledge of the Indian vernaculars are urgently needed in India for the training of new units, and possibly some officers who have been on Staff duty in France are being utilised for this purpose.
    Major TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Captain Barlow, of the 8th Goorkhas, was, whilst serving in France, severely wounded in the arm and had, after a long detention in hospital, a steel appliance fitted to keep the arm in its place and that, when he was still unable to move his arm, he was ordered to attend at the India Office to be medically examined; whether he is aware that the surgeon who had attended him declared that he was still wholly unfit for service, but that the board by whom he was examined at the India Office passed him fit for service in India; whether he is aware that Captain Barlow was then ordered to proceed for service to India, and that since his arrival in India he has been examined by several medical boards and declared unfit for service; and whether he has in consequence been ordered to return to England?
    Mr. FISHER: Major Barlow received in France a gunshot wound in the right arm on 30th October, 1914. After nearly a year's treatment, he was passed by the India Office Medical Board not for service but for " light duty " in India, with the

    1613
    concurrence in writing of the surgeon immediate attendance on him and of the very eminent consulting surgeon in charge of the case, it being understood that he would be able to return to this country for operation when circumstances permitted. He accordingly proceeded to India in November, 1915, was examined and recommended for sick leave at the end of May, 1916, returned to this country and underwent the operation in September, 1916. He was examined by the India Office Medical Board in June, 1917, was passed fit for "light duty," and returned to India in July last. No further information has been received regarding this officer.
    Major TERRELLasked whether there have recently been several cases of officers of the Indian Army who have been passed as fit for service in India by the medical board at the India Office and have consequently been ordered to proceed for service to India, and who have shortly after their arrival in India been certified as unfit for service and ordered to return to England; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to prevent the recurrence of such unfair treatment of officers and such waste of public money?
    Mr. FISHER: In view of the Government of India's urgent needs officers are in present circumstances sent back to India who in ordinary times would be kept in this country for more complete convalescence. Of these a few have not stood the strain and have been invalided from India. The Secretary of State, to reassure himself, asked the Government of India in March last for their opinion as to the suitability of the standard adopted by the medical board. They reported that the number of returned officers was not sufficient to warrant any change in the standard. The Secretary of State saw no sufficient reason to differ from this conclusion. The Government of India have again been asked whether they are still of the same opinion.

    SUPREME WAR COUNCIL.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the creation of a supreme War Council for the better co-ordination of military action among the Allies, it is the intention of the Government to establish a similar body to secure better co-ordination of diplomatic action and war aims?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): His Majesty's Government will endeavour to secure and maintain co-ordination of all war policy and action.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is still intended to hold an Allied Conference for the statement of War aims?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Yes.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. KINGasked whether the British Ambassador at Petrograd has remained during the past fortnight in constant communication with the Russian Foreign Office; and who is the present Foreign Minister of Russia with whom relations are being maintained?
    Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir. Since the fall of the Provisional Government no Government has been established in Russia with which His Majesty's Government have found themselves able to enter into relations.
    Mr. KING: If no other Government is established, will Sir George Buchanan return to this country, or what will happen then?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am afraid that I cannot indulge in prophesies, least of all as regards Russian affairs.
    Mr. KING: Is it not usual, when a Government is de facto in power that our representative should be in relation with that Government?
    Mr. R. LAMBERTwhether the Russian Government or any person purporting to represent the Russian Government has proposed an immediate armistice on all fronts, with a view to peace negotiations; and, if so, what answer has been given?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, no reply has been returned by His Majesty's Government, or, so far as I am aware, by any of our Allies.

    GERMAN KAISER.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are at present in Great Britain any
    rela-

    1615
    tives of the German Kaiser who owe no allegiance to this country; and, if so, will he give the complete list, together with the reasons why their residence in this country is permitted?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to the reply returned to a similar question by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the 22nd November.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply was a concealment of information?
    Mr. BALFOUR: No. I do not think that there was any concealment of information. All the information I have has been given to the hon. Member.
    Mr. LYNCH: I will come back to this point again and again.

    EX-KING CONSTANTINE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Allies guaranteed to ex-King Constantine an annual payment of 500,000 francs; if not, whether he can give the exact sum; whether he can state the services for which this payment was agreed to; whether any conditions were stipulated such as, for instance, that the ex-King should not plot against the Allies; and whether he can give the proportion of this Royal income paid by the British Government?
    Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir; the Protecting Powers have not guaranteed any payment to King Constantine. The rest of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. LYNCH: If they have not guaranteed him, have they paid him? My information comes from a French semiofficial source. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the " Temps " of two or three days ago he will see it there stated.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension. Nothing has been guaranteed, and as far as I know nothing has been paid to him.

  PRIVY COUNCIL.

    FALSE GERMAN REPORT.
    Sir G. YOUNGERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made in the " Hamburger Nach-
    1616
    richten " of 8th November to the general effect that in July, 1913, a secret meeting of the Privy Council, attended by His Majesty King George, was held in London at which war with Germany was advocated after a discussion in which the late Prime Minister, Lord Kitchener, Lord Grey of Falloden, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Morley, and others took part; and whether he is in a position to confirm or deny this statement?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Yes, my attention has been called to the report of which my hon. Friend gives a concise account. Though its falsehood must be plain to everyone acquainted with public life in this country, I have thought it well to make explicit inquiries, for the benefit of those who have no such knowledge. Let me say, then, that His Majesty the King grants me permission to state on his authority that no such meeting was held. Lord Kitchener was not a member of the Privy Council at that date, while the late Prime Minister, Lord Grey of Falloden, Lord Morley of Blackburn, and Lord Lansdowne all assure me that there is not a vestige of truth in the story.
    Who the author of this clumsy fiction may be I know not, but he has certainly contrived to adorn his work with every circumstance of improbability and absurdity which German thoroughness could collect or imagine.

    KELLNER-PARTINGTON WOOD PULP COMPANY.
    Mr. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether celluloid prepared from sulphite wood-pulp is extensively used as a substitute for aluminium in the construction of Zeppelin aircraft; whether in the preparation of aeroplane cloth for Gotha and other machines there is used a composition, the basis of which is a textile febric woven from paper yarns manufactured out of wood-pulp; whether, as profits were made by Sweden in shipping chemical wood-pulp to the munition factories of Germany, he will consider the danger of allowing the control of a concern like the KellnerPartington Wood Pulp Company to pass into foreign hands at the present juncture; whether he has considered the effect of increased powers and facilities for Zeppelin and aeroplane construction on the part of the enemy upon the people of East London at the present moment; and whether he

    1617
    realises that the undertaking given by the Government of Norway that none but Norwegian shareholders shall control the new undertaking is entirely worthless as a guarantee that the output of the works will not be forwarded indirectly, if not directly, into enemy hands?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of BLOCKADE (Mr. Leverton Harris): I am not conversant with the details of the construction of Zeppelins and aeroplanes, but I find it difficult to believe that celluloid could take the place of aluminium in the former. As regards the last part, it was not suggested that the undertaking in regard to the future allocation of shares constituted a guarantee regarding the disposal of the output of the works. The guarantees on the latter point are entirely distinct from the Norwegian Government's undertaking in regard to the former.
    Mr. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the last filed accounts of the Kellner-Partington Wood Pulp Company reveal the fact that there are £900,000 of holdings in other companies, mostly Swedish; that, apart from the output of Gorregaard Works, Norway, directly owned, there is a further output capacity of 60,000 tons annually of chemical wood pulp, leather boards, alcohol prepared from sulphite lye, and other materials of great enemy value, and that this production takes place within the territory of Sweden, whose commercial policy has been of great value to the Central Empires since the declaration of war; and whether he will state the manner in which the Government of Norway, when giving him assurances that these goods would not pass into enemy hands, or the new purchasers, when giving an undertaking not to sell to enemy purchasers, propose to restrain the managers of the Swedish works so as to effectually prevent the above output from passing into enemy hands?
    Mr. HARRIS: In answer to the question generally, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers returned to questions addressed to the Ministry of Blockade and other Departments by the hon. Members for South West Ham, Merthyr Tydvil, and the Ludlow Division, on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday last week. As regards the last part, I have no doubt of the ability of the Norwegian Government to ensure the fulfilment of the undertaking given by
    1618
    them. The Norwegian purchasers will not be less able to control the management of the Swedish factories than were the British Directors of the Kellner-Partington Company.
    Mr. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the ordinary shares of the Kellner-Partington Wood Pulp Company were quoted at 78s., and the buyers propose to pay £6 each for the same, together with considerable advantages both to debenture and preference shareholders; that even with allowance for advantages in the rate of exchange this is not a payable proposition, and that it can only become so on the basis of enemy transactions or by forming a ring in the world's supply of wood pulp; whether he is aware that Germany is so short of textiles that she is diluting the materials for military uniforms with paper yarns and cellulose prepared from wood pulp; and whether, in view of the enemy need of these products, he will, before finally consenting to transfer the company to foreign control, appoint a small Committee to take evidence on the matter?
    Mr. HARRISIn answer to the question generally, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer returned to questions addressed to the Ministry of Blockade and other Departments by the hon. Members for South-West Ham, Merthyr Tydvil, and the Ludlow Division on Monday. Tuesday, and Wednesday last week. As regards the third part, I believe it is true that there is a shortage of textiles and the yarns usually used therefor in Germany, and that paper yarn is used as a substitute for many purposes, but is not generally satisfactory.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    POTATOES.
    Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the percentage of potash that can be obtained from burnt bracken; and whether potatoes can be successfully grown in ground previously covered with bracken?
    Colonel J. CRAIG (Treasurer of the Household): Bracken ash may yield from 2 to 40 per cent. of soluble potash, according to the time of year the plant is cut. The Scottish Board of Agriculture has issued a leaflet on bracken as a source of

    1619
    potash, of which I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy. Potatoes may often be successfully grown on land previously covered with bracken, though its presence is no indication that the land is specially suitable for the purpose.
    Colonel YATE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me what is the proper time to cut bracken?
    Colonel CRAIG: I will make inquiry and let my hon. and gallant Friend know. I am answering only on the part of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, with reference to the Potato Order limiting the bonus to be paid to growers who sold 4 tons and upwards, as this Order would have the effect of excluding 75 per cent. of the Irish farmers, whether he will consider the question of allowing the small farmers to pool their potatoes for the same purpose?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): This point has now been carefully considered. The pooling arrangement suggested by the hon. Member would extend the benefits of the Government guarantee to persons to whom that guarantee did not apply, and would thereby impose an unjustifiable burden on the Exchequer. The Food Controller sees no sumcient ground for making this extension.

    FOOD PRODUCTION SCHEMES.
    Mr. CLANCYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture the total amount of money placed at the disposal of the Food Production Department by the Board of Agriculture by way of Vote of Credit or otherwise for the purpose of their food production schemes during the present year?
    Colonel CRAIG: As stated in the reply given to the right hon. Member for South Molton on 13th instant, the gross total expenditure by the Food Production Department up to 31st October was £1,425,500, of which about £1,050,000 is recoverable. It is not possible to forecast with any degree of accuracy the further amount which will be expended before the end of the financial year, but it is not likely to exceed £2,500,000 gross, the greater proportion of which will be recoverable.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Does that include the cost of the purchase of factories?
    Colonel CRAIG:I am answering only on behalf of the President of the Board, but I will call his attention to the supplementary question.

    BUTTER AND CHEESE FROM DOMINIONS.
    Mr. YEOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the quantity of butter and cheese purchased from Australia and New Zealand, the purchase price per pound, and the cost of freight delivery in London?
    Mr. CLYNES: The exportable output of butter and cheese from Australia and New Zealand for the season beginning 1st September, 1917, and ending 30th June, 1918, has been purchased. The quantities are estimated to be:
    Butter—
    30,000 tons from Australia.
    15,000 tons from New Zealand.
    Cheese—
    4,000 tons from Australia.
    60,000 tons from New Zealand.
    Negotiations for purchase are not completed, and the rates of freight are being revised; it would not, in any case, be desirable to give the figures as to cost.

    MILK PRICES (IRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he can now state the fixed prices of milk in Ireland?
    Mr. CLYNES: The Food Controller, with the concurrence of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland, proposes to fix the maximum wholesale price for milk at 1 s. 4d. per gallon and the maximum retail price at ls. 8d. per gallon, sold over the counter, and 2s. per gallon, delivered to the customer's premises. The Irish Food Control Committee will be given power o alter the prices in cases where they find it advisable, subject to the approval of the Food Controller.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: What is the reason for the Food Controller fixing one price for all over Ireland and for the country districts, where the people can secure milk at ls. 4d. per gallon, thus enabling the retailers to charge the higher price fixed by the Food Controller?
    Mr. CLYNES: In my reply I make it clear that the increase of price may be varied, according to the circumstances, by the action of the food control authorities in Ireland who know the circumstances.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: But is it not the fact that when the food controller fixes the price the retailers are glad to get hold of it, so as to charge the people the very highest price?
    Mr. CLYNES: That surely would be a reason that any authority locally would take into consideration.

    COMPULSORY RATIONING.
    Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the Government has considered or decided upon the compulsory rationing of the people; if it is decided to have compulsory rationing, will he say when it will be introduced; and whether he will ensure that in the case of shortage the districts in which manual workers, especially munition workers, reside shall be first supplied with food?
    Mr. CLYNES: The Food Controller stated last Tuesday in another place that the institution of compulsory rationing depended upon the public response to the appeals that are being made in favour of voluntary economy. He added that in view of the possibility of the necessity for compulsion arising, he thought it desirable to have the machinery ready, and had submitted a Memorandum to the War Cabinet before whom the matter now is. Steps have already been taken to alleviate shortages of essential foodstuffs that have occurred in certain areas where the industrial population has recently increased.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider, before putting compulsory rationing into operation, the menus which are supplied at some of these very high-priced hotels and London clubs, and see that they are cut down to not more than two courses, and in this House as well?
    Mr. CLYNES: The facts have not escaped the attention of the Ministry, although they do not affect the supply of essential foodstuffs in the same degree my hon. Friend may think.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the account of a dinner at the Ritz Hotel in the current newspapers?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am so little acquainted with these hotels that I have not seen the particular menu.

    GRAIN (PRICES) ORDER.
    Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, whether
    1622
    restrictions have been, or are about to be, placed on the trade of selling seed corn for agriculturists?
    Mr. CLYNES: Clause 9 of the Grain (Prices) Order provides that the maximum prices under that Order shall not apply to any grain which is suitable for seed, and which is also sold specifically for the purpose of seed. No grain so sold may be used for any other purpose.

    SPIRITS (WHOLESALE AND RETAIL PRICES).
    Mr. G. FABERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider the desirability of fixing prices for spirits sold by retail or wholesale in this country, seeing the prices at present being charged for them to the public?
    Mr. CLYNES: It is not in contemplation to regulate or control the wholesale or retail prices of spirits.

    TEA.
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will favourably consider the suggestion to mix all classes of tea and fix a uniform price to the public?
    Mr. CLYNES: The scheme of distribution is still under consideration. The point raised by the hon. Member will be borne in mind.

    WINE AND BRANDY (SUPPLIES TO IRISH TRADERS).
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware of the manner in which the Regulations governing the supplies of wine and brandy to Irish traders are operating; that in cases where traders purchased their supplies in casks in December, 1915, and did not place further orders until February, 1917, they are penalised by having these latter supplies refused on the ground that the average is based on the purchases made in 1916; and will he recommend that in such cases the average should be based on the purchases made in 1915?
    Mr. CLYNES: Presumably the hon. Member is referring to the restriction on deliveries from bond, which, of course, is applicable not to Ireland only, but to the whole of the United Kingdom. I realise that as the restriction is based upon the deliveries from bond in 1916, some inconvenience must be caused to those who.

    1623
    cleared nothing in that year, but I am afraid it would not be practicable to differentiate in favour of individuals.
    Mr. KEATING: May I draw the hon. Member's attention to the injustice that very small traders, who purchased in very small quantities in 1915, and got none in 1916, cannot get any more during the War?
    Mr. CLYNES: My reply has only stated that differentiation may not be practicable, but if there be special reasons for supplying small traders, such as those referred to, they may be considered.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. SAMUEL SAMUELasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that at an auction held in Dublin on the 13th November by Andrew J. Keogh, at 10, Lower Ormonde Quay, a large quantity of sugar was offered for sale; will he say why extra quantities of this article were allowed to Ireland above the requirements whilst there was no such shortage in this country; and will he see in future that excessive quantities are not given to any particular district?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No extra quantity of sugar is allowed to Ireland over and above the quantity permitted under the existing arrangements for distribution, which for all parts of the United Kingdom is on a basis proportionate to 1915 supplies.
    Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will explain the practical effect of the new Regulations for sugar rations; whether the actual method by which it is to be distributed is in all cases with cards having coupons attached; and whether this new departure is due to the knowledge that the coupon system of rationing has been worked in Germany for over two and a half years?
    Mr. CLYNES: The coupon system is being instituted to provide for occasional removals and for persons frequently moving from place to place, and therefore only applies to a small proportion of the population. It has been adopted in view of its special convenience for the class of persons in question.

  MUNITIONS.

    LEAVING CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he can make a statement as to the result of the abolition of leaving certificates under the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act?
    Mr. KELLAWAY (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for having consented to several postponements of this question. I am now able to give him a somewhat fuller answer. There has been no widespread and abnormal movement of labour since 15th October, and, in consequence, no general dislocation of work as a result of the repeal of Section 7 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915. Considerable movement, has, however, according to my information, taken place in certain skilled occupations, more especially toolroom men. The effect of this will not necessarily appear in output for some little time. The application for transfers in shipyards has been very low. Such movement as has taken place has varied a good deal according to localities, certain isolated areas having suffered more than others.
    There is a tendency in some quarters for men to use their freedom as a lever for securing higher wages. I have also received a number of complaints of firms offering inducements to workmen to leave their employment contrary to Regulation 8 (b) of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I am advised that the action of the Government in agreeing to the payment of a bonus of 12⅛ per cent. to men engaged on time in munitions work, has had a marked effect in reducing the movement of labour.
    On the whole, it may be said that the abolition of the leaving certificate has not been attended by evil consequences to the extent that was anticipated, and that an undoubted cause of discontent and unrest among munition workers has been removed.

    HUTMENTS (CLEVELAND).
    Sir JOSEPH WALTONasked the Minister of Munitions if he can state the total cost of the hutments erected by the Ministry of Munitions for miners in Cleveland, also the cost of furnishing them, and the number of men provided for?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The total cost of the hutments erected by the Ministry of Muni

    1625
    tions for miners in Cleveland is £75,000, the cost of furnishing them £10,550, and the number of men provided for is 2,760.
    Sir J. WALTON: Can my hon. Friend say whether competitive tenders were obtained before the work was commenced, and whether the contractor is paid a percentage on outlay?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have not inquired particularly upon that point, but I do know that it was absolutely necessary that these hutments should be ready at the earliest possible moment, as the getting possession of iron ore was a matter of the greatest urgency at the time.
    Sir J. WALTON: Is my hon. Friend aware that not a single miner has entered into any one of these hutments since they were erected and that they have cost more than twice as much as they ought to have done if the business had been conducted on proper business lines?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: My information is that the result has been that we have been enabled to secure an increased output of ore, which was of the greatest possible importance.
    Sir J. WALTON: Absolutely no hutment occupied?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have not any information on that point.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Why did the hon. Gentleman say that by the erection of these hutments they have been enabled to obtain an increased output of ore, when none of these hutments was occupied?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I think there must be some misapprehension in my right hon. Friend's mind. I know that there has been brought into this district a very considerable number of outside miners.
    Sir J. WALTON: It is in my right hon. Friend's own constituency.
    Mr. TENNANT: May I ask my hon. Friend whether it is usual in his Department to erect huts at a cost of £40 per man?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: It is not possible in these times to get hutments erected on any such terms as would be possible in peace times.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Was it not the fact, owing to quarrels between Government Departments, particularly the Ministry of Munitions and the Ministry of Labour,
    1626
    that, although these hutments were built, not a single miner was brought to occupy any of them?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I feel sure there has been some mistake about this. The fact is that there has been a substantial number of miners brought into this neighbourhood.
    Mr. ROCH: Have they been put into the huts?

    CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS (COMPLAINTS).
    Mr. YEOasked whether a new procedure has been adopted to deal with complaints made by employers against employés; whether new special bodies have been established to decide whether such complaints should go before munitions tribunals; and, if so, what are the composition and scope of such bodies?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Section 10 of the Munitions of War Act, 1917, provides that proceedings for a breach of the rules approved for controlled establishments shall not be instituted except by the Minister or by the Admiralty or by a person acting on his or their behalf. I have accordingly arranged that the controlled establishments with which I am concerned and which are not authorised to act on my behalf should refer their complaints to the chief investigation officer of the Ministry for their area, and that he should submit the complaints for advice to the main enlistment complaints committee for the area. If that body recommend prosecution, the chief investigation officer is authorised to take proceedings on my behalf; if they do not, the case is referred to the Ministry for further consideration. The enlistment complaints committees consist of representatives of the Ministry of Munitions, Admiralty and War Office, and an equal number of representatives of labour. They were originally established to deal with claims by workmen for protection from recruitment.

    SOUTH WALES MINERS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his notice has been directed to the repudiation by the president of the South Wales Miners' Federation of the suggestion that German gold has been circulated in that area; whether he is aware of the feeling aroused among the miners by sug-

    1627
    gestions of this sort; whether he has in his possession any evidence that would support the charge that money from German sources has been used in the South Wales coal-field; and whether any steps are to be taken either to have these charges substantiated or denied?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I know nothing of any suggestion that German gold has been circulated among the miners in South Wales. I believe that such a charge would be rightly resented by the miners, and I have no evidence whatever which would support it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Did not the hon. Member for South Glamorgan send details to the right hon. Gentleman?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that particulars have been supplied to the competent military authority, who is the person to whom such information should be sent?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not know that.
    Mr. EDWARDS: It is so.

    TAXI-CAB DISPUTE.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to the public by the dispute between the railway companies and the taxi-cab proprietors at the London railway termini, he will, in default of a settlement being arrived at, make arrangements for the extra charge to be paid by the hirer of the cab as he passes out of the station or otherwise?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have no power to compel the hirer of a cab at a railway station to pay a toll to the railway company. In September last, before the recent increase of taxi-cab fares, I put forward a proposal that the ld. toll should be paid by the driver and repaid to him by the hirer of the cab, but I was informed that the proposal could not in practice be carried out.
    Sir S. ROBERTS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is full time, in the interests of the people of the country, that this question was settled?

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS

    POLICE RAIDS (ENEMY PROPAGANDA).
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary whether any specific charges were placed before him against the Council for Civil Liberties to justify a raid upon its offices; and whether he will state why this raid was undertaken?
    Sir G. CAVE: These premises were raided because it was suspected that they were being used for carrying on a propaganda in the interests of the enemy.
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary (1) why detectives for whose conduct he is responsible took from the offices of the National Council for Civil Liabilities Copies of Mill's " Liberty," the official reports of this House, and similar literature; whether he will state if the Government now proposes to prohibit the circulation and the ownership of such books; (2) whether he is aware that in the course of the recent raid at 28, Victoria Street, S.W., the only leaflets seized were copies of " A Reasonable Man's Peace," by H. G. Welis; that Mr. Wells wrote this after being allowed to visit the Italian, French, and British Fronts, that the leaflet is a reprint of an article in the " Daily News," and had been passed by the Censor for transmission abroad; whether he will explain the delay of over a week in returning this authorised leaflet to the owners; (3) whether he is aware that on or about 7th September, 1917, the secretary of the International Free Trade League submitted to the Censor at Strand House, Portugal Street, the only two publications hitherto issued by this league and that they were passed by the Censor and allowed to be sent to America; will he say why these leaflets have now been seized and detained; why the Censor's written permission has been taken away and not returned; and whether it is intended to prosecute in this case while destroying or detaining the written evidence relied on for a defence?
    Mr. KINGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that copies of Lord Shaw of Dunfermline's judgment in the case of A. Zadig were seized and taken away during the police raid on the premises of the National Council for Civil Liberties on 21st November; and whether it is proposed to make it impossible to

    1629
    reprint and circulate judgments given in the Courts when those judgments are against the Government?
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked (1) whether he is aware that in a raid recently effected on a private house at Redhill a number of leaflets advocating taxation of land values, and without any reference to the War, were taken away and have not been returned; whether it is the intention to suppress all advocacy of a method of taxation which could raise vast sums for national purposes and enable those who have fought for their country to have access to it; (2) whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on the occasion of the raid on the offices of the " Women's Crusade," an officer seized copies of a service of prayer because he saw the word peace in one of the prayers; and can he state whether any further steps have been taken in the matter of this document?
    Sir G. CAVE: The large quantity of documents seized on the occasion of these raids may have included some not connected with enemy propaganda. These will be sorted out and returned to their owners as quickly as possible.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that "A Reasonable Man's Peace" has already been passed by the Censor, and will he immediately have this leaflet returned?
    Sir G. CAVE:I am not aware that it has been passed by the Censor.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries, because I have seen the Censor's signed copy?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: In view of the seizure of the service of prayer referred to in question 74, is he aware that the attention of the police authorities was drawn to the fact that it was a supplication for peace in the service of prayer addressed to this House, and will any action be taken?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir; I believe there was a leaflet containing a prayer and other matters.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries as to whether, When this document was seized, it was pointed out to the officer that it was a service of prayer, and that he was not going to take it until he saw the word peace mentioned in it?
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Home Secretary whether, on the occasion of the recent police raids in search of seditious literature, the offices of an organisation at 146, Queen Victoria Street, E.C., were visited; and, if so, can he state with what result?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: In view of the fact that in these recent raids religious literature has been seized in other offices, why has immunity been granted as regards this office, which is the headquarters of the British and Foreign Bible Society?
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Home Secretary whether a pamphlet or leaflet which consists solely of biblical quotations in support of peace and denouncing the methods of war has to be submitted to the Censor before publication?
    Sir G. CAVE: This question is purely hypothetical, and I do not think I should give a reply to it until I see a leaflet which is of the character described.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: In such a case of the leaflet being submitted to the Censor, how is the Regulation about the name and present address of the author being attached to be complied with—for instance, in the case of the Sermon on the Mount?
    Sir G. CAVE: The person who puts a leaflet together is to be regarded as the author.

    NEWSPAPER ARTICLES (REPRINTING).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary whether articles which have appeared in the Press may be reprinted and circulated without being submitted to the Censor and without bearing the names of their authors?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. MACDONALD: May I ask why the answer is in the negative when the article has already been circulated?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is quite clear that statements which have appeared in newspapers uncensored, if printed in leaflets must come under the Regulation.

    ADDRESSES TO CONSTITUENCIES.
    Mr. MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary whether Regulation 27c affect's the issue of addresses by Parliamentary

    1631
    candidates and Members in their constituencies; and whether he will give an assurance that candidates and Members will have no obstacles put in their way in putting their views before their constituencies in leaflet or any other recognised form?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is not intended that these addresses should be interfered with by the Regulation in question, and I will endeavour to make this clear by a direction to the Press Bureau, or in some other way.
    Mr. MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what authority he has to make that exception under the Regulations?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not propose to make any exception. I do not think they would cover this case, and I will endeavour to make that clear.
    HON MEMBERS: Why?
    Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that any published address to electors, against the War, is a leaflet which is not a leaflet, within the meaning of the Regulation?
    Sir G. CAVE: Of course, it depends on the particular facts of the case. It is not convenient that I should be asked for a reply to a general question of that kind about the meaning of the Regulations, which hon. Members can interpret themselves. All that I desire to say is that we do not desire to interfere with electoral activities.
    Mr. KING: Did not the hon. Gentleman consider these matters before he made the Regulation?

  ARMY AND NAVY.

    SCALES OF INCREASED PAY.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Prime Minister when he expects to be in a position to report the result of the reference, back to the War Cabinet Sub-Committee of the request made by the Joint Committee of the House of Lords, the House of Commons, and the General Federation of Trade Unions, for increases in the pay of the sailor and the soldier, particularly in respect of the able seaman, the stoker in the Navy, the private 'n the Marines, and the private in the Army?
    Colonel LESLIE WILSONasked (1) whether the Government has come to a decision as to the proposed increase to the pay of sailors and soldiers; (2) whether he is able to announce the decision at which the Government has arrived with regard to any increase of pay or allowances for the junior ranks of commissioned officers?
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the increased pay to sailors and soldiers; whether he can also state what improvements are to be made in the pay of junior officers, and whether their dependants are to have any separation allowance; whether he can say if the alterations in pay will affect any other grants, such as those made by the local war pensions committee, or the Civil Liabilities Committee; whether any of the previous increases announced has been paid to either the Navy or the Army; and whether, if they have not, he can definitely promise that the new increases will be paid at once, with retrospective effect from 29th September?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The Government, as promised, has considered again the increases in pay and allowances recently announced for the non-commissioned ranks of the Navy and Army, and has decided to make certain further awards. These, like those already announced, will come into operation as from 29th September last for the Army and 1st October last for the Navy, and, so far as action has not already been taken, the increases will come into operation as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made.
    It will be remembered that the original increases were estimated to cost over £50,000,000 for the first year and over £54,000,000 for the second year. The total increases, including those now made, will cost in all about £65,000,000 for the first year and £69,000,000 for the second year.
    I will, if I may, circulate the full details of these awards.
    The above increases will not affect grants made by the local war pensions committees or the Civil Liabilities Committee.
    I am as yet unable to make any statement with regard to the question of junior

    1633
    officers' pay, but I expect to be able to do so before the end of the Session.
    The following statement shows the changes to be made in Army and Navy Pay:

    I. ARMY.
    1. Compulsory allotments within the limits of 3s. 6d. a week for privates and corporals and 5s. 10d. a week for higher ranks will be paid by the State for all arms, without deduction from normal rates of pay.
    2. Privates of Infantry will receive a minimum of ls. 6d. a day, lance-corporals ls. 9d., corporals 2s. These rates will cover the 3d. hitherto given after two years' service as Class II. Proficiency Pay. Those who qualify for Class I. Proficiency Pay will receive an entra 3d. after six months' service instead of two years.' Similar changes, with the same minimum of as. 6d., will apply to Cavalry and Artillery.
    3. Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry Sergeants and higher ranks drawing Class I. Proficiency Pay will continue to draw 6d. as at present, but after six months, instead of two years, and in addition will receive an increase of 3d. a day to their pay.
    4. Royal Engineers, Army Service Corps, Army Ordnance Corps, Royal Army Medical Corps, and Army Veterinary Corps will continue to be rated for engineer and corps pay as at present, but in no case will regimental pay and engineer or corps pay together be less than ls. 6d. a day.
    5. An additional ld. a day will be given to all British soldiers on normal rates of pay for each complete year's service since the outbreak of war.
    6. Hospital stoppages are abolished, except in cases where the man is in hospital through his own fault.
    7. Men who have completed twenty-two -years' service for pension may, if they so elect, have their pensions then assessed and paid to them in addition to their pay, with effect from the outbreak of war.

    II. NAVY AND MARINES.
    1. The State to take over a portion of the allotment not exceeding 3s. 6d. in the case of allotments amounting to 5s. or more per week, and in the case of smaller allotments to dependants other than wives, such lesser sums will leave the men chargeable with 1s. 6d. per week. In the case of boys whose pay normally does not
    1634
    admit of an allotment in excess of 2s. per week, the State to take over ls. of the allotment.
    2. Additions to pay as follows:

    A. B ratings

    2d. a day

    Leading ratings

    3d.a day

    Petty officer ratings

    5d. a day

    Chief petty officer ratings

    5d. a day

    with an increase of 3d. a day to A.B. ratings after three years instead of after six years, as at present.
    3. Messing allowance at 7d. (at present 5⅛d.).
    4. Abolition of hospital stoppages.
    5. Free kit (now free kit on entry).
    6. Pensions to be paid to men who have completed time for pension and are detained under Proclamation, the same to be retrospective as from the beginning of the War, minus, in each case, the value of the detained pay already received.
    7. Improved pension for twenty-two years' service.
    All these changes take effect from 29th September last for the Army and from 1st October last for the Navy.
    The total increased charge is about—

    For the first year

    £65,000,000

    For the second year

    £69,000,000

    The Departmental Regulations, to be issued shortly, will give full details, and will be the only authoritative documents in the event of any question arising as to the application of the new scheme.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to what will be the increase, say, to a private in the Army?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The whole award is rather long, and I hope my hon. Friend will wait until he sees it circulated.
    Mr. LOUGH: Will an Estimate of this huge expenditure be laid before the House, or in some other way?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: An Estimate is not necessary. It is paid in the same way as the other items out of the Vote of Credit.
    Mr. HOGGE: With regard to that part of the reply in which it is stated that in so far as the money has not been paid it will be retrospective, may I ask has any money been paid as yet to either branch of the Service, and, if it has not, will it be paid at once?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Some has been paid, but all has not been paid. I can assure my hon. Friend there will he no avoidable delay.
    Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that any increase of pay given to the men will apply equally to officers and men, and not only to the men?
    Mr. BONAR- LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend did not hear my answer. There is a Committee sitting to deal specially with the question of officers. I am not yet able to give the result, but I hope to be able to do so before the end of the Session.
    Major BOWDEN: Can the right lion. Gentleman say, approximately, what is the increase on the flat rates given to soldiers and sailors?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I could not say, but, as the details are given, it would be better to wait for them.

    EDUCATION BILL
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether arrangements will be made to pass into law the Education Bill as soon as possible; and whether meanwhile he will take steps to meet the superior educational problem by which such a curriculum of scientific studies may be prepared and such means taken to link these in close association with the actual or possible industrial enterprise of the country, so that no artificial walls against competing nations, such as Germany, will be necessary?
    Mr. HERBERT FISHER: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that a Government Committee is at present inquiring into the position of the teaching of science in the educational system of Great Britain, particularly in secondary Schools and universities, regard being had, inter alia, to the interests of the trades, industries and professions which particularly depend upon applied science.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the Second Reading Of the Bill will be taken during this Session?
    Mr. FISHER: The Bill will be taken with as little delay as possible.
    LYNCH: As the second part is still pending, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence in the
    1636
    direction suggested by this question as these are matters on which the rise and fall of nations depend?

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he will proceed to the establishment of a Ministry of Health which shall deal not only with such questions as child welfare and the amelioration of various forms of administrative work referring to medical matters but will be conceived as arising from the idea that a great proportion of the maladies of humanity are preventible, and that prevention is aided by bold and well-adjusted sanitary plans and by the popularisation as, for instance, by definite instruction in schools of some clear ideas respecting the microbial origin of diseases and the manner in which these diseases are acquired; and that, in addition, the Ministry of Health should have the power to develop far beyond anything hitherto considered research work and technical instruction, with the definite objective of eventually eliminating certain diseases of which tuberculosis may be taken as a type?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the previous replies which have been made on this subject.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the previous reply in no way touched this matter. Why is there a prejudice against brain power?

    SOLDIERS SHOT (COMMUNICATIONS TO DEPENDANTS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is able to announce any new practice in notifying the death of men shot at the front; and whether the dependants of such men will in future receive any pension?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It has been arranged that in future the communications made to the dependants of soldiers shot at the front should merely state that they have died on Service. As regards the second part of the question, the matter is at present under consideration.

    LOCHROSQUE ESTATE, ROSS-SHIRE.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention

    1637
    has been called to the case of Mrs. Mackenzie, of Achnasheen, Lochrosque estate, Ross-shire, the wife of a soldier now in France, who was ejected from her home simultaneously with the husband going out to France, and who has since been compelled to accept the accommodation of a local washhouse; whether he is aware that an application on the part of this soldier to the Scottish Board of Agriculture has produced no result, and that an offer to his landlord to pay for a house and small holding has been met with definite refusal; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to helping this soldier to secure a home for his wife?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am inquiring into this case, but my information is not yet complete. If my hon. Friend will put another question in a week's time I hope to be in a position to reply.

    SECRET SESSIONS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in reply to the Message from the Lords relative to secret sittings, he proposes to move a new Standing Order which will make it possible for Peers to attend secret sittings of this House; and, if so. whether he will move at the same time that a Message be sent to the Lords suggesting reciprocal facilities?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall confer with Mr. Speaker upon this matter.

    SHIPBUILDING (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister, in view of shipbuilding being of such overwhelming importance, whether he can make a statement as to the alleged resignation of the whole of the Advisory Shipbuilding Committee?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot usefully add anything to the notice which was issued to the Press on the 23rd of November announcing the formation of a Shipbuilding Council, in which it was stated that all the gentlemen who served on the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee, and who have not since joined the staff of the Controller's Department, have already consented to serve on the Council.

    LAND SETTLEMENT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of prevailing popular sentiment, and the need of land for the settlement of discharged soldiers, he will take steps for the restoration to the community of land held by the Church of England by way of a measure of disendowment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the clergy have been excepted for military service, and is not this a very good reason for the land being taken from those who have not fought for its defence for the use of those who have?

    COAL PRICES (ITALY).
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the price of coal, including freight and charges, delivered in Italian ports may be taken as 50s. 6d. per ton, while the cost of same to the Italian consumer is stated to be as high as £24 per ton; and, if so, whether he can take measures to inform the Italian public that the high prices of coal charged to consumers in Italy are not due to the prices received by British coal owners, or to freights received by the British shipowner, or to profits made by the British Government?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir L. Chiozza Money): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question, and I welcome the opportunity of amplifying the statement made in my reply to a question on this subject on the 20th instant. The figure of 50s. 6d. refers only to the cost of coal delivered in Italy in requisitioned ships, and, as previously stated, is exclusive of war risk, which represents at least as much again. The coal supplied to Italy under these conditions represents, however, less than one-half of the total quantity of the coal imported into Italy and is entirely used for Government purposes. The balance of coal imported into Italy is carried at market rates of freight, which, in the case of neutral vessels, are as high as 185s. per ton, inclusive of war risk. I understand

    1639
    that the amount of coal which is spared by the Italian Government for private consumption is not more than 25,000 tons per month, and that the fixed price charged for this is 215s. per ton, this price being, as will be seen, only 30s. above the cost of freight alone on neutral vessels. I have no information as to the cases in which, as alleged, coal has been retailed at the high figure of £24 per ton, but the statement can only refer to quite exceptional cases.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that much of the discontent and trouble in Italy, and the recent disaster on the Italian front, were largely due to the high prices of food and coal in Italy, and to enemy propaganda that these high prices are due to British profiteering? Would it not be in the interests of the Allies generally, and of Great Britain in particular if means were taken—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not come within the scope of the hon. Gentleman's answer.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I should like to be allowed to say, in view of the importance of the question, that while the hon. Gentleman is entitled to defend the British shipowner in this matter, it does not appear, from the information in possession of the Government, that there is ground for any reflection on the British Government, or the governments of the Allies.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that the German propagandist use of the higher prices must prejudice the British in the eyes of the Italians: is it, therefore, not the duty of the Government to make it clear that these high prices are not due to any British action—
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I hope I have done that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: And so resist this German propaganda?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I can only say that I have made that abundantly clear in the answer I have given.
    An HON. MEMBER: Send it to Italy.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of
    the Exchequer if he will state how much
    1640
    Excess Profits Duty was in the first instance claimed by the Crown from Robertson, Sanderson and Company, Limited, in liquidation, distillers and wine merchants, in respect of the profits made by the company when it sold off its stocks of whisky en bloc at war prices and went out of business; how much less than its original claim the Crown accepted by way of compromise; whether he will, by legislation if necessary, strengthen the hands of the Inland Revenue Department so as to render such compromises unnecessary for the future in view of the increased burden of taxation which in effect they throw upon other taxpayers; and whether he is aware that, pending the settlement of this disputed claim, speculation in the company's shares arose on the Stock Exchange and that the admitted uncertainty of the state of the law enabled Stock Exchange profits to be made which are liable neither for Income Tax, Supertax, nor Excess Profits Duty, although the war price of whisky caused the whole commercial profit to arise?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 45 (8) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, which precludes the Commissioners of Inland Revenue from furnishing information as to the Excess Profits Duty assessments made upon particular taxpayers.

    NATIONAL REGISTER.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of utilising the National Register for the purpose of calling upon everyone on the register to declare the value of his possessions, including an assessment of the value of land?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is taking steps to have the National Register kept up to date in view of the fact that it provides machinery by which an assessment of capital value can be expeditiously obtained for the purpose of taxation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The law requires that the National Register shall be kept up to date, and this is being done.

    GERMAN FINANCIERS.
    Mr. G. FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has reason to think that German financiers are carrying on business in this country through neutral banks or neutral businesses here; and whether the Government possess sufficient powers to deal with such cases, if they can be detected?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not find any trace of German financiers carrying on business in this country through neutral banks or businesses. If my hon. Friend has any evidence on the point, I shall be glad to have it. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

  ENEMY AIR RAIDS.

    STATE COMPENSATION.
    Mr. HINDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether under the air-raid compensation scheme persons whose property exceeds £500 in value, and such excess is not insured under the scheme, will be compensated and, if so, to what extent; and whether compensation will be paid for the loss of money, securities, stamps, documents, manuscripts, or books of account, consequential loss, or theft?
    Mr. WARDLE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the scheme, from which he will see what are its general principles, and I will consider the special case he has in mind if he will be good enough to send me fuller particulars. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    PATROL COMMITTEES.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the appointment of patrol committees in various London boroughs to promote public safety and convenience on the occasion of air raids, he will authorise the police authorities to give them the maximum of information and assistance?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not know to what committees the hon. Member refers, but the police have full authority to give such information and assistance to the public as they may deem necessary.
    Mr. BROOKES: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman wish me to supply him with particulars of these committees?
    Sir G. CAVE: I shall be glad to receive any information the hon. Gentleman likes to send.

    BOLOISM.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether, in his pursuit of Boloism in any country, he has caused inquiries to be made regarding raids conducted upon the offices of some of the patriotic daily and weekly newspapers in this country; and whether he has observed that it was in that field that Bolo transacted his business in France?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Hanley on the 15th November.

    NATURALISATION (ALIENS).
    Major Sir E. COATESasked the Home Secretary whether he will issue a list of all the Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians naturalised since the 1st August, 1914, together with the names of their sponsors?
    Sir G. CAVE: Excluding British-born women readmitted to British nationality, no Germans, Austrians or Hungarians have been naturalised since November, 1916, and I do not propose to naturalise any such persons during the War. The names of those natrualised before that date were published monthly in the " London Gazette," and are given in the Annual Returns presented to Parliament. It is not the practice to publish the names of the persons who support an application for naturalisation, and I do not think it desirable to alter the practice.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Were not none naturalised during 1916?
    Sir G. CAVE: If the right hon. Gentleman says that, I accept it, of course, but I have not looked into it.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the feeling among the Metropolitan Police for a further increase in their wages to meet the enhanced cost of living; whether he is aware that the view is also entertained that the general question of the rates of pay to the Metro

    1643
    politan Police might be properly considered with the object of increasing the permanent scale; and whether, as in the case of the Post Office employés, he will submit the whole issue to the consideration either of some existing or some specially appointed tribunal?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am well aware that the increased cost of the necessaries of life presses heavily upon all persons with small fixed incomes. In my opinion relief in respect of a condition of things which (as we hope) will be temporary only can be most appropriately given in the form of a war bonus, and not by an increase in the permanent scale of pay. A war bonus has already been granted to the Metropolitan Police, and has recently been in-

    COMPARATIVE RETURN showing the Rates of Pay of Inspectors, Sergeants and Constables of the Metropolitan Police Force on the outbreak of war and at the present date.

    Rank.

    Rate of Pay on the outbreak of War.

    Rate of Pay at present date.

    Minimum.

    Maximum.

    Minimum.

    Maximum.

    Uniform Branch —

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Inspectors, Chief

    4

    12

    0

    5

    8

    0

    4

    8

    0

    5

    14

    0

    Inspectors, Sub-Divisional

    3

    17

    6

    4

    2

    6

    4

    3

    0

    4

    8

    0

    Inspectors, Ordinary

    3

    2

    0

    3

    10

    0

    3

    6

    0

    3

    14

    0

    Sergeants, Station and Clerk

    2

    10

    0

    2

    13

    0

    2

    14

    0

    2

    17

    0

    Sergeants, Section

    2

    0

    0

    2

    4

    0

    2

    3

    0

    2

    7

    0

    Constables

    1

    7

    0

    1

    17

    6

    1

    10

    0

    †2

    0

    0

    Criminal Investigation Department

    Inspector, Chief

    6

    7

    6

    7

    7

    6

    6

    16

    6

    7

    16

    6

    Inspectors 1st Class

    5

    6

    6

    5

    18

    6

    5

    14

    0

    6

    6

    0

    Inspectors 2nd Class and Divisional Detective

    3

    17

    0

    4

    17

    0

    4

    3

    0

    5

    4

    0

    Inspector Detective

    3

    6

    6

    3

    12

    6

    3

    11

    0

    3

    17

    0

    Sergeants, 1st Class

    2

    15

    6

    3

    3

    6

    2

    19

    0

    3

    7

    0

    Sergeants 2nd Class

    2

    7

    0

    2

    15

    0

    2

    13

    0

    2

    17

    0

    Sergeants 3rd Class

    2

    2

    6

    2

    6

    6

    2

    5

    6

    2

    9

    6

    Constables

    1

    7

    0

    *1

    17

    6

    1

    10

    0

    †2

    0

    0

    * Includes a final increment of 2s. 6d. per week, which was received on the completion of 15 years' approved service.

    †Includes an increment of Is. per week, received on the completion of 15 years' service, and a further increment of Is. per week, received on the completion of 20 years service.

    Allowances are also granted for boots (increased from 6d. to 1s.), coal, uniform, and rent aid (1s. 6d., 2s., or 2s. 6d.); and there is a war bonus of 8s. a week for all ranks, and of 1s. 6d. for each child to all members of the force in receipt of less than £5 weekly salary.
    Acting-sergeants (uniform) on appointment receive an addition to the pay of their rank of ls. per week, and after two years' service as acting-sergeant 2s. per week.
    creased, and if a case should be made for a further grant it would, of course, be considered. I see no grounds for referring the matter to a tribunal.
    Colonel F. HALLasked the Home Secretary what was the rate of pay on the outbreak of war for chief inspectors, sub-divisional inspectors, inspectors, sergeants, and constables of the Metropolitan Police; and what pay are these various grades receiving now?
    Sir G. CAVE: I will have the particulars which my hon. and gallant Friend asks for printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    [The following are the particulars referred to:]

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Horns Secretary whether leave to visit the Dartmoor Works Settlement has been withdrawn from the Rev. W. Riley, a Congregational Minister, although his services were highly appreciated by those attending them; and whether leave' ,can again be given him?
    Sir G. CAVE: The nswer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is within the discretion of the Committee whether or not they admit any person to visit their work centre at Princetown, and I am not prepared to interfere with their decision in the matter.

    EXEMPTION WITHDRAWN.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if Private George Gibson, No. 50396, 3rd Highland Light Infantry, an Irishman, who was illegally conscripted, has yet been released; and if he is aware that he is now in prison at Duddington Camp, Edinburgh?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): This man held a conditional exemption from the tribunal up till April last, when it was -withdrawn. by the tribunal. He was called up for May, but returned to Ireland, and was discovered in Belfast. He was charged before the sheriff in Glasgow and found liable to military service, being fined the sum of £2 10s. and handed over to the military authorities. As it has been decided by a civil Court that he is liable to military service, the question of illegal conscription does not arise.

    OIVIL SERVANTS (WAR BONUS).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will consider the desirability of paying an increased war bonus to Civil Servants in Great Britain and Ireland whose salaries do not exceed £200 a year?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The question of an increase in the existing war bonus is at present under the consideration of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) as to the arrangements by which wounded or disabled British officers and non-commissioned officers prisoners of war who are in Germany and Switzerland, respectively, are selected in order to be sent home to this country, and the arrangements by which wounded or disabled German prisoners of war who are in Eng
    1646
    land and Switzerland, respectively, are selected in order to be sent home to Germany?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): German prisoners of war in the United Kingdom of whatever rank are selected for repatriation to Germany by British medical boards: similarly British prisoners of war in Germany are selected for repatriation to the United Kingdom by German medical boards. British and German prisoners interned in Switzerland are selected for repatriation to the United Kingdom or Germany by the Swiss medical authorities.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) as to the arrangements by which unwounded British officers and non-commissioned officers prisoners of war who were captured in the earlier time of the War are to be sent either to Holland or to Switzerland; whether they will be so sent in the strict order of the priority of dates on which they were captured; and whether he will also state the arrangements as to sending unwounded German prisoners of war to Holland and Switzerland, respectively?
    Mr. HOPE: British and German officers and non-commissioned officers who have been in captivity for not less than eighteen months and who are not disabled, will be transferred to Holland as and when accommodation and means of transport are available. This transfer will take place in order of priority of capture, irrespective of nationality or other considerations. In this connection I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to paragraph 11 of The Hague Agreement.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Do I understand no unwounded prisoners of war have yet been sent either to Switzerland or Holland?
    Mr. HOPE: Certainly not to Holland. I am not sure as to Switzerland. The difficulty has now been overcome, and, unless fresh difficulties arise I believe the transfer will very soon take place.

    POSTAL SERVICE, AYRSHIRE.
    Sir WILLIAM BEALEasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the dislocation of the postal service at Ballantree and neighbouring districts in Ayrshire caused by recent alterations in train services on the

    1647
    Glasgow and South-Western Railway; whether he will confer with the railway authorities with a view to meeting the difficulty by an additional light train between Girvan and Pinwherry; and whether anything can be done to obviate the dangers incurred in snowy weather by the employment of female or other post-runners of insufficient physique?
    The ASSISTANT - POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Pease): I am having inquiry made, and will write to the hon. Member.

    MAIL VAN DRIVERS' WAGES, ABERDEEN.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Postmaster-General whether he made the promised inquiry into the wages paid to mail van drivers in Aberdeen; whether he is aware that, although these men received a small advance some time ago, they are still underpaid as compared with analogous labour in the district; that whereas these mail van drivers can only earn 29s. per week at the utmost, the usual rate in the district for similar work is 35s.; and whether he will bring these men's wages up to the district level?
    Mr. PEASE: The recent advance in wages was the result of the inquiry which I promised to make. The wages now paid by the contractors comply, in my opinion, with the fair wages provisions, regard being had to differences in conditions and responsibility between the work of mail van drivers and that of other drivers in Aberdeen.

    SHIPBUILDING (IRELAND).
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he has taken into consideration the question of developing the shipbuilding industry in Ireland; and can he make a statement to inform the public what steps he proposes to take?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The development of the shipbuilding industry in Ireland has engaged the attention of the Admiralty for some time, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave to questions on this subject on the 6th and 7th of this month. I stated on those occasions that, while it is not at present considered advisable to
    1648
    establish national shipyards in Ireland, every effort is beng made, and will be made in the future, to allocate to the existing yards as much building and repairing work as can advantageously be undertaken by them.
    Mr. SCANLAN: May I ask whether the Admiralty, when deciding to establish national shipbuilding yards, made an inspection of sites available for shipbuilding yards in Ireland, and gave consideration to the question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer-that off-hand, but I assume they had full information before them when they decided on the three sites which have been announced, with the desire to get new tonnage as rapidly as possible.

    SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (TRIBE'S PETITION).
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the tribe known as the Bastards of Rehoboth, German South-West Africa, prior to 1884 appealed to His Majesty's Government to take them under the protection of the British Flag; whether, upon Germany taking over the territory, they were granted a form of native government; whether, upon the outbreak of war, they resolutely refused to render any service to the German Administration which would involve them in warlike actions against the British forces; whether a German force at once attacked them and ultimately surrounded the tribe in a mountain stronghold where they were saved from annhiliation by the march of General Mackenzie on Gibeon; whether in January, 1916, this tribe petitioned His Majesty the King to extend protection over them; and whether, if the petition has not been received, His Majesty's Government will ask the South African Government for a Report upon the facts stated?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): In the short time available I have not been able to trace the appeal referred to in the first part of the question, but my attention has-been drawn to a letter addressed by the community in October, 1876, to the Cape Government Commissioner, in which they expressed a wish that the Cape Government should rule over the country. The-answer to the second part of the question

    1649
    is in the affirmative. I am unable to say from the official information at my disposal whether the facts are as indicated in the third and fourth parts of the question, but it is the case that the hostilities between the German troops and the Bastards in April, 1915, in the course of which the Bastards suffered grievous losses, was due to their refusal to guard Union prisoners. As regards the fifth and sixth parts of the question, no such petition has yet been received, and, pending its receipt, I do not propose to communicate with the Union Government as suggested.

    ARIGNA COAL-FIELD, COUNTY LEITRIM.
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that there is a demand in Limerick for Irish coal mined at Arigna, county Leitrim, principally for steam-raising purposes, and that the development, of this Irish industry is seriously imperilled by deficient transit accommodation, owing to the action of the railways concerned, and that complaint has been made that sometimes it takes three weeks to transport coal to Limerick from this district; and is he aware that the boats of the Grand Canal Company call there and could easily make a direct run to Limerick; and, as all those companies are now under the control of the Government, if he will take such steps as would effect the speeding up of the transit of coal from Arigna to Limerick?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The hon. Member had already called my attention to the matter, and I am making inquiries.

    SINN FEIN SCHOOL.
    Mr. ARCHDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that all the children in Castlepollard national school have been withdrawn from school and a Sinn Fein school opened; if he is aware that the alleged reason is that the school teacher played the National Anthem in the chapel where she acts as organist; and will he take steps to ensure that the teacher does not suffer in income?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that most of the pupils have been withdrawn from the girls' national school, Castlepollard, and that the persons who have caused this action have opened a school pupils so withdrawn are now attending. The cause of the removal is, I am informed, connected with the playing of the organ in the parish church by the principal teacher of the Castlepollard girls' national school. The Commissioner's of National Education have paid the salaries of the teachers of the national school in full up to 30th September, 1917, and they have applied for sanction for continuance of such payment for the present.

    NEURASTHENIC SOLDIERS.
    The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. KING:
    107. To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will now say what is the result of the promised reconsideration of the question of sending back. to the front soldiers who have suffered' from neurasthenia?
    Mr. MOONEY: Might I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the hon. Member has more than eight questions on the Paper?
    Mr. KING: I observed that when it was too late, and one of my questions I intentionally did not put.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has, more than eight questions, I must pass on to the next.

    SOLDIERS ON FURLOUGH (LONDON).
    General COLVINasked the Under--Secretary of State for War whether,. having regard to the number of robberies,. with and without violence, perpetrated on soldiers on furlough in London, steps will be taken to warn them on their arrival: from overseas of the danger that awaits them from evilly-disposed persons of both sexes?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making some inquiries, but must not be taken as admitting that the cases are by any means as frequent and serious as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    Major DAVIESasked whether a decision has yet been reached as to the comparative rates of pay of those officers in the Royal Army Medical Corps, Territorial Force who held commissions at the outbreak of the War and medical men who have been given temporary commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps since that date?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): This matter has been referred to the Government Committee on Officers' Pay, and it is hoped that their decision will be announced shortly.
    Major DAVIESasked, in view of the demand for doctors for purely clinical work both here and in France, he can state the duration of the period of drill which medical officers who join the Royal Army Medical Corps have to undergo before they are able to give their full time to the clinical duties of their profession?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The duration of the course, which includes not only drill, but military sanitation, anti-gas protection, and the duties of a medical officer with troops in the field, depends on the demands which have to be met for overseas reinforcements, and the shipping available, but usually lasts three weeks.
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the position now held by Sir William Babtie; the nature of the duties which he is performing; and the date on which he was appointed to his present position?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Sir William Babtie is in charge of the branch which deals with medical personnel, and has occupied the position since about 20th February, 1917.
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the terms of reference of the Committee which, under the chairmanship of General Sir Francis Howard, is now inquiring into the distribution of the Royal Army Medical Corps in France; whether subordinate officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps have been enabled to communicate directly with the Committee or if such communications are only made through their commanding officers; and whether it is proposed that a similar inquiry shall be undertaken in this country?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This Committee was appointed by the War Office on its own initiative, and I think that the consideration of such matters as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests had better wait until the Report is received.
    Major DAVIES: Will this inquiry refer to France?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my hon. and gallant Friend had better wait until we get this Report.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: When may we expect an answer?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope very soon.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (MUNITIONS WORK).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE (by Private Notice)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Order issued on Saturday by the Ministry of Munitions granting a 12⅛ per cent. increase in wages to skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled workers employed on munitions work in ship-building and ship-repairing includes workers similarly employed in His Majesty's dockyards, and, assuming that to be the case, can he assure the House that the interests of the men employed in His Majesty's dockyards will be given due representation on any Central Committee that may be set up for the purpose of considering the question of eligibility?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty have decided to extend the 12⅛ per cent. bonus granted by the Minister of Munitions to all adult male plain time-workers, skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled, engaged in the Royal dockyards and naval establishments on munitions work. The award will not apply to pieceworkers. The establishments concerned have been notified to this effect.
    The bonus will take effect from the beginning of the first full pay period following the 12th of October.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will my right hon. Friend answer the latter part of my question as to whether the interests of the men employed in the yards will be given due representation on any Central Committee to be set up to consider eligibility?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not answer that point, because I did not quite understand what he means. Perhaps he will put it down again and consult with me.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a Committee has been set up to consider eligibility?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: This is an award of the Ministry of Munitions, and we are applying it. I do not know whether or not the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the Committee on Production.
    Sir CHARLES HENRY: Was the form of agreement submitted to the Treasury?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say on this point, because it is a special award by the Minister of Munitions. It was afterwards dismissed and finally decided by the War Cabinet. I do not think we went to the Treasury on this, but with other awards, notably the Committee on Production, we did go to the Treasury.
    Sir C. HENRY: Did the War Cabinet sanction this increase?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already stated that it is a bonus granted by the Minister of Munitions to all adult male plain time workers, skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled, engaged on munitions work.
    Colonel F. HALL: Have any estimates been prepared of what this is going to cost, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that there will be any increase in the output by making this arrangement apply to time workers only?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We know what it will cost in the dockyards. I do not know what the original award will cost, and that is not a question for me.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Will the advance be given to all the people employed in the dockyards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer.

    Agricultural Labourers' Dwellings (Ireland).
    Mr. CULLINANasked the Chief Secretary if, after having made full inquiries from the Departments concerned in
    1654
    the granting of loans under the Landed Properties Improvement Acts, 23 Vic., c. 19, etc., for the erection of agricultural labourers' dwellings, he can now state whether the facts adduced in the five pamphlets issued by Mr. Thomas Dawson, town clerk, Tipperary, as to the misapplication of such loans in respect of cottages erected on that portion of the Smith-Barry estate within the Tipperary urban district, are correct or not?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that Mr. Dawson's statements and inferences are in many respects incorrect. The essential facts are that the loans referred to were made for dwellings for agricultural labourers on approved plans and specifications, and that the buildings were erected on these plans and specifications, and the loan money expended on them.

    National School Teachers (Ireland).
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether the system of making the average attendance operative in the grading of national teachers in Ireland will be modified during the present exceptional conditions, in view of the hardship it inflicts on many teachers?
    Mr. DUKE: In cases where it is shown that circumstances arising out of the War have caused abnormal irregularity in the attendance of pupils at national schools a concession has been sanctioned whereby the figure for the average attendance of pupils for the year to be taken into account when determining the claims of teachers for increments of salary and for promotions in grade shall be that found by assuming that the average attendance of pupils for the year in question bore the same proportion to the average number of pupils on the rolls of the school for that year as was the case for the corresponding period before the War commenced. The special Regulation giving effect to the concession provides also for the protection of teachers against loss of position or reduction in their existing grade salaries consequent upon any falling-off in the attendance of pupils at the schools which can be shown to be due to the effects of the War.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Major William James Allen, for the county of Armagh (North Armagh Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Modification of Method of Voting in Certain Constituencies.)
    (1) If at an election for one Member of Parliament there are more than two candidates, the election shall be according to the principle of the alternative vote as defined by this Act.
    (2) At a contested election for a university constituency, where there are two or more members to be elected, any election of the full number of members shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote as defined by this Act.
    (3) His Majesty may by Order in Council frame Regulations prescribing the methods of voting, and transferring and counting votes, at any election, according to the principle of the transferable or of the alternative vote and for adapting the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, and any other Act relating to Parliamentary elections thereto, and with respect to the duties of returning officers in connection therewith; and any such Regulations shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act.
    (4) Nothing contained in this Act shall, except as expressly provided herein, affect the method of conducting Parliamentary elections in force at the time of the passing of this Act.
    Adjourned Debate resumed on Amendment proposed [22 nd November]: In Subsection (1), leave out the word "by," and insert instead thereof the words "in the Eighth and Ninth Schedules of."—[Major Chapple.]
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'by' stand part of the Bill."
    4.0 P.M.
    sir JOSEPH LARMOR: The Amendment is practically to replace the Schedules in the Bill for carrying out the principle of the transferable vote by a different set of Schedules. No apology is needed for having deferred the decision of this important matter until this week. The House has already committed itself to the
    1674
    principle of the transferable vote, but neither in the discussions in this House nor in the Conference on which this Bill is based was it ever considered how such a principle was to be carried into effect. I may be allowed to contrast that with what happened about the principle of proportional representation. That subject was fully canvassed at the Speaker's Conference in all its bearings, and the unanimous recommendations of the Conference specified one particular kind of proportional representation, namely, that of the single transferable vote against the numerous other kinds that exist. In the case of the alternative vote the conflict of opinion was so strong and the possibility of compromise was so slight that the methods of putting the alternative vote into operation were not even considered. The decision arrived at was simply a vote on the principle, without consideration of the method of operation at all. The principle of proportional representation is quite a recent one compared with discussions on the transferable vote. These matters had been canvassed, and the difficulty had been surveyed from all sides for sixty years before the idea of proportional representation was invented. It will be within the recollection of Members that on the enunciation of that principle John Stuart Mill, in his tract on "Representative Government," committed himself to the statement that the idea of proportional representation was the greatest discovery in political science that had been made since the days of Aristotle. The reason for that very remarkable statement was that people were sick and tired of the difficulties and controversies about the transferable vote, and therefore welcomed the alternative system as something throwing new light on the problem of the representation of the people.
    The question that is before the House on this Amendment is the relative merits of the plan of the Schedules for carrying out the alternative vote which are contained in the Bill, and the plan of the Schedules which are set out in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire (Major Chapple). According to the Schedules the candidate who is lowest on the first preferences is summarily ruled out, and the second preferences that belong to him are divided between the other two candidates One of the main objections to that pro-

    1675
    posal is that it entirely abolishes— "abolishes" is not too strong a word—the independent candidate. In the case of an election for one seat with three candidates, if two strong organisations each puts up its own candidate and there is an independent candidate who is acceptable all round, but naturally not so acceptable to each militant organisation as its own man, that independent candidate in the nature of things will be third on the list, and if this scheme is carried the care which the House has shown on many occasions that independent candidates should be encouraged will all be overruled, and in single-member constituencies it will be practically an impossibility for an independent candidate to present himself. He is pretty safe to be third on the first preferences, and even although both the other parties prefer to vote for him as against their own rival, he is ruled out, and on the second preference has no chance. That is an objection which will appeal to the House, considering the great trouble that it has taken to try to secure more independence in the candidates who stand for Parliamentary elections. On the other hand, the Schedules proposed in the Amendment enact that if an elector gives a second preference to a candidate he shall have a stake in that candidate to the extent of giving him half a vote against one vote for his own first choice. The result of that will be that the candidate cannot be used as a mere weapon against another party. If an elector gives him a preference at all, it means that he does something towards helping on his cause. It does not merely mean the negative position. It does not merely mean that he dislikes someone else and has a blow at him by giving a vote to a third man. It is not a mere negative weapon, but an actual preference in a minor degree. It means that the elector is willing to do something to help on the man to whom he gives his second preference.
    Following out the matter, I shall confine myself to the simple case of three candidates for a single seat. The Schedules look very complex, but they have to be constructed so as to apply to any number of candidates and to all the numerous possibilities that will infrequently arise or may not arise. The case of three candidates covers all the points that are relevant.
    1676
    Say the three candidates are A., B., and C. Many systems of alternative voting have been devised and examined against each other. I find that the main criterion, and to my mind the true criterion to test them, has been this: Does the system proposed allow one candidate to be elected when the votes of the electors establish that they prefer another candidate to him? That point can be ascertained from the votes. If each elector gives a vote to A., a preference to B., and omits C., it is definitely known whether he prefers A. to C. or not. I take it that if a candidate is elected and the electors prefer someone else to him, that candidate is wrongly elected. In every system of alternative voting that has yet been proposed this result will not infrequently be reached. The votes will show that often the electors certainly prefer candidate A. to candidate B., and prefer candidate B. to candidate C., but, at the same time, they prefer candidate C. to candidate A. That seems a very extraordinary statement. I am not going into it, because it is universally admitted in the discussions on the subject. I suppose that the philosophers who are in this House would tell us that it is due to the irrationality of human nature when it is acting in a mass. I believe it is due to the absurdity of the principle of alternative voting for deciding elections with a large mass of electors. However, we are committed to the principle of an alternative vote, and we have to make the best we can of this very striking paradox. The scientific method for search purposes in other regions is to choose, from the various courses that are open to us, all leading to absurd results, that one which is least objectionable. That is the only principle on which we can argue the relative merits or demerits of the Schedule in the Bill and the Schedules proposed in this Amendment. In the case of which I have spoken, namely, of three candidates, where the electors prefer A. to B. and prefer B. to C., and at the same time prefer C. to A., the only way of doing this is by turning out that candidate who, although preferred to somebody else, is less preferred than the others are. His second preference would then be divided among the other two, including the one against whom he actually had the preference of the body of electors, and a decision would be reached.

    1677
    This discussion and this idea of choosing the lesser evil is of ancient date It originated, it appears, with the Marquis Condorcet, one of the most illustrious victims of the French Revolution. It is remarkable how many of the men of genius of the revolutionary period applied their minds to these problems of the representation of the people. Of course, the problem was then new in France, which was turning over to popular government for the first time, and their attempt was to settle it as far as possible by cold logic, according to the spirit of the revolutionary age. It was in their efforts that all these contradictions of which I have spoken, which render the method hopelessly bad in comparison with proportional representation, were elucidated. The distinguished men who put forward the principles of alternative voting included Borda, the inventor of the metric system of weights and measures, Condorcet, and even Laplace. They attacked the problem by pure reason in its general form. In this country we go rather by compromise such as may work simply and smoothly. This being a system which can be dicovered if you work with three candidates, I take it that in this country it would not be such an important matter if there were some difficulties in the case of four or more candidates, the case which arises very seldom.
    The method of Borda, as approved by Condorcet, is the one contained in this Amendment. There is, however, added to it a paragraph (b), in regard to which I observe there is a further Amendment to omit it. This paragraph, so far as I can make out, seems to have been added by Mr. Nanson, a professor at Melbourne. His very able paper on the subject of different kinds of voting was reprinted in Command Paper 3501, of 1907, and a good deal of the information I have just given to the House has been derived from it. The principle of preference voting is no part of the original plan of Borda and Condorcet, but something added to it some thirty years ago. I have examined the argument to find out his reasons for adding paragraph (b) to the Schedule. Paragraph (b) says that in case an elector does not choose to put down his preference, nevertheless he is to be considered as having given a preference, and that the preferences are to be divided equally between the other candidates. He lays down the position that if an elector
    1678
    plumps for A., it is because he cannot make up his mind to which of the other two he shall give his alternative vote. Therefore, he says, it should be divided between them. The proposition is not absurd. I have no doubt there are cases in which that would be a most admirable plan, but certainly it is not the plan that is suitable in the case before the House. I fear it shows how weak theory may be when it is extended beyond a robust sense of the facts that are relevant. According to paragraph (b), an elector who votes for A. is thus compelled by an abstract principle to support two candidates, B. and C., against his will. The principle of paragraph(b) is, I believe, unsound. Among systems all leading more or less to impossible results; the one has been chosen in which the absurdity is smallest. That consideration, worked out logically, leads to the Schedules in this Amendment, but the paragraph (b) thus added is erroneous, because this judgment, which of all the plans operates less absurdly, ought to be final. It is not allowable to get a decision by considering which of them is least absurd and then to alter this choice in a new and objectionable manner in order to mitigate one of its remaining and presumably minor defects. If you are going to choose between three, it is the least objectionable that the choice once made in logic ought to stand. It is not allowable to go on tinkering with the choice in order to patch it up further, because in doing so you will be combining other things which might make it worse compared with the previous ones against which it has been chosen. Those are my main objections. I would mention as a detail that there is another paragraph (f) in the Schedule, which describes the drawing of lots in a case of equality. That is a very small matter. The drawing of lots is rather objectionable and can be avoided. Instead of drawing lots, it is open to eliminate the candidate who has received the fewest votes on the first choice. Something of that sort would be very much better. That point, however, is a very small one. The question before the House is on the general principle of the two Schedules, because I take it that Amendments in detail can be considered subsequently. To sum up: It appears from the authorities on the subject that no method of alternative voting is anywhere near to being a sound, practical plan; they were all thus cast into the

    1679
    shade when proportional representation was put ,forward, and have been very little considered. During the last sixty years proportional representation has held the field. I believe the straightforward procedure, if we are going to have single-member constituencies, and the one that is probably least often at fault, is to compel the parties to reduce their differences as much as possible before the election and to put those differences that are outstanding to a straight vote, without complications or reservations of subsidiary considerations But we are now committed to a different course. The Schedule of this Amendment, improved in details, has my staunch support as being less objectionable than the one contained in the Bill.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member who has just spoken has, as we all know, a knowledge of mathematics with which no Member in the House can compete. He has perhaps, if I may be allowed to say so respectfully, almost an excess of knowledge for the ordinary purposes of practical politics. His speech reminds me a little of a saying—I forget the name of its author—that philosophers were like the stars which give little light because they are so high. Theoretically, no doubt, it is the case that a scheme such as that now before the House is more logically perfect from the mathematical point of view than the cruder system which has always been discussed as the normal method of applying the alternative vote. If we apply it in practice, let us see to what it amounts. It amounts to this: That every person can vote in a constituency returning one member for which there are three candidates, that in the simplest case he can give one vote for the first candidate and a second vote for his next preference, which will count as the equivalent of half his first vote. I think I am correct in that. I am glad to be supported by the hon. Member (Sir J. Larmor), because that is the crucial point. You give your first vote to A., whom you wish to see elected. If you wish to give a second preference, you give half a vote to B. The effect of that is that you are, by giving your half vote to B., pro tanto voting against A., whom you wish to see elected. Your half-vote to B. and a number of such other votes may have the effect of keeping A. out altogether and getting B.
    1680
    elected in preference to A., which is not what you want. Therefore really the system now proposed is to enable you to undo with one hand one-half of what you have done with the other and to use your second preference not as an alternative to but as a deduction from your first preference, and it is that which, it seems to me, makes this scheme vicious in principle. The alternative vote is entirely different.
    The alternative vote as ordinarily understood is this: You vote for A. and say, "That is the man I wish to see elected, but if A. has not got enough votes to get elected, if he is at the bottom of the poll on the first count, and only B. and C. are left in, then as between B. and C. I vote for B. You plump for A.; you give the whole of your first preference to A. If he cannot be elected, then as between the other two, you declare your preference for B. But under this scehme you are not allowed to plump for anyone and at the same time to give a preference for someone else, in case your first man A. is not elected. That would no doubt suit very well those hon. Members who do, not want to give a second preference. They plump for their man and do, not want to vote for anyone else, especially if they find that the other party to whom they are opposed want to vote for other people, but will be deterred from voting for them by the fact that they know that if they vote for a second candidate they will be in fact voting against their first candidate. Therefore, the effect of this scheme will really be to undo the benefit of the alternative vote, and a Labour voter, for example, who wants to give his first vote to a Labour candidate and his second to a Liberal will be deterred from doing so because he knows his second vote will count on the first count as a half-vote for a Liberal candidate, and may have the effect of keeping the Labour man out altogether. He would be willing to vote for a Liberal rather than a Conservative, but he is not willing to help a Liberal to get in as against a Labour man if he has a chance. Similarly with regard to Unionist Tariff Reformers and Unionist Free Traders. Further, this scheme, of course, is exceedingly complicated.
    Sir J. LARMOR: No, no!
    Mr. SAMUEL: Complicated for the. average intelligence.
    Sir J. LARMOR: No, no !
    Mr. SAMUEL: As hon. Members can see if they look at the Schedule which is attached to the Amendment, and very difficult to explain to the electorate. Moreover, it has never been tried in any part of the world. It was not the scheme recommended by the Royal Commission, which went into all these matters and recommended the single transferable vote, and therefore I trust the Government will stand by the rules which they themselves have laid before the House. They, of course, are the trustees of the Bill. They included in the Bill, though they left open to the House the decision, the alternative vote as recommended by the majority of the Speaker's Conference. They have laid upon the Table of the House draft rules which are the generally accepted method of applying the transferable vote, and the House having decided that it desires to see the alternative vote adopted, I trust the Government will adhere to the method it has proposed.
    Major NEWMAN: It has been borne in on me, and perhaps on other Members, during the desultory Debates we have had in Committee and now on Report, that we should not have done too badly if we had divided the Bill into two and taken the franchise first and electoral reform and other Matters afterwards. Of course, now we are really rushing these very great and important subjects through the House, and we are bound to. If we do not we put off the operation of this Bill and prolong our own life, and the country does not want us to prolong our own life. As we have not divided it we ought, logically, to have decided first of all whether we want to continue the present first past the post system. A good many of us might have said we do. I imagine most of us would have said, "No. It is out of date, unfair and unjust." If we decided we would not have it we could have gone on to ask ourselves, "Can we preserve our single-member constituencies and, by the expedient of the single transferable vote, avoid the injustice, the trouble, and the out-of-dateness of our present system?" In other words, do we want to have the single transferable vote in single-member constituencies. My hon. Friend did not put it very clearly. What is called the alternative vote is not really an alternative vote at all. It is a single transferable vote in a constituency returning one member. Those of us who
    1682
    are proportional representationists, and I think other people who are in favour of the first past the post system, might have voted against this single transferable vote in single constituencies. If we defeated that, logically we could have gone to the system of proportional representation, which is the single transferable vote in constituencies returning more than one member. We might have decided that that was the only system. We took the last portion first. The Prime Minister made one of his infrequent appearances and told the House that we must not have proportional representation. He could not grasp it, he did not mean to grasp it, and therefore it was to go down. We remember the great difficulty we had to get the Government. to give proportional representation a run at all, though, as a matter of fact, it had been put in by a unanimous vote at Mr. Speaker's Conference.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have disposed of that matter. It is no good raking up proportional representation. The House has. decided against it. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman apply his mind to the matter now before the House?
    Major NEWMAN: On Thursday last we decided that our method of election was to be the single transferable vote in single-member constituencies. From the Paper attached to the Bill explaining it, it appears comparatively a simple scheme. Those who championed it were wise. They did not put down all the intricacies in that explanation, as we foolish proportional representationists did in ours. We were honest men. Honest men are generally fools, and we lost our case, perhaps rightly. The transferable vote supporters were wiser. They did not put down any of the difficulties at all. The ink of the Debate of Thursday is hardly dry, and we are up against one of the great unfairnesses of the tranferable vote. It is that it does not give the lowest candidate a fair run for his money, and also that the system Of crediting the second or third preference not fair. The second or third preference ought not to count the same as the original preference. Therefore, the transferable vote breaks down at once. We are told—and this is the best the alternative vote supporters can say—that at any rate if that is the case, and of course it is, that the second and third preference ought not to count as much as the first, a man who is. elected under the system of the transferable vote has some kind of majority of all those who are voting at the election. A

    1683
    majority of the electors have a 1, a 2, or 3 against his name, and therefore he has had a share of the support of a clear ,majority of those voting at the election. That, of course, is obviously absurd, and for this very reason the second ballot or the alternative vote or the preferential vote, whichever you. like to call it, has been found out and every country which has adopted it is now wishful to get rid of it and go to something better and something which will give fairer results.
    The example that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Chapple) gives of how his system would work makes it fairly .clear as far as it can be made clear. I am quite prepared to admit that you could make the alternative vote work with a certain amount of fairness if there were only two parties. If you have four candidates standing—a Conservative Tariff Reformer, a Conservative Free Trader, a Liberal who is an Imperialist, and a Liberal who is not—it is conceivable that the system of the alternative vote might work out fairly; but where you have three official parties standing it could not possibly work. The system proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Chapple) would go a little way to mitigate some of the hardships, but not very far. I only wish that in his schedule he had shown how the system would work with candidates of three distinct parties standing and not with two Unionists, as he calls them, standing against one Liberal. But at best this system of his can be but a mechanical and a mathematical palliative. I am sure none of us like mathematics, except my hon. Friend (Sir J. Larmor). I remember very well a nursery rhyme I was taught when a boy:
    "Multiplication is vexation,
    Division is as bad,
    The rule of three doth puzzle me,
    And fractions drive me mad."
    Under this system we are going to have multiplication and division, and we are also, apparently, going to have fractions as well. Therefore, it cannot be said to be anything like a perfect system. The fact is that between our present system of the block vote and proportional representation, any half-way house in which we stop must be a ramshackle and uncomfortable dwelling. Whatever it is, it is bound to be unsatisfactory, and we shall not stay there long. The House is divided that we shall stay in a half-way house on our journey to proportional representation. Therefore, let
    1684
    us stay in the best house we can. I consider that the house we are invited to stay in by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Chapple) is certainly a better house than the alternative vote as it was passed the other night, and therefore I shall support his Amendment.
    Colonel SANDERS: The speech we have just listened to must convince the House of the extreme difficulty of this subject. We are really groping in the dark. The object of the alternative vote, or of any kindred system, is to find out the man who is least disliked. I do not think that any of the systems that I have ever heard proposed are really fair. I do not think that any of them give you what must necessarily be a true indication of the man who is the least disliked of the three candidates. If the prinicple is adopted at all, it has always seemed to me that much the fairest system is the second ballot. It seems to me that that does give you a true decision. Of course, I know the objection to the second ballot. To put it vulgarly, it would be an awful nuisance. It would be a great nuisance to the candidates, and there would be great difficulty about the expense. I think the fact that it would be so generally irksome would be enough to prevent this House from adopting that system, unless something very strong was urged in its favour. At all events, that is not the system which the House has adopted. They have adopted the system of the alternative vote. The system of the alternative vote, as expressed in the Bill, is not very clearly defined. I do not think that the two Subsections in the Schedule lay down exactly in what manner the alternative vote is to be exercised. The Rules that have been issued in the White Paper do so. It has been urged against the system advocated this afternoon under this Amendment of the hon. Member for Stirling that it is too complicated. At any rate, the present proposal is expressed in about half a page of the Orders of the Day, but the system of the alternative vote, as proposed in the White Paper, takes up very nearly three pages. Therefore, it does not seem to me that the difference of complication and difficulty is very strong either for or against these two systems.
    I want to say a few words about the drawbacks of the alternative vote. I think the great drawback to it is that only the lowest man's second preferences are counted. The reason why I consider that such a drawback is that the man who

    1685
    under this system is eventually elected may not have a majority either of first or second preferences. I instanced in Committee figures which showed the absurdity of this principle. They are very short. Supposing there were 12,000 votes recorded. A. gets 5,000, B. 4,000, and C. 3,000. There has been an agreement that B.'s second votes go to A. and C.'s second votes go to B. Supposing C. is put out, as he would be with only 3,000 votes, his 3,000 votes go to B., who would get .altogether 7,000 votes, and B. wins. But if C., who is A.'s friend, gets second instead of third—C. getting 4,000 and B. 3,000—then B.'s 3,000 votes will go to A., and A. will win, the result being that if you want to win an election the great thing is to have your second string at the bottom of the poll. The scheme which the hon. Member for Stirling has put forward has the great advantage of giving more weight to first votes than to second votes. You may say that a man ought to include his first preferences and his second preferences—that his first preferences ought to count more than his second preferences. That Is not effected by the scheme of the alternative vote in the White Paper, but is effected by the scheme submitted in this Amendment. It also stops the absurdity to which I have just referred, and that is the necessity of your second string being at the bottom of the poll. These are two distinct advantages of the scheme embodied in this Amendment.
    Another thing which I think is a great advantage is that under this scheme all the second preferences will be counted, instead of only counting the second preferences of the man who is at the bottom of the poll. It seems to me that if you are going to adopt second preferences at all, you ought to adopt them all if you want to get anything like a fair result. Examine every voting paper and count up all your first preferences and all your second preferences. I do not see the object of counting votes that are not recorded. If a man only gives a vote for one candidate, I have not been able to see the reason why you should imagine votes which are not given and divide them between the other two candidates. An Amendment has been put down to take out that Sub-section in the Rules. It does not seem to me that it is a fundamental part of the plan, and I think the plan would be very much better if that were taken out. Whatever scheme we have to give effect to this principle of the alterna-
    1686
    tive vote it must be complicated and difficult. I think that in some cases it must be unfair, and that it cannot really give thorough satisfaction. I should think that if you want to win an election in the future the way would be the old-fashioned way of getting more than half the votes. If you do not get more than half the votes it seems to me that none of these schemes is satisfactory, and that you might almost as well put the names in a hat and draw lots, or toss up for it. Of the two schemes before the House I certainly prefer the one proposed in this Amendment, and I shall vote for it.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I hope we shall not spend very much more time in discussing these Amendments, however important they may be. The Government allowed a free vote of the House on the question of the alternative vote, and I suppose we are bound to leave the House free to decide between the two rival methods by which effect may be given to the alternative vote. Therefore, we shall not ask the Government Whips to tell on this Amendment. I think I am entitled to express my own opinion, which is against the Amendment now before the House. I am opposed to the alternative vote, and I think the Debate on this Amendment has afforded some arguments against that particular form of voting; but if we are to choose between the old form of the alternative vote and the system now proposed, I prefer the old form. I do not think this scheme is an improvement. Moreover, this proposal has never been really debated in the country. The country knows about the alternative vote, but not about this scheme. We have had a Committee dealing with this and other proposals, and that Committee, after inquiry, reported against this principle. In the appendix of their Report they say:
    "The failure of the present system in this respect, and the necessity of reforming it, were urged upon us strongly by representatives of party organisations on both sides. On turning, however, to the remedies proposed, we found that a really satisfactory solution of the simple problem how to discover the most popular of three or more candidates has yet to be devised. We reprint in an appendix an analysis by Professor Nanson, of Melbourne University, of the systems at present in existence, from which it appears that none can be relied upon to produce the desired result except that of his own invention, which he implicitly allows to be too complicated for big political elections."
    Therefore, I think we ought not without very much more discussion to accept the scheme now proposed.
    Sir J. LARMOR: I was under the impression that the Mover of the Amendment said that this scheme had been in use for some time in one of the Australian provinces. I am not aware, having read most of Professor Nanson's Paper, that he expressed an opinion that it was too complicated for Parliamentary elections. I think that there must be a mistake. I think the fact that it has been adapted in Australia shows that it is not too complicated to be used.
    Sir G. CAVE: I quoted from the Report of the Committee, and that gives the decision at which they had arrived after considering the various schemes, Professor Nanson's included. I want to get the best Bill that I can. There are obvious difficulties about this particular form. Take the case put just now. If you adopt this form you might defeat your own candidate. Take three candidates: A. gets 550 first preferences, B. 500, and C. 100, and none of them is elected on that vote. A.'s papers show 100 second preferences for B., and B.'s papers show 100 second preferences for C. The result is that B. is elected, and elected by the votes of the supporters of A. The supporters of A. have defeated their own man by this means. It is quite plain that this is so. I really do not think the country would like a system of that kind. Again, this is not really an alternative vote. You get a double voting at the very first ballot, and you might very easily find by this means that the man at the bottom of the poll gets in easily. I think the thing is too complicated. I do not think it would work, and I cannot support it. Whatever happens to the system, I do not think these Schedules will work. If you adopt this plan you will have to deal with the matter far more carefully than it is dealt with in these Schedules.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It does not necessarily follow that these Schedules would be adopted or that we should press them.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am quite willing to accept that assurance of my hon. Friend, that they will not insist on putting in these Schedules when we get to them, but I thought it right to give this warning at the present moment. Apart from any question of form, I do not think that this Amendment should be accepted.
    Mr. LYNCH: The question raised by my hon. Friend has some interest for me as well as the arguments by which it is supported.
    1688
    He has cited the names of Condorcet, Laplace and Borda, but precisely in their weak points, and I am reminded of the saying of Napoleon when he stated that Laplace was a failure when he appointed him Minister of the Interior, because he was constantly introducing the infinitesimal calculus into practical matters with which it had no concern. The palpable flaw of the whole argument is that into a matter so notoriously haphazard and hazardous as voting at an election it introduces highly complicated and technical measures. It is just as if one used a. chemical balance which was wrong in the pounds for weighing scrupulously the last millegrammes, or calculated with decimals some question of arithmetic where you were wrong in your integers. The matter has further interest for me in that it was introduced by Professor Nanson at the time I was at Melbourne University, and there tried on the students. The actual voting is a simple matter, but the calculation is somewhat. complex and the system fails to .introduce the psychological element. It treats this. question as if it were so much dead matter —a question of weighing atoms and so forth—but we all know that in elections many disturbing factors enter which make it possible, even of malice aforethought, to so direct the votes that the candidate whom it is not intended to win shall win. However, in my love of mathematics, believing with Gauss that mathematics is the queen of the sciences, I object to such a beautiful science being used for so notoriously haphazard a thing as an election of Members of Parliament. Professor Nanson was a man who had a faculty for chilling enthusiasm in mathematics, but who had no practical knowledge whatever outside mathematics, so that his weight and authority on this subject may be taken to be absolutely nil. The weight of Laplace also is nil on the authority of Napoleon, and the weight of mathematics is nil because it is used in all its fineness and delicacy in a matter which sins at its very base by ignoring hazards and all the psychological element which make the selection of a candidate rough, contemptible, hazardous, and often unfortunate.
    Captain Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: I have listened with much interest to all that has been said both for and against this Amendment. The Debate goes to show the difficulties we have to face when we depart from the sound principle of electing that man who arrives at the top of the

    1689
    poll in the first instance. We have been told that the Amendment before the House is so complicated that directly you depart from the principle of giving the victory to the man who wins, you must have a complicated system. In my opinion, if you once depart from that fair principle, it is not only desirable, but it is absolutely necessary that you should satisfy the electors by being able to prove that the man who has been returned to Parliament has been fairly returned. With all due respect for the figures which were placed before us by the Home Secretary, I would prefer, in a matter of this kind, to be led by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir Joseph Larmor) when it comes to a matter of mathematics. I know something about mathematics myself, but we all bow to the knowledge in this respect of the Member for Cambridge. University, and therefore I feel, when he tells us that the Amendment before the House would result in securing a more correct result, it is that Amendment which should receive our support. When we come to deal with the Schedules which are on the Paper, I agree it may be probably be necessary to make certain Amendments in them, but that will be a comparatively easy matter, and I do not think that any criticism of the wording of the Schedules, as they appear on the Paper, should prevent us from voting for and supporting any scheme like this that will, in fact, give us a more accurate return. Under these circumstances I shall support the Amendment.
    5.0 P.M.
    Captain BARNETT: The principle of the alternative vote having been adopted by the House I assume we must address ourselves, whether we like the principle or not, to the task of making its application better and more suitable to the needs of the community. Notwithstanding the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, I feel that this matter is one of such great importance that before this Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple) is ruled out, something ought to be said as to its comparative advantages as contrasted with those of the scheme in the draft rules. The only way one can do that is to take the criticisms that were made on various points of the draft rules and see how far they can be levelled at the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment. There was one criticism which I ventured myself to make in seconding the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). It was as to
    1690
    Rule 5 in the draft rules which deals with the case of a tie, not at the top of the poll, but at the bottom, and gives the returning officer the right to decide who shall be excluded and whose votes shall go to augment those of the other candidates. It is true Rule 5 says the first test is to be as to which man has got the fewer transferred votes. It says also that if the number of transferred votes be equal, or if neither have any, then the returning officer is to decide. In the course of the Debate I was told by an hon. and learned Member opposite that one need not be worried about this, as returning officers had these powers at present in the case of a tie. But my hon and learned Friend entirely overlooked the fact that what the returning officer now, in the case of a tie, has to decide is whether Robinson or Jones is to go to Parliament; whereas he will have to decide under these rules, should they come into force as at present framed, not whether Jones or Robinson is to go into Parliament, but to whom 2,000 or 3,000 second preference votes, given to other candidates, shall be transferred. To my mind that is a far greater and more vital decision to be placed in the hands of the returning officer than anything he has to do at the present time.
    Another point which was raised, and which I think was not met in the Debate, was the question why the second preference votes of only the man at the bottom of the poll should be taken, in preference to the second preference votes of the men higher up. There has been no answer to that, but the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire has attempted to meet the difficulty. He said, in proposing his Amendment, the only other course would be that suggested under the system of the Government, by which the man at the bottom of the poll, although he might command an absolute majority, would be struck out on the first count. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill has actually used that as an argument against this Amendment, on the ground that it might result in the election of the man who in the first instance got the fewest votes. But there is nothing in the form of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member which would make that possible, although that would be possible under the draft rules before the House. It is perfectly obvious, and it is admitted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has moved this Amendment, that the objections put

    1691
    forward to the alternative vote are very serious objections. It is admitted that if you are not able to get a proper system of alternative voting the man with the majority of votes may be ruled out, but the hon. and gallant Member went on to say if you take my method of counting the votes it would not be difficult to put things right. He said:
    "The only difference between my system and that of the right hon. Gentleman is that he counts the preference votes of the last man on the poll and I count the preference votes of all at the first count."
    In a previous argument, which is attempted to be met by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire, I tried to show that the whole system was vitiated by the votes thrown away. Candidate A. at the top of the poll had 5,000 direct votes and those who support him gave 200 votes to B. and 300 to C., but 4,500 votes were wasted because the voters did not like the other men. I ventured to point out in the course of the Debate that the fact that 4,500 votes were wasted gave an undue value to the second preferences given to the other candidates. The hon. and gallant Gentleman saw that point and he attempted to meet it, but I would ask the House to see exactly how he does meet it. He said:
    "There is the danger of plumping, cases where the electors give their first preference votes and no other. If that took place I admit that we should be no further, because the second preference votes would not be recorded. The method I have adopted of defeating plumping is that an instruction shall be given to the returning officer that all unrecorded preference votes should be divided equally amongst the candidates." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1917, col. 1518–19.]
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman meant the remaining candidates. In other words, if you detest a man so much that you will not put 2 or 3 opposite his name, you are to give him automatically half a vote. If this Amendment were to be carried and the Schedule passed in its unamended form, I could not find it in my heart to vote for it; but there is an Amendment to the Schedule, to leave out Clause (b), and, if that is done, this great vice in the Amendment as it stands at present will be removed. It is perfectly obvious that it does not meet the difficulty of plumping to say that all the votes that have not been given are to be supposed to be given and then divided among the other casndidates. That really amounts to this, that you are forcing a man to give half a vote to the other candidates for whom he does not want to vote, and are inciden-
    1692
    tally injuring the chances of his own candidate being at the head of the poll. The right hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) said that this Amendment was. vicious in principle. Some of us think that the whole thing is vicious in principle, but here we are up against a Hobson's choice. We have to choose between the principle of the alternative vote as interpreted in the draft rules, and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire; and if I am asked to make a choice between the two, I shall vote for his Amendemnt in the hope that the Schedule will eventually be amended, so that the pernicious Clause (b) giving these imaginary votes to people who are not entitled to them will be cut out. There seems to be a little controversy to-day as to whether in the course of the Debate the hon. and gallant Member stated that this new system was in operation. I think there is some ambiguity because the hon. and gallant Member in moving his Amendment talked about Western Australia. I have re-read what he said on the subject, and I think he was referring to the alternative vote system, as we have it now in the draft rules, because he said that in Western Australia there was trouble about this very matter of plumping, so much so that the Government had seriously considered introducing a measure to. force a man to vote 1 and 2 or to have his vote invalidated. He went on further to say:
    "I am aware that it is not in actual operation anywhere."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1917, col. 1518.]
    The right hon. Member for Cleveland seemed to regard that as a fatal defect., We have heard about these schemes that are in practice in Lapland, Tasmania, and elsewhere, but I would much rather have a scheme that was not in operation elsewhere. I think that with the mathematical skill we have here in the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Larmor) and other Members. We are quite
    Capable of working out for ourselves a good electoral system without going to
    Tasmania, Lapland, or anywhere else. What the right hon. Member for Cleveland considers a blot on this scheme, therefore, I regard as in its favour. I hope the House will pass this Amendment, and thus give us a better scheme of alternative vote than that contained in the draft rules; and that if this Amendment is adopted a further alteration will be made eventually in the

    1693
    Schedule, wiping out that proposal to create these fictitious votes in favour of men for whom the elector never wanted to vote at all. If that is done, I feel sure we shall have a better system than that under the draft rules as they exist at present.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I think the hon. and gallant Member who moved this amendment (Major Chapple) is to be congratulated on one thing at least, and that is on apparently having converted large numbers of Members of this House to a more democratic form of voting. It is very astonishing to me to find Members of this House who opposed, first of all, proportional representation, and who opposed in the second place the alternative vote, now pressing forward this particular Amendment. I believe that the Amendment was moved honestly and straightforwardly by the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire, but I doubt very much whether the same honest advocacy can be attributed to some of the hon. Members who have associated themselves with him in regard to this Amendment. It seems to me that what is being done now is an attempt to wreck the whole thing in regard to the alternative vote. We are not even going to have the Amendment in its full form. The moment this is carried further Amendments are going to be moved which will make the whole proposal meaningless and worthless. There is no doubt as to the intention, because the hon. Members who are now supporting this have been the Members who have opposed every im-
    proved form of voting. They have opposed every proposal in that direction, and indeed some of them—
    General CROFT: The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Major Newman) has always been with me in favour of proportional representation.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I exclude the hon. and gallant Member. I did not know he was behind this proposal, and I was certainly not referring to him, as I had not heard his speech. I am referring to those Members of this House, and only to those Members, who have voted against any change in that direction, and who are now supporting this Amendment. My remarks only apply to them, to such as the hon. Member who has just spoken (Captain Barnett). I say I believe that from their point of view they are actuated very largely by the idea of party advantage, and I think it is time that we gave the people of this country honestly a chance to express their views, not from the standpoint of party advantage but from the standpoint of real democracy, of finding out the best way of expressing opinion and leaving them to express it. It is because I am convinced that this Amendment is not being pushed forward in that way that I hope it will not be supported, and that hon. Members will vote against it.
    Question put, "That the word 'by' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 137.

    Division No. 119.]

    AYES.

    [5.9 P.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Aiden, Percy

    Edwards, clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Arnold, Sydney

    Ffrench, Peter

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Field, William

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Barran, Sir Row. Hurst (Leeds, North)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Barton, Sir William

    Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Fleming, Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Joyce, Michael

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Keating, Matthew

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Bliss, Joseph

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Boland, John Pius

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Guest, Capt. Hon. Fred. E. (Dorset, E.)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Brunner, John F, L.

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    London, Thomas

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hackett, John

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Haslam, Lewis

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Clough, William

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Clynes, John R.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

    Molloy, Michael

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Crumley, Patrick

    Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

    Morgan, George Hay

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

    Hinds, John

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.),

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    1695

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Rowlands, James

    Watt, Henry A.

    O'Grady, James

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. W. (Dewsbury)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

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

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Smallwood, Edward

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Pratt, J. W.

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—Mr.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    A. Williams and Mr. Anderson,

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arion))

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton

    Norton-Griffiths, Sir John

    Allen, Major W. J.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

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

    Anstruther-Gray, Lieut.-Col. William

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Pease, Rt. Hon.Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gretton, John

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

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

    Philipps, Captain Sir Owen (Chester)

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Barnston, Capt. Harry

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Frederick (Dulwich)

    Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert

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

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Ratcliff, Lieut.-Col. R. F.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Rothschild, Major Lionel de

    Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

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

    Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bird, Alfred

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

    Blair, Reginald

    Horne, E.

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boyton, James

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

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

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Brookes, Warwick

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

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Bull, Sir William James

    Jessel, Colonel Sir H. M.

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Staveley-Hill Lieut.-Col. H.

    Butcher, John George

    King, Joseph

    Stewart, Gershom

    Campion, Lieut.-Col. W. R.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

    Carille, Sir Edward Hildred

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Terrell, Major Henry (Gloucester)

    Clive, Col. Percy Archer

    Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury)

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Tickler, T. G.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lansdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Touche, Sir George Alexander

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Lowe, Sir F. W.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

    Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

    McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

    Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

    Craig, Colonel James (Down, E)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    White, Col. G. D. (Lanes, Southport)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page

    Macmaster, Donald

    Whiteley, Herbert James

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie 0. (Reading)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Mitchell-Thomson, W.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Du Pre, Major W. Baring

    Mount, William Arthur

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Fell, Arthur

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Nicholson, William (Petersfield)

    George Younger and Mr. Pennefather.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Nield, Herbert

    Question proposed, "That the words `in the Eighth and Ninth Schedules of' be there inserted in the Bill."
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: Should I be in order in moving the insertion of these words in the Definition Clause in the Bill—Clause 34?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman can move to omit words "in the last Schedule," in order to insert a definition in Clause 34 of the Bill. Undoubtedly it would not now be open to the right hon. Gentleman to move on Clause 34 the pro
    1696
    posals of the Home Secretary, which the House has negatived. It will be necessary to insert something in the nature of the proposals of the Eighth and Ninth Schedules. That is what the House has determined. Whether it goes in in the form proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, or in some other form in Clause 34, it would not be open to him to insert the White Paper circulated by the Home Secretary.
    Mr. DICKINSON: The White Paper is not made part of the Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: After the decision to which the House has come it cannot now be made part of the Bill.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I think we can just as well discuss the matter on the Eighth and Ninth Schedules as on Clause 34.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Of course, the Eighth and Ninth Schedules and Amendment are open to discussion.
    Question put, " That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 122.

    Division No. 120.]

    AYES.

    [5.21 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Gardner, Ernest

    Nield, Herbert

    Allen, Major W. J.

    Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Anstruther-Gray, Lieut.-Col. William

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Norton-Griffiiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir J.

    Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Goulding. Sir Edward Alfred

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Essex, S.E.)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

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

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Barnston, Capt. Harry

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

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

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Frederick (Dulwich)

    Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Ratcliff, Lieut.-Col. R. F.

    Beilairs, Commander C. W.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Been, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Been, Com, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Rothschild, Major Lionel de

    Bird, Alfred

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

    Blair, Reginald

    Hohler, G. F.

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool W. Derby)

    Bowden. Major G. R. Harland

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    Boyton, J.

    Hope, Lieut.-Col. J. A. (Midlothian)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Horne, Edgar

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Brookes, Warwick

    Hunt, Major Rowland

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

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Butcher, J. G.

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

    Starkey, Capt. John R.

    Campion, Lieut.-Col. W. R.

    Jessel, Colonel Sir H. M.

    Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Stewart, Gershom

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    King, Joseph

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Clive, Col. Percy Archer

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Terrell, Major Henry (Gloucester)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Thomas-Stanford Charles

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Tickler, T. G.

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Touche, Sir George Alexander

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

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

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

    Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

    McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

    Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Whiteley, Herbert James

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie 0. (Reading)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Dixon, C. H.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Weed, John (Stalybridgel

    Du Pre, Major W. Baring

    Mitchell-Thomson, W.

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Fell, Arthur

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir G.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Younger and Mr. Pennefather,

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)

    Alden, Percy

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hackett, John

    Arnold, Sydney

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

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Barton, Sir William

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Dougherty. Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Hayward Major Evan

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Ffrench, Peter

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

    Bliss, Joseph

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Boland, John Plus

    Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Fleming, Sir John

    Hinds, John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Clough, William

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Hushes. Spencer Leigh

    Illingworth, Rt Hon. Albert H.

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Smallwood, Edward

    Jardine, Sir .1 (Roxburgh) ,

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Sutherland, John E.

    Jones W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Grady, James

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Palmer. Godfrey Mark

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Waring, Major Walter

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Watson, John B. (Stockton)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Pratt, J. W.

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Lynch, A. A.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Anfon)

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    McMickIng, Major Gilbert

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

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

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Rowlands, James

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Molloy, Michael

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. A

    Morgan, George Hay

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Williams and Mr. Anderson.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Sir J. LARMOR: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert,
    "(3) At a contested election for a university constituency in England or Ireland the voting paper shall be signed by the voter in the presence of one witness who personally knows the voter and attests the fact of the voting paper having been signed by the voter in his presence at the place therein mentioned by signing his name thereto, and adding his designation and place of residence."
    The object of this Amendment is to simplify procedure in connection with university elections. Under the present system of voting it is necessary for a voting paper to be witnessed by a magistrate belonging to the district in which the elector resides. This is a very troublesome matter, and everybody is agreed that it should be simplified. The proposal in the Amendment is a proposal that has been working in the Scottish university, and has given rise to no trouble whatever. I propose to extend it to all universities.
    Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not object to this Amendment, and shall accept it to-day. but I should like to add that we hope in another place to insert a Clause of a more comprehensive character, dealing with the whole question of the universities. I shall be glad to show the hon. Gentleman a copy of the Clause. I accept the Amendment so far as it goes.
    Mr. KING: I am surprised that a Clause which is to be introduced is to be shown to one hon. Member. I think that a new Clause in a Bill like this
    1700
    should be shown to the House, and not to one hon. Member. At the very least the right hon. Gentleman might publish it in the White Paper, and I hope we shall get some assurance that this is not going to be carried out in some hole-and-corner way.
    Mr. HOLT: Before the Home Secretary puts it in the Bill, might I point out that in the Sixth Schedule, paragraph 5, says:
    "In order to provide for election and voting in any university constituency constituted under this Act, where the election and voting in the constituency are not regulated under existing Acts, the Local Government Board shall apply thereto such provisions of any existing Acts relating to elections and voting to any university constituency in Great Britain."
    I understand that the hon. Gentleman who moves this Amendment proposes to introduce what, in fact, is the practice in the Scottish universities, and, if that be so, surely there is already provided, without this Clause, in the Schedule, the very thing which the hon. Gentleman is asking to do. In any case, does not the Schedule deal with the methods of voting in universities, and would not that be the place for such an Amendment?
    Sir G. CAVE: You could not put it in the Schedule without its being provided for in the Clause. I shall deal with the other universities, and, in the meantime, accept the hon. Member's Amendment. As to what was said by the hon. Member (Mr. King), it was my intention to show the Members for the universities a copy of the Clause, and I shall also be glad to show it to any hon. Members who wish to see it.
    Mr. WATT: When the right hon. Gentleman introduces the Clause, will it also deal with the universities of Scotland, or will it be confined to England and Ireland alone?
    Sir G. CAVE: I only wish to put this matter in the proper form, and hon. Members will have an opportunity, if they wish, of seeing the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 18.—(Polls to be held on One Day at a General Election.)
    (1) At a General Election all polls shall be held on one day, and the day fixed for receiving nominations shall be the same in all constituencies, and accordingly the First Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, shall be modified as shown in Part I. of the Second Schedule to this Act.
    (2) Official telegraphic information of the writ having been issued for a Parliamentary election may be given in such cases and by such persons as may be directed by His Majesty in Council, and any steps for holding an election which may be taken on or after the receipt of the writ may be taken on or after the receipt of an official telegraphic intimation of the writ having been issued.
    (3) The time appointed for the meeting of the Parliament may be any time not less than twenty clear days after the proclamation summoning Parliament; and the Meeting of Parliament Act, 1852, is hereby repealed.
    (4) Nothing in this Section shall—

    (a) affect the provisions of Section one of the Ballot Act, 1872, relating to the commencement afresh of the proceedings with relation to the election on the death of a candidate or apply to proceedings so commenced afresh; or

    (b) apply to a university election.

    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "on one day" ["be held on one day and "], and to insert instead thereof "(a) for boroughs on one day; and (b) for counties on the second day thereafter, and the day fixed for counting the votes."
    In Committee I presented a similar proposal, and I supported it by calling attention to the difficulties, the almost insuperable difficulties, of holding, the elections in both counties and boroughs in one day. I pointed out that these difficulties would
    1702
    be greatly increased by reason of the large number of electors to be added to the register and also by reason of the fact that women are to receive the vote. It will, therefore, be seen that existing difficulties will be greatly increased, and be very much more formidable in each constituency than they have ever been before. I also pointed out that the whole of the staffs and the returning officers were men trained for work in the polling booths, and the necessity of being trained will be more important if complicated methods of voting are to be introduced. It will be extremely difficult, therefore, to take the polls of both counties and boroughs in one day. An hon. Member referred to what is done in the United States and Canada, but there, I would point out, the circumstances are very different from what they are here, in addition to which, those who are engaged in election work in the United States and Canada have had long practice in it, and their rapidity of action is due to the fact of their long experience and their having all the accessories for an election ready to hand. Look at what happens here. The unfortunate candidate has to pay a large sum to the returning officer, not merely for the wages of the staff employed, but for accessories required in the election, and I dare say most members have had to pay the purchase value of the fitting of the polling places and the boxes and other accessories of a polling station. These accessories are used again, with the result that candidates have to pay for them over and over again. I can state from my own practical knowledge as a candidate, that these accessories are transferred from one constituency to another under the present system, and I submit, in view of all these facts, that there should be one day for the counties and one day for the boroughs, in order that these difficulties to which I have referred may be minimized as far as possible. The proposal of this Amendment will not lend itself to what in certain sections of this House has been regarded as a disadvantage in connection with declarations of the poll. It has been suggested that if the boroughs went in a certain direction at the election, and the results were announced that it would have the effect of causing the counties to flow with whatever was the stream of victory. That would be wholly obviated—if there be any truth at all in the suggestion—by not declaring the poll in the boroughs until after the counties had polled. The

    1703
    right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow opposed my Amendment on the last occasion, and observe how an astute and political mind can be reduced to a very poor argument. He said, speaking of my Amendment:
    "I am inclined to think that although the hon. and learned Member is making a proposal which is designed to get rid of one objection, he does not get over the difficulty altogether. The preservation of plural voting is naturally regarded by a large part of the community as a blot on the whole scheme, and I am not willing to accept at this stage something which would be thought to make the preservation of plural voting more significant, and give it a greater weight than I think is the result of the compromise as expressed in the Bill."
    In the Bill the only instance in which two votes are given is that where a man has a vote for his residence and a vote for his place of business. But it is inconceivable, therefore, to say that this is a plural vote. The House has authorised these two votes and these two votes may be recorded, and they will be recorded whether in boroughs or in counties. That is the only argument that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow advanced. The answer given to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was on the whole sympathetic. He said:
    "I think the holding of all polls on one day will give rise to some difficulty. The police difficulty, of course may be exaggerated and sometimes is, but it does exist. There is also the difficulty caused to the Post Office by the enormous number of ballot papers and other documents which will have to pass through it if all nominations and elections are held on one day. There is a further difficulty with regard to the polling staffs, the presiding officer and others who attend the polling booth at the polling and who otherwise deal with elections. There will be a difficulty, at all events, at the first election in getting sufficient men for the purpose. There are other questions of ballot boxes, and so on, which I regard as of no great importance, but on the matters I have mentioned there is real practical difficulty which I should like hon. Members to consider and to give us their views upon. The Committee might think that for the first General Election we should come to some arrangement and have two days, or one day for the boroughs and one day for the counties. I do not at all press that as a matter of principle."
    I would point out that if it is difficult to take the poll at present, how much more difficult will it be when large numbers are added to every division and to every rural and urban district, to have the election in one day. Polling cards are sent out on the last day as the final touch with an address to the electors, and inviting friends to go to the poll to vote for them. Many candidates would prefer to use the free postage for the purpose of sending the polling card rather than their address, because they can make their address known in various other ways. The men and women voters would receive these polling cards inviting them to vote, and
    1704
    the Postmaster-General will have to see what prospect his staff will have of being able to deal with such an enormous number of free postage polling cards, and he will have to provide a staff adequate to deal with the work. The Home Secretary went on to say:
    "I quite understand that hon. Members may hold other views, although I think the movement in favour of having all polls on one day is rather weakened by the fact that we are so largely reducing the plural vote. One of the arguments in favour of having all polls on one day is that by that means you would prevent the exercise of an undue number of votes, which some persons were thought to have. That no longer will be an operative reason, because the Committee has provisionally reduced the number of votes in practically all cases, so there will be no difficulty in that respect. If it were the general view I should be glad to assent to an arrangement giving two days to the first General Election, of course adding the provision which is on the Paper in the name of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Nield). I think that the votes taken on the first day should not be declared until all the votes have been taken. If that is done, the voting on the first day cannot affect the elections on the second, so you will attain one of the results you are seeking by having elections on one day. There is this further reason, that if we have all the elections on one day we must give, as the Bill gives, ten days between the nomination and polling. If you fix one day for the boroughs and another for the counties, you will allow the least time for the boroughs, and let them poll nearer to the day of nomination, allowing the full time for the counties only. Therefore, you need not lose time by this change and you might effect a considerable increase of convenience."
    The only other objection urged against it was by an hon. Member (Mr. Wing), who said that commercial travellers would be considerably disturbed by the prolongation of the polling. I do not think that an interval of one day between the boroughs and the counties would make any material difference. It would give them the opportunity of conducting their activities in the counties when the boroughs are polling, and transferring their attention to the boroughs when the counties were polling. Upon the whole, I suggest there is abundant argument in favour of making this change, and I think that the House would be well advised to accept this proposal. There are other reasons which I might give, but I think I have said enough by citing the opinion of the Home Secretary to show the weakness of the arguments of those who oppose. I trust that the House will realise that the general convenience will be met by passing my Amendment.
    Colonel SANDERS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. ROWLANDS:I have listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I have been trying to learn from his speech if he would bring forward any new facts other than those which he brought

    1705
    forward when this question was being discussed on the Committee stage, and so far as I could ascertain from his remarks he had no fresh evidence of any kind to put before the House. I think that it is almost a degradation to the intellect of this country that hon. Members should keep on pointing out that we cannot and have not the businesslike capacity to do what other big countries can do, namely, to settle the whole of their elections there and then on the one day. What is the line of argument used? We are told that there have been difficulties in the past and that there may be difficulties in obtaining a sufficient number of people to carry on the election. But the very essence of making your elections on the one day would be that you virtually close down for that day a great amount of business, so that you would release for all manner of purposes a large staff of persons, quite capable, intellectually and otherwise, of managing an election. Let us take one item. If you had all the elections on one day, the polling places would be in the school rooms, which would be closed from their ordinary educational work. You would have thus placed at your disposal in the masters of those schools an intellectual body of men who would make presiding officers at the polling booths placed in the schools. Surely the hon. and learned Member will not for a moment attempt to say that those men are not in every way qualified to perform the duties of presiding officers?
    Mr. NIELD: Indeed, I do!
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I have a good deal of experience. I do not wish to be personal, but some of the greatest blunders I have had to do with in presiding officers have been committed by gentlemen of the hon. Member's profession.
    Mr. NIELD: I think it would be better if the hon. Member would give instances, as we do not care for general statements of that kind.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I remember one of them was putting a stamp over my name, and I had to teach him what to do. I think you could not have any more blundering than that by schoolmasters, if you made them presiding officers. The difficulty the hon. Member referred to in connection with commercial travellers would be met also by holding the elections upon one day. I have discussed this question with business men, and the one thing
    1706
    that they all want is that you should close down for the one day. The commercial traveller cannot with convenience go into the county while the boroughs are being polled. The public mind is disturbed from ordinary business, whereas with the polls all on one day the commercial traveller could cease his business, possibly for that one day, and would be able after that to get on with his work. We heard a great deal last time about the supplying of the machinery for the elections, such as the poll boxes and other impedimenta. The whole of that could easily be got into existence. You are not passing this law for one election, and one election only. The whole of that machinery once brought into existence should be in the hands of either the urban council or the county council, or tile municipal council of the borough. The polling boxes, having been found out of public money, should be there at all times to be used for all elections. I know that they are in the majority of cases, but not in all—a fact which makes my arguments the stronger. We have had cases under one authority where the polling boxes disappeared immediately after one election, and there had to be new ones bought for the next election. Since public funds are used to buy these things, I think the Treasury ought to say, "These are public property and must be kept." In that way there would be no difficulty in providing them a second time. I suppose it was because the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that that would be done that he did not make quite so much of the point as when he was urging this matter on the Committee stage.
    Take another point which the hon. and learned Gentleman put rather strongly. He said that above all things you want to divide the elections, because otherwise you will not have the necessary police force to preserve order on the day. What. is the experience on these matters? It is that the more elections you have on the one day the less likelihood there is of disturbance, because the people are confined to their own locality. You may have passions aroused over some burning questions, and if you have an election at one place on one day and in the county on the next day. you get the migration of those excited people into the area where the second election is taking place, and that is the way you create disturbance. If the polls are all held on the one day the people are confined to their own polling areas, and it

    1707
    is not until the boxes are closed that you have anything like time for disturbances, or anything of the kind. Another argument used by the hon and learned Gentleman was what he described as a difficulty with regard to the Post Office. He said that possibly the candidate might reserve the right to free postage for his polling card, which is issued at the last moment, and which is for the purpose of letting the elector know where the polling place is and the time of polling, and just to give him the last word. The hon. and learned Member said all that might come down on the Post Office at the one moment, and that the Post Office would be unable to deliver all those cards. I have had experience of this matter, particularly in some of the old London boroughs, such as the borough of Finsbury, where there were 50,000 people on the roll, and in every one of these cases the system has been to go to the postal authorities of the locality and arrange for the posting of those poll cards in each sorting district in which the delivery was to take place. You did not go and put them all haphazard into the central office, but entered beforehand into an arrangement with the Post Office authorities, and it was to the interests of the candidate to do so, in order that that last card might be delivered not on the morning of the polling day, but as near as possible to the day of the poll. I plead for the Bill as it stands, because I believe in the convenience of holding all the elections on one day, and I think all the arguments points to that conclusion. I do not think it would be at all a bad thing if on account of having all the polls on one day you had almost a cessation of occupation in the latter half of that day. I have seen polling taking place in other countries under this system. I have seen a poll taken in Paris on one day and made a round of the city on that occasion. Surely the people there are quite as excitable as we are here. We have the example of the holding of all the county council elections in London on the one day, and we know that they go off as well and as quietly as the Parliamentary elections that take place over a series of days.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. NIELD: Would the hon. Gentleman say what percentage vote at those elections. Was the number 40 per cent. recently?
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I admit that it may have been 40 per cent. or perhaps some-
    1708
    times up to 50 per cent., but I have been in places where it was much higher, and I would ask the hon. and learned Member what is the register that has to go to the polls? The register for a county council election is much larger than for a Parliamentary election, and what is the condition of the candidature? You have double the number of candidates that you have in Parliamentary elections. I think our friends, who are in favour of this change, if they want to take London as a reason, must give some good arguments to show that ever since 1889 the whole of these elections have not been carried on successfully and efficiently. With the whole of the polling on one day you have the returns coming in and the excitement away by the next morning. I think the polling on one day has been thoroughly well justified. As one who has had the experience of being a candidate both for a borough and also for a county division, I say that it is wrong to put a strain on the county men, even by the extension of another day. We have quite enough. What do you have from an electioneering point of view? If you divide this into two days you have all the excitement in the boroughs on the one day, and you have the people worn out with that excitement, and the candidates for the county suffer and are thereby at a disadvantage. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman must really think again, and try to get more arguments, and of a fresher character, than he has been able to put before us to-night, for the purpose of getting the House to change their opinion expressed previously. I do not think there is anything to be said for the convenience of this suggested change, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will stand for the Bill as it is.
    Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will stand by the unanimous decision of the Speaker's Conference which fully considered this matter, and also by the decision of this House in Committee. I cannot think that any reason has been adduced which should lead the Government to alter its mind upon this subject. In regard to the small questions of machinery and apparatus which were raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think there is a very great advantage in having, in the hands of every local authority who has to deal with these elections, an adequate supply of ballot boxes, For

    1709
    instance, take the example given as to one set of ballot boxes going round and being used in several different divisions. In each case—for each occasion—the ballot boxes are charged by the returning officer. The ballot boxes, too, are public property. As to there being any serious difficulty of administration in this matter I think the particular arguments are met by the general reply that other countries, no more able than ourselves, find no difficulty in carrying out all their elections on one day. In regard to the Post Office authorities, for example, I do not think the Post Office would shift its staff from one part of the country to another. That argument has no real sound foundation. There is a very great advantage in having the elections on one day from the point of view, not of the candidate, but of the business community. It is a great thing to get rid of the disturbance to business which has existed in the past. I have always thought that there should be, if not a whole holiday, at any rate a partial holiday on the day of the election.
    It has always struck me, too, as being somewhat of a scandal that the workmen should be struggling to get into the polling booths just before 8 o'clock at night at great personal inconvenience to themselves, whilst it sometimes has required a great deal of apparatus to bring them to the poll—canvassers, motor-cars, 'busses, and all sorts of things, the use of which is often, I think, illegitimate, and always undesirable. Why should not we regard an election in this country as a matter of such importance to, at any rate, give everyone in the country a few hours from work for the purpose of recording their votes? I have again and again gone to the polling booth and seen the crowds of working men, long lines of them, having got there at great difficulty; and I have known of the great efforts on the occasion required to be made to get the men to the poll who were working at a distance from the place where they voted. As a matter of fact many left before time to get to the poll early. But it is impossible for most of them to get early to the polling. Therefore, I think, it would be a great advantage if a national holiday for either the whole or half a day were observed, so that the polling could be expedited and the disturbance to business made less. I hope we are not going to get into the habit of going back, without very strong reason for doing so, on the things we have settled
    1710
    under this Bill. There are, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, a good many things I should like to go back upon. We have abstained from that. There are things which may cause us great personal inconvenience. Very serious questions could be raised on the Schedule. Very strong criticism could be put forward. But it is in the interests of all of us to get this Bill through with as much agreement as possible, and when we have come to an agreement both at the Conference and on the Committee stage on this question of polling on one day, I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will stand firm on what has been decided, and not open doors for alterations and for making more difficulties in carrying through this matter.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is obvious that a great deal can be said both for and against this Amendment. The consideration which decides me is this: This is an old controversy; the matter has been debated for many years past, and is one of those issues on which parties have been divided, and which, we hope, were finally settled at the Speaker's Conference, and by the Report which Mr. Speaker presented to the House. That being so, I could not possibly accept this Amendment without the general assent of the House, and so go back upon the decision of the Conference. There is one point still which the Government promised to leave to the House. I refer to the proxy vote. Subject to that exception which has been made, we shall endeavour, and I trust the House will do so, to keep as close as we can to the agreement of the Conference, and so adhere to the agreement embodied the Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not quite certain, but my recollection is that on the Committee stage of the Bill the Home Secretary said that he would consider between then and the Report stage whether or not something could be done in this direction. My right hon. and learned Friend has the Report, and he will be able to correct me if I am wrong—but I certainly thought something of this sort was said by the Home Secretary.
    Sir G. CAVE: The tenor of my speech was that, while I sympathised, I could not accept such an Amendment without the general assent of the House.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was not quite certain as to what had been said. The Home Secretary said he sympathised with the

    1711
    thing, but he could not assent to it without the general assent of the House. It is said that this is one of those unanimous recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. We have rather let that aspect of the case go by, because only last week we had one, if not two, occasions when we totally disregarded the unanimous decision of the Speaker's Cnoefrence. In regard to women and local government we certainly did so, because it was a clear statement, as clear as anything could be, in the Speaker's Conference Report, that no woman was to be registered in respect of the qualification of her husband. Nothing could be clearer. Therefore I would point out to my right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. McKinnon Wood), who is so extremely anxious to carry out the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference—and I am not sure whether he did not speak in favour of what I am referring to—that if he was in favour then of overriding the unanimous decision of the Speaker's Conference, it hardly lies with him now to say that you must not accept this Amendment because it would be overriding the unanimous decision of the Speaker's Conference! I listened very carefully to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rowlands). I could not find that he adduced any arguments against the Amendment except this: That in another country—I think he said a great country! —there was no difficulty in having the elections on one day. That may be so, but I greatly dislike to be told what other countries are doing. I prefer that this country should set an example to other countries, and not take their example. Therefore I do not think he is right in saying we must do so and so because other countries do it.
    An endeavour was made to show that the arguments of my hon. and learned Friends opposite were not apposite. It was said that it would be very easy to have presiding officers in the booths if the elections were all held on one day, because all the schools would be closed, and (it was said) the head teachers could act as presiding officers. But head teachers are sometimes partisans—in some cases very strong partisans. Many are very strong Tories, many are very strong Radicals. I do not think it is advisable to put them into the position of presiding officer; not certainly in their own locality. If it were in a strange locality it would not so much matter. In his own locality, however, a
    1712
    man who is a very strong partisan, and who is known to be so, might be a cause of difficulty. Then there comes the question of the police. A few years ago—probably the Home Secretary knows how the position stands now—the police were, I know, strongly against having all the elections on one day. The arguments of my hon. Friend opposite were directed to show that the disturbances would only occur at night. It does not seem to me to be a very sound argument. He suggested that probably most of the disturbances would occur after the declaration of the poll. That rather emphasised the difficulty which the police would have to meet, because, as all the declarations, or a good many of them, might be made on that evening—and it is, then, as a rule, that the disturbances occur—that it would be extremely difficult for the police to have a sufficient force present to check the disturbances. Speaking from my own experience, which, of course, is limited to London, I remember that in Peckham we sometimes used to have disturbances. I remember people coming in from the outside. But, I think, it was generally the party men in Peckham on both sides who sometimes came to a little disagreement which ended, it might be in words, and sometimes in something a little stronger. There was, however, never anything really very serious. I do not think it was because of the people who were brought in from the outside; it was the people themselves who lived there.
    I should like to hear some arguments in favour of having all the elections on one day. The only argument I heard was that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKinnon Wood). It was to the effect that there should be a holiday. I had no idea—there is, I think, no idea in the Bill—that because there is a proposal to have all the elections on one day, that you had better have a holiday. I do not think that would be a wise thing at all, because that would occasion everyone being in the streets the whole day, and it would be a strong incitement to disturbance. I do not think this is necessary. People talk about disturbances of business. The disturbance to business is not having the election on one or on any days. The trouble and excitement that comes during the time of the election is from canvassers and other like causes. That is generally the time when there is a disturbance of business. But that is not on a particular

    1713
    day. I can see many reasons why it would be inconvenient to have all elections on one day. The first is as regards the police, and, unless the Home Secretary can tell us that he has consulted the police authorities and they say they have no objection, I think the police question is a very serious one. Then there is the question of finding presiding officers and their clerks. I think the ballot boxes can be put on one side; I do not see very great objection to that. But I think there is the third objection, that there will be a very great impediment to business if every election is held on one day instead of on two days. I am not quite sure even now, if the majority of Members get up and make speeches in favour of the Amendment, that the Home Secretary will not agree to it. Therefore, I think the best thing is to ask everyone who agrees with me to get up and say so, and I hope this will be done.
    Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: As the Home Secretary has said, this is an old subject of controversy, and it is a class of controversy that we wish to see settled, if possible. It seems to me that, with regard to the presiding officers and clerks, having the election on two days would not make any difference at all. We must all judge by our individual experience. My experience in the various constituer ies with which I have, in one way and another, had to do is that the presiding officers and clerks have invariably been found in the constituency, and have not come in from outside. There may be differences elsewhere, but that is my experience, and, therefore, having the elections on two days would not make any difference in those constituencies in that respect. The very great objection, in my judgment, to having the elections on two days, and a very strong argument for having them on one day, is that this will help us to get rid of the incursion into the constituency of people from other constituencies. One of the great developments of recent years has been the immense number of motor cars brought into constituencies from outside. It is a practical violation of the Corrupt Practices Act. Practically it is equivalent to paying a man's fare. It is very undesirable, and if you have the eletions on one day you will confine the operations of these motor cars to the constituency in which they are.
    We want to have fair play at these elections, and everybody realises that the
    1714
    workpeople in this country, in trying to run their particular candidates, are placed at a great disadvantage in this matter of motor cars. Perhaps you cannot get over it so far as the cars in the individual constituencies are concerned, but if you have the elections on two days, it does mean that all the motor cars that have been working on the one day are available for the other constituencies on the other day, and very much intensify that evil. I do not think there is any practical difficulty whatever in the way of having the elections on one day. The question of the ballot boxes is neither here nor there; a community ought to own its own ballot boxes. There is no difficulty about the presiding officers and clerks. As for the police, some of us live in different parts of the country from the right hon. Baronet, and do not find the necessity for the police, as evidently he does in the great centre of the Empire, and even down at Peckham. I do not think there is anything in the objections, and I do think a very strong argument in favour of the elections on one day is that you prevent the incursion into the constiutency on the polling day of any number of canvassers, motor cars, and various people from outside who are far better away.
    Sir WILLIAM PEARCE: I think there is a practical objection which has not been mentioned. So far as I understand the Amendment, the polling would take place in the boroughs, say, on Tuesday, and in the counties on Thursday, and therefore it means that the result of a borough which polls on Tuesday cannot be declared till Friday. What are you going to do with the ballot boxes? If you count the votes on the day after the election, secrecy is impossible. The result of the election is sure to transpire, and if you intend to keep the ballot boxes in anyone's charge for three days, surely it is contrary to common sense, and is not a businesslike arrangement and is open to grave objection.
    Colonel YATE: I hope the Home Secretary will consent, with the general assent of the House, to the reconsideration of this matter. I agree with the Mover of the Amendment that there will be difficulty in carrying out all the elections on one day. There is just one thing I would like to suggest to the Mover of the Amendment. It strikes me it would be preferable to have the elections for the counties on the first day and the elections for the

    1715
    boroughs on the second day. It takes a longer time, and much more trouble, to arrange for a county election, and I think it would be far easier to have the county elections on the first day and the borough elections on the second day. I think the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands), who gave us such a lurid account of the terrible trouble that would be occasioned by the populations of the towns upsetting the county, would accept this proposal of mine, because in that case the influx of people from the towns into the county elections would be done away with, and I think we could trust the more peaceful people of the country not to go into the towns. I do not see how the police can make arrangements for both borough and county elections on the same day; the force is not sufficient. I think on all points it would be far better for two days to be given, and that the votes should be counted at the end of the second day.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I have listened to the various speeches that have been made, and I have heard no argument that has impressed my own mind as to the need for departing from the proposal that the elections should be held on the same day. The Speaker's Conference, I have no doubt, considered this matter, and felt that the holding of elections on one day would be the best way to carry out what everybody believes to be a necessary change. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London says that the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference have been departed from in other respects, and I think he mentioned in particular the carrying of the vote in regard to women at municipal elections. For my part, I should be quite willing to accept this alteration also on the same terms as the last, because when that Amendment was put forward it was not challenged in any part of the House, and not one Member—not even the right hon. Baronet himself—voted against that proposal, and when we are all agreed, and the right hon. Baronet is agreed with all of us, our unity is very wonderful indeed. Therefore, if we can secure unity to the same extent on this matter I should say that the Home Secretary would be abundantly justified in accepting the proposal. But nobody knows better than those who are pressing this Amendment that there is no such unanimity with regard to the matter at all. I have listened very carefully to the various argu-
    1716
    ments that have been put forward. The right hon. Baronet has said that he is determined not to follow the example of any other country, but that he wants to set an example to other countries. I am not sure they will be very ready to follow the example of the right hon. Baronet or that they will profit greatly if they do.
    The arguments which the right hon. Baronet gave were three. First, there was the case of the police. I have taken part in quite a number of elections, and I have never seen the need for a tremendous number of police. I am quite sure that where there is sometimes passing political excitement the importation of too many police, so far from being helpful, is all in the other direction, and especially if they are brought in from outside, as is apparently the intention of the right hon. Baronet. It is far better that the local police, who know the people and mix with them, should deal with a matter of political excitement than that strange police should be brought in from the outside, because time after time it has been shown that it makes matters far worse, and creates trouble, whereas trouble otherwise would not exist. Then with regard to the question of the presiding officer and their clerks, my own experience is the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) that each constituency can provide its own presiding officer and its own clerk; and, indeed, it would cause a great deal of heart-burning and friction to pretend you had not got anybody in your own place to do the work and that you had to bring in some superior people from outside to perform what, after all, is not so very difficult a matter. So far from helping matters forward by doing this, you would be creating additional difficulties. As regards the argument about the ballot boxes, and there not being perhaps a sufficient supply, I do not think anyone puts that forward as a valid objection. I believe that the real reasons why this Amendment is being suggested, are, first Of all, that it is going to give an extra advantage to plural voters to go from one division to another. If plural voters are going to have a chance of voting twice, let them exercise it on the same day. Why provide special opportunities for the plural voters?
    Colonel YATE: Why not?
    Mr. ANDERSON: Why should not the plural voter have to vote under the same

    1717
    conditions as anyone else? Why provide opportunities for the plural voter to vote several times on the same day and go to other places?
    Colonel YATE: Why, then, have you given a man two votes?
    Mr. ANDERSON: You are making this arrangement for the special convenience of a certain class of voters, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that a great many people in this country think that if every man gets one vote he gets quite sufficient, and, in any case, there is no need to make special arrangements for the second vote. Then by this Amendment you will be able in certain cases to transfer party agents and party organisers rapidly from one constituency to another, giving special advantage to the parties that have the largest number of agents and organisers. Then there is the third advantage, in the flooding of constituencies with motor cars. So that the party that is richest in plural voters, the party that is richest from the standpoint of organising agents, and the party that is richest from the standpoint of motor cars is the only party that stands to gain from an Amendment of this kind. I say again, this Amendment is put forward purely from the standpoint of party advantage as apart from the interests and the welfare of the people who are going to vote, and I hope the Amendment will be resisted by the House.
    Mr. NIELD: In deference to the reasons which have been given by the Home Secretary I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words: "Provided that, if it appears to the returning officer of any constituency that owing to some exceptional cause a proper poll cannot take place on the required day, the returning officer may postpone the poll in that constituency till some subsequent day and make such arrangements as are necessary for the purpose. The postponement of the poll under this provision shall not invalidate the election."
    In Committee it was pointed out that there might be difficulties arising, such as a serious breakdown, and it was thought that some discretion ought to be allowed to the returning officer. I promised to consider the point, and I have put down
    1718
    this provision for the consideration of the House, and I should like to know the views of hon Members upon it.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I hope my right hon. Friend will explain much more clearly than by these words what is meant by this exceptional proposal. I think the returning officer above all others would be the last person to desire to have the very invidious duty put upon him of taking the responsibility for postponing the date of an election. It is to be the sheriff acting through the clerk of the peace, and it is extremely desirous that nothing which can possibly take a contentious aspect should be placed within his power. If you had some catastrophe on the polling day which paralysed all possibility of polling in some areas, or if the constituency was destroyed by bombs from German aeroplanes, or by an earthquake, or some colossal fire, surely you could rely upon Parliament passing a measure specially dealing with that case. On the other hand, if you have a catastrophe which falls short of destroying all possibilities of voting, is it not better to have the minor ill than to pass a proposal of this kind upon the most sensitive of all subjects, namely, the question of an election in a particular area? It might be in accordance with the most passionate convictions of a large number of people that you should have some postponement, because they think it would affect the result, but it seems to me that the insertion of this provision would bring an element of uncertainty, possibly of controversy and certainly of doubt into this matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, and that if the advisers of the Home Secretary have in mind some altogether exceptional catastrophe, I trust that he will tell us what it it, and I think he will have to apply something more than a proposal which puts upon the returning officer the most invidious powers, and which would be resented wherever it was put into operation.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My right hon. Friend has put forward this Amendment in his mildest tones, and he has invited the opinion of the House upon it. I notice that he has altered his Amendment somewhat, because in the first place it indicated that bad weather was the sort of contingency that he had in mind. Surely bad weather cannot be alleged as a sufficient justification for such a revolutionary idea as this. I use this word advisedly, because it is a revolutionary

    1719
    idea that the returning officer, on his own judgment, shall be able to postpone the holding of an election after Parliament has decided that all elections shall be held on one day. There is nothing in our past history to justify this Amendment. In London we have had considerable experience of holding elections on one day fixed by the London County Council, and we have had no cases brought before us where in the past it has been found necessary to alter the date of an election at the last moment. The only case which has come before my notice is where a candidate died, and in that case the Law Courts intervened. I will not enter into that case, partly because the point was never appealed upon, and you have only one decision in the matter. It never went to the Court of Appeal and was never tested in that way.
    We have had a lot of experience in this matter, and there is no experience which shows the necessity for this Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend who spoke last referred to the suspicion which would be caused that the returning officer had been actuated in one direction or another by his action. The uncertainty would be a very serious thing for the constituency and very expensive for the candidates. In the case I referred to, where another election was ordered owing to the death of a candidate between the date of nomination and the date of poll, all the candidates were put to such serious inconvenience that they had to exceed the election limit for expenses, and they had to apply to the Court for relief. It is a very serious thing indeed to alter the date of an election, because circumstances may arise which may require the dispatch of fresh literature. Besides this, you have to keep on your committee rooms for a further period, and you have to keep your agents employed for a longer time. Therefore, it is far better that some inconvenience should be caused, perhaps, in one particular election in the whole country than that all elections should be placed in a state of uncertainty as to whether the returning officer might find some excuse for postponing the election. This is a vague and nebulous proposal, and I hope the House will not accept it. It is the vaguest thing I have seen proposed in the conduct of this Bill, and I hope no influence will be used to force it upon the House—in fact, I am sure there will not be, judging
    1720
    from the tone of the Home Secretary's speech. I hope the House will give a clear indication of its opinion upon this Amendment, and having decided that all the elections shall take place on one day, we should decline to give the returning officer power to overrule that decision.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am afraid that I am responsible for this Amendment, but not in the form in which it appears on the Paper. I did bring the question up on the Committee stage, having in mind the inconvenience caused by a great snowstorm, and my original Amendment dealt with the weather in cases where that made it impossible to have a fair poll. I did not propose anything more than that. It was intended to apply to cases where the roads and railways could not be used, but certainly I do not now press it on the right hon. Gentleman. I had an Amendment on the Paper in some such form, but it was quite of a limited character.
    Sir G. CAVE: In view of the speech which has just been made by the last speaker, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment. I must, however, take exception to the statement that by this proposal I was trying to whittle down the decision of the House to have all the elections on one day, because it was nothing of the kind. I put this Amendment down because I had promised to meet the point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs, and as he is not satisfied with my proposal I ask leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words, "In the case of a by-election the poll shall take place on such day as the returning officer may appoint, not being less than four or more than eight clear days after the day fixed for nomination, and the First Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, shall be modified accordingly."
    We have fixed the period between nomination and poll for General Elections at eight days, but we have not provided for by-elections and therefore we must put in some words to provide for a by-election. Our proposal is that a poll shall be taken not less than four or more than eight clear days after the date fixed for nomination.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I hope my right hon. Friend has considered this proposal sufficiently carefully. My own impression is that these periods are not long enough. I

    1721
    do not see how the absent voter can be communicated with in so short a time, and surely it would be wiser to give six days instead of four in one case and nine days in the other rather than four and eight days.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 19.—(Penalty for Voting at a General Election in More Constituencies than Allowed.)
    (1) If any person at a General Election votes for more constituencies than he is entitled to vote for in accordance with this Act, or asks for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of so voting, he shall be guilty of a corrupt practice other than personation within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883; and the expression "corrupt practice " shall be construed accordingly: Provided that—

    (a) the Court before whom a person is convicted under this Section may, if they think it just in the special circumstances of the case, mitigate or entirely remit any incapacity imposed by Section six of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883; and

    (b) the fact that any person has asked for a ballot paper in a constituency in circumstances which entitle him only to mark a tendered ballot paper in pursuance of Rule 27 of the First Part of the First Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, shall not, if he does not exercise that right, prevent his voting or asking for a ballot or voting paper in another constituency; and

    (c) the fact that any person who is registered in more than one division of a Parliamentary county or Parliamentary borough has asked for a ballot paper in a division of the county or borough in which he has been marked as not entitled to vote shall not prevent his voting or asking for a ballot paper in the division in which he is entitled to vote; and

    (d) the giving of a vote by a returning officer in pursuance of Section two of the Ballot Act, 1872, in the case of an equality of votes, or the asking for a ballot paper for the purpose of so voting, shall not, for the purposes of this Section, be deemed to be the
    1722
    giving of a vote as a Parliamentary elector, or the asking for a ballot paper for the purpose of so voting.

    Sir ERNEST POLLOCK: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "a corrupt practice other than personation," and to insert instead thereof the words "an illegal practice."
    Under the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883 there are two categories in which improper practices fall. One is corrupt practices and the other illegal practices, and it is because I think the punishment inflicted in the case of corrupt practices is too severe that I desire to propose this Amendment to reduce the offence to an illegal practice rather than to let it stand as in the Bill as a corrupt practice. Corrupt practices are those higher offences such as bribery, treating, undue influence and personation, while illegal practices are matters connected with the election itself, such as the absence of a printer's name from a placard, the improper conduct of matters at an election, and so on, and excessive election expenses. The House will remember that in most cases whether it is an illegal or a corrupt practice, if the candidate himself is responsible and is found guilty of either the election is avoided; but the penalty is a very severe one in the case of a corrupt practice. If it is found that the offence, be it corrupt or illegal, has been committed either by the candidate or by his agent, the election is avoided, and in election law the agent referred to is not the authorised agent of the candidate, but any person who is associated by assistance or management in the progress the election. A man may be found by an election court to be an agent and to avoid the seat of the candidate although he was never known to the candidate at all by name or in any other way. He may, by his association and the energy and zeal with which unknown to the candidate, he has worked on his behalf, prove to be an agent in election law.
    What happens in the case of an illegal practice? The election is not only avoided—I do not want in any way to minimise the importance of the improper practice to which this Section refers, and I am quite content to leave it as it stands—but the candidate who is unseated remains ineligible and cannot be a candidate during the lifetime of the Parliament for which he was proposed to be elected. A person

    1723
    who is convicted of any corrupt practice, whether on indictment or before an election court, is incapable during seven years from the date of his conviction of being registered as an elector or voting at any election, whether for Parliament or for any public office, or of holding any public or judicial office, or of being elected to or sitting in this House of Commons. If a man has been found guilty of a corrupt practice, he is really incapable of taking any part in public affairs, Parliamentary or municipal, and of giving a vote or being elected to any public office for seven years. That is a very heavy penalty. I know a late member of this House, a very honoured member, who for a period of seven years has been debarred from all public affairs and from holding any public or judicial office. That is a penalty which ought not lightly to be imposed, and I ask the House whether it is necessary in the case of the offence with which we are dealing. We are dealing with the case of a man who asks for a voting paper for the purpose of voting twice. If that is made a corrupt practice, and if by reason of taking a leading or energetic part in the election he can be deemed in election law to be held to be an agent, it avoids the seat and puts the candidate to these very severe penalties. If, on the other hand, it is left an illegal practice, then, if it is done by an agent or through the influence of an agent, the seat is still avoided and the candidate cannot stand during the Parliament for which he was proposed to be elected. Surely that is sufficient punishment to impose. Unless Members are familiar with election law and fully appreciate that the word "agent" is construed in a very wide sense indeed, they will hardly appreciate the danger to which they are being exposed.
    We are really creating a new offence, the offence of asking for a voting paper, and we ought to be very careful before we impose the very heavy penalties that I have indicated. It is really no answer to say that under paragraph (a) the Court may mitigate or remit any incapacity imposed. One wants to be quite sure that there is no danger of it. It is all very well to say that you can apply for the mercy of the Court, but it is not right for such an offence to put candidates into such peril. If you make it an illegal practice you avoid the seat and put the candidate under a heavy penalty, and I
    1724
    think you do enough. I hope the House will pause very carefully before it imposes this very heavy punishment. The right category in which to put the offence is that known as illegal practices, rather than to put it on a par with bribery, treating, or other offences which have always been considered serious offences, whether at Common Law or elsewhere. This offence ought to find itself in the lesser category, and ought not to carry the very serious disability which it does under the Section as drawn.
    Mr. HOHLER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: This is not a matter of great importance. We are creating by the statute a new offence, the offence of plural voting, and the question is what is to be the penalty for that offence. I confess to a good deal of sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend's argument that it is quite enough to begin with to make it an illegal practice. If we find that there are many breaches of the statute, it might be quite right to increase the penalty. I therefore hope that to-day the House will be content to limit the penalties to those imposed by this Amendment. Of course, there is no question of principle involved, and I hope the House will agree to the Amendment.
    Sir R. ADKINS: There is a great deal to be said for the Amendment so far as the effect upon the candidate, who of course may not have any personal cognizance of the offence, is concerned, but I hope the House will not agree to anything that mitigates the penalty so far as the man who votes more than once is himself concerned. It is extremely important that the offence of plural voting should be just as serious as the offence of bribery or treating, because it is a much easier thing to do though it has just the same effect. By bribing or treating you endeavour to secure a vote or votes which otherwise would not be obtained, but by plural voting you actually succeed in registering votes that ought not to be registered and doing what must be known to be against the law of the land. If the hon. and learned Member's plea with regard to the consequences on candidates finds favour, I hope that nothing will be done to make the man who commits the offence subject to less severe penalties than attach to other offences known as corrupt practices under the existing law.
    Mr. HOLT: I should like to support what the hon. Member has just said. The hon. and learned Member (Sir E. Pollock) really spoke altogether too lightly of the offence of voting more frequently than Parliament had authorised. I see no difference between a man who votes three times and the roan who votes in the name of a person who is dead. He is voting illegally and whether he does it in his own name or in the name of someone else does not appear to me to make very much difference. It is a very serious offence. Voting twice is not an absolutely new offence. It is already an offence at municipal elections. A man may have several different qualifications, but he commits an offence if he votes for more than one of them, and, the penalty not being a very severe one, there have been cases where there has been something like organised voting twice in constituencies where the result was likely to be very close. If there is any of this excessive voting in an election decided by a narrow margin, the defeated candidate is almost bound to present a petition. That is a very costly and objectionable proceeding giving rise to a great deal of ill-feeling which it takes years to get rid of, and people whose conduct causes an election petition ought not to be considered mild offenders. Election offences are treated far too lightly as it is. There are a great many more of them than people suppose, and we want to increase the penalty, rather than whittle it down. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be accepted.
    Mr. NIELD: It is extraordinary, and this House is the best illustration of it, how men's minds can take entirely different views, and while putting forward one aspect shut off as a separate department another aspect which presents itself as a corollary. It is said: "Do not make this alteration, because it is just as bad as if you tried to corrupt by treating or by bribery." Do hon. Members realise that the opportunities for finding out this offence are great, and that it can hardly fail to be detected at the time when the second vote is taken? The man who gets his ballot paper must first of all apply to the clerk at the table, and his name is there and then cancelled as having voted. If he comes again to get a second ballot paper, obviously he must be found out.
    Sir R. ADKINS: This Section is directed against the man who votes in one constituency and then goes and votes in another, and then in a third, not twice in the same constituency.
    Mr. NIELD: That may be so, but contrast that with the man who himself, or by his agent, deliberately seeks to corrupt others, whether by the payment of money or by treating. That involves a question of evidence, and therefore means an election petition and all the paraphernalia of a petition. The question whether a man has voted twice, even if it is in different constituencies, is a matter which can be decided by the voting papers and the poll clerk's books.
    Mr. HOLT: No.
    Mr. NIELD: Excuse me, it merely resolves itself into a question of scrutiny.
    Mr. HOLT: No.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. NIELD: Supposing "A. B." lives in the Hexham division, has his business in Newcastle, and is a municipal voter in Shields, his name appears on all those three registers, and he is a well-known person, and if it is a question whether he has voted in all those constituencies it can easily be ascertained whether his name has been cancelled by the poll clerk as having been given a voting paper. I cannot for the life of me see how that can possibly be involved in the same way as evidence in regard to persons who have been approached with a view to being bribed, either by drink or money or in some other way, which must be a question of fact to be decided by the judges. That makes all the difference. Both the hon. Members who have spoken in opposition to this Amendment and their friends belong to those people who, ever since I have been a Member of this House, that is for twelve years, have been responsible for introducing more provisions for punishing the people than I have ever known to be done in the life of any Parliament. Those who have sat here during the last twelve years will know the multiplication of offences which commoners have had to put up with in this realm in consequence of the legislation that has been passed The Mover of the Amendment pointed out that a corrupt practice involved all sorts of consequences. It practically deprives a man of civil rights for a number of years. It

    1727
    prevents him from sitting in this House and from doing a number of things. Surely that is sufficient punishment without adding these severe penalties. The word "corrupt," as it appears in the Corrupt Practices Act means doing an act which is deliberately intended to influence not one isolated vote, as it would be in the case of a man voting twice, but an attempt to influence the whole of the election by improper means. Let us be reasonable. Do not let the House go on legislating and putting fresh penalties on the community. You already have a substantial penalty for the offence. I think the Home Secretary realises that there is substance in the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1) leave out the word "corrupt" ["and the expression, 'corrupt practice'"], and insert instead thereof the word "illegal."
    In Sub-section (1, a), leave out the word "six" ["imposed by Section six"], and insert instead thereof the word "ten."—[Sir E. Pollock.]
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (c).
    I think this paragraph got into the Bill by a mistake. It was taken from the old Plural Voting Bill and says,
    "The fact that any person who is registered in more than one division of a Parliamentary county or Parliamentary borough has asked for a ballot paper in a division of the county or borough in which he has been marked is not entitled to vote shall not prevent his voting or asking for a ballot paper in the division in which he is entitled to vote."
    No one under this Bill will be marked as not entitled to vote, and apparently by some error the paragraph has crept in.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 20. —(Voting by Absent Voters.)
    (1) For the purpose of giving persons whose names are entered on the absent voters' list an opportunity of voting at a Parliamentary election, the returning officer shall, where an election is contested, as soon as practicable after the adjournment of the election, send a ballot paper to each such person at the address entered against his name on the absent
    1728
    voters' list in the register together with a declaration of identity in the prescribed form.
    (2) The ballot paper marked by the absent voter and accompanied by the declaration of identity duly signed and authenticated shall, if it is received by the returning officer before the close of the poll, be counted by him and treated for all purposes in the same manner as a ballot paper placed in the ballot box in the ordinary manner:
    Provided that the returning officer shall not count any ballot paper marked by an absent voter if he is satisfied that the paper has been marked on a day subsequent to the day of polling.
    (4) During the continuance of the present War and a period of twelve months thereafter, the following special provisions shall apply for the purpose of enabling persons whose names are entered on the absent voters list to appoint voting proxies in certain cases:

    (a) His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that voting by proxy by persons registered as naval or military voters shall be permitted afloat or in any area on land abroad mentioned in the Order if it appears to him that ballot papers sent to that area by post cannot reasonably be returned before the votes are counted, and that the case cannot be met by an Order under this Section postponing the counting of votes:

    (b) A person whose name is entered on the absent voters' list, if he satisfies the registration officer—

    (i.) that he is registered as a naval or military voter and is serving, or about to serve, afloat or in any area on land abroad in which voting by proxy is permitted in pursuance of an Order in Council made under this Section; or

    (ii.) that he is a merchant seaman or fisherman, and that there is a likelihood that he will be at the time of a Parliamentary election at sea or about to go to sea;

    shall be entitled, if he so desires, to appoint a proxy, and, having appointed a proxy, to vote by proxy at a Parliamentary election in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act:

    1729

    (c) No ballot paper shall be sent for the purpose of voting by post to a person who has appointed a proxy under this provision while the appointment is in force:

    (d) The provisions set out in the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to voting by proxy.

    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "Provided that the returning officer shall not count any ballot paper marked by an absent voter if he is satisfied that the paper has been marked on a day subsequent to the day of polling."
    In the case of the merchant service I cannot see why, if the time for counting the votes is postponed under the following Sub-section, the votes that may be registered—not proxy votes, but personal votes that may be actually filled in on the ballot paper after the poll has closed—should not be allowed. If a man engaged in the merchant service does not expect to be engaged on a very long voyage and prefers the personal vote to the proxy vote, he might take his chance of reaching port and registering his vote, but the ship might arrive in port two days after the poll closed and four or five days before the counting took place. If this proviso is left in, that voting paper, marked by an absent voter after the date of the polling, would not count. It does not appear to read in connection with the next Subsection. I think that the matter was mentioned in Committee and that the Home Secretary intended to leave out this provision. So far as absent voters are concerned, to whom only it applies, I cannot see any reason for the restriction.
    Colonel LESLIE WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment. Not only would this affect very vitally the merchant service, but it would also affect to a large extent the Navy. I take it that the Order in Council will state which men and consequently which ships and which fleets are going to vote by proxy and which by ballot. It will be quite impossible for the naval authorities to say which ships will be close to port at the time of an election. It is essential that this proviso should be left out in order that the men on board His Majesty's ships should have every opportunity of voting.
    Sir G. CAVE:I accept this Amendment. I do not think that the words are necessary. In any event they are in the wrong place and should not come in here, but in Subsection (2). Apart from that, I think that the difficulty in the way of the returning officer coming to this conclusion is so great that really it is not worth retaining the power. If he gets the vote in time to count it, he should be entitled to count it.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I quite see the force of the arguments put forward in favour of the Amendment, but at the same time I am sure that the House will see some difficulty in allowing the reception of votes which had been given after the polling day with the knowledge of the persons giving them. We require that all votes shall be given before the result is known. A vote given with the intention of affecting the result, either merely adhering to the result already known or trying to minimise it, is quite a different matter I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will reconsider the point in another part of the Bill, so that we should not encourage the holding over of a vote.
    Colonel SANDERS: It is quite clear that these words are unnecessary, because the case is already governed by the words in Sub-section (2),
    "shall, if it is received by the returning officer before the close of the poll."
    He could not receive it before the close of the poll if it has been marked at a date subsequent to the close of the poll.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the words "during the continuance of the present War and a period of twelve months thereafter."
    We now come to the Amendment which the Home Secretary left over on the Committee stage to the free decision of the House, namely, the question whether the right of proxy voting should be limited to the continuance of the present War and a period of twelve months thereafter, or whether, having given this right, it should be an enactment like any other part of this Bill. It is not necessary for me to go into the arguments at any length, because the matter was fully debated in Committee and most hon. Members are seised of the arguments. I hope very much that we shall have a decision of the House on this subject without a Division. Perhaps it would be as well to point out very briefly

    1731
    the principal arguments which influenced the Committee. I mentioned then that the demand for adequate facilities for registering the vote and consequently for substantial enfranchisement on the part of the merchant service has been put forward for certainly twenty-five years. No appreciable proportion of the whole of the officers and men of the merchant service have ever had any opportunity of exercising their rights of citizenship and voting for members of this House. Having once decided that proxy voting for the period of the War and twelve months after was necessary in order to give a substantial number of the men of the Navy and the Army an opportunity of voting, and having extended it, as the Home Secretary admits to be necessary in the existing circumstances, to the men of the merchant service, you arrive at an obvious difficulty if it is proposed to limit it to the duration of the War and twelve months after, either in respect of a part or the whole of the men affected. You cannot give this opportunity to vote to a large portion of the civil community, namely, those engaged in the merchant service, for a single election and then withdraw it for all future time. That is a proposition which must meet with practically universal acceptance. It seems to involve this, that we are going to discriminate against the Navy and the Army and say that, while we continue to give these facilities to the merchant service, we are going to withdraw them in respect of the whole of the personnel of the Army and the Navy, who may be abroad and unable to vote personally.
    The events of the War have proved that the men of the Army and Navy and of the merchant service are, for all time, much more closely connected. They are, as it were, interlocking forces, each fulfilling its full function, not only in the carrying on of the War on its military side but in feeding the civil population and maintaining the open way of the sea, which is absolutely necessary for this country in the waging of war. That being so, it would be still more absurd, if the House will excuse me for using so strong a word, to distinguish between men of the Navy and men of the merchant service, and to say that we will give facilities to that one class and give them the constant right to vote, while the other shall only vote during a single election. During the War the merchant ser-
    1732
    vice has been an integral part of the defensive as well as the offensive operations we have undertaken. At the present moment that service is absolutely vital, not only to the prosecution of the War, but to our very existence as a nation. It is certainly vital to the feeding of the civil population and the Army, and without it we could not carry on the War for a single week. After the War the position of the merchant service will be that it will be one of the great connecting chains uniting every part of the British Empire, and the men who form the personnel of the merchant service are certainly voters whom I do not think any Member of the House would willingly exclude from their fair proportion of the influences of our political life. It has often been pointed out that the vote is not a reward, and is even not a right. I quite agree, but it is a duty and a privilege appertaining to citizenship, and therefore we have only to consider whether these men of the merchant service, as well as those of our Navy and Army, are not entitled as well as any other class in the whole country to the opportunity of influencing the Government of the country. As far as the merchant service is concerned, they stand in a class in one respect, quite apart from the rest of the population. They have opportunities of seeing every part of the British Empire, and seeing how the trade and commerce of the world is carried on, and it inevitably gives them a wider outlook on many of the national problems which will have to be dealt with after the War than the ordinary average voter who stays at home.
    With regard to the Navy and the Army, if there is an election, say, in the course of next year, clearly by the Bill as drafted all these men are to have an opportunity of registering a proxy vote if they cannot register a personal one. The result of that election may well be the formation of a Government which will be in power at the time of peace negotiations, and very probably at the time when peace is actually concluded, and such a Government may, and I hope will, be a strong Government, which may survive for at least a couple of years after peace is finally concluded. If that is so, what is the position of the Navy and the Army with regard to this question of voting? The Bill as drafted would only give them an opportunity of voting at a single election. At the next one those who are far

    1733
    away would not have any opportunity of voting. So it must be plain that, apart from soldiers in India, at Aden, in Ceylon, it is very probable, as the outcome of this war, that for at least five years after the conclusion of peace we may have a joint army of the Allies in occupation of, for instance, Palestine, and very possibly Mesopotamia, and we shall certainly have troops in Egypt—and it would not be easy for troops garrisoned in Egypt to register a vote in any way except by proxy—and we may have troops very possibly in what was German East Africa and in other parts of Africa. But all these men will require a proxy vote if they are to vote at all, and surely it would not be contended in any quarter of the House that it would be reasonable to give identically the same men an opportunity of voting at the first election, and when, owing to the necessities of the country, owing to the necessities of their military service, they are still on duty in distant parts of the world, to withold their votes at the next election, which may be just as important. Having given these facilities to vote once, it seems to me an impossible proposition that we should withdraw them after a single election.
    By an Amendment which the Home Secretary has just put in Clause 18, in the case of a by-election the election may be held four days after the nomination. With regard to the absent voters question, at any rate, we in Mr. Speaker's Conference came to the conclusion that eight days was the minimum between the nomination and the polling to allow any appreciable proportion of absent voters to register their personal votes. I was not in the House, unfortunately, when the Home Secretary moved that Sub-section. No doubt he has given some good reasons for it, but there will be only four days for the registration of the personal vote, and the proxy vote becomes practically the only means by which the absent voter can record his vote. For all these reasons I hope, as this matter has been before the Committee, and as the House has had an opportunity of thinking it over for something like a month, we shall unanimously decide that it would not be reasonable to withdraw these voting facilities from the Navy, the Army, and the merchant service having once given them, and we shall be able to pass the Amendment without a Division.
    Colonel L. WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    1734
    When we were dealing with Clause 5 these words occurred in the original drafting at the beginning of the Clause. They were then removed by the Home Secretary, and the House passed the Clause as it stands to-day. Therefore, to leave these words out now is really more or less a consequential Amendment. I certainly understood it was the intention of the House that every facility should be given to the soldier, the sailor, and the merchant seaman not only now, but for all time in the future. I understood that one of the main objects of the Bill being presented to the country was to enable the sailor, the soldier, and the merchant seaman to have a vote not only now, but for all time, and to remove a disability from which they have suffered in the past for all time. There is no one in either Service who does not realise that he has not had an opportunity to vote in the past. Many men who have been in the Service for twenty or thirty years have never yet been able to register a vote at any election for any candidate. The object of the Bill, as I understood it, was to remove that disability, and I cannot see what argument can be brought forward to support a removal of this disability for the period of the present War and twelve months afterwards which will allow that disability to be put in front of the soldier, the sailor, and the merchant seaman again in the future. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel) who put forward the argument, the last time this was being discussed in Committee, that it would be just as well to leave this as it stands now, and, if it was considered desirable that proxy voting should be continued in the future, Amendments could be made to this Clause. Speaking for myself and, I think, for some of my hon. Friends, we think this ought to be removed from the Bill as it stands now. Judging by the way in which soldiers and sailors have been given the opportunity of voting in the past, and how, when their services are sometimes not any longer required, their necessities are very often forgotten, I should like to see every facility given to them at the present time. If it is right, and it is right, that they should have a vote for the period of the present War and for twelve months afterwards, I really cannot see any reason whatever why this right of being able to register their votes in the only possible manner in which they can register them—by proxy—should not be given them for all time.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I rather regret that this proposal has been forced on at this moment. The whole point really is this: We have decided, I think very rightly, that for the purposes of this War we should have the system suggested by the Conference of proxy voting. It is a very great experiment, there is no doubt. One cannot see very well how it will work, and I believe if we treated it as an experiment and allowed it to be made use of for the next General Election, as is agreed, we should be in a better and a freer position to decide whether or not we should re-introduce it. A great deal can be said for making the proxy vote a permanent system for the merchant seamen. I have always sympathised with the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) on that question, but if we could do that this evening I should be perfectly willing to make the proxy vote permanent for that purpose. But if we are going to make it permanent for all soldiers and sailors we have to bear in mind—I do not say it is right or wrong; it may be right—that the Army in India, for instance, men who are away from the country for years, are being given an opportunity to record their votes in Parliamentary elections. I cannot help thinking that that proposition requires rather more thought on the part of this Assembly than we can give it at this moment. So far as regards soldiers and sailors, we are undoubtedly pressed by the peculiar circumstances of the War. I am very anxious that we should give every possible opportunity to the soldiers to make use of the means of voting by proxy, and one of the reasons why I spoke against the proxy proposals on the last occasion was that the Schedule which the Government has drafted is in my opinion, so faulty that it would be almost impossible for it to be of any real, practical use to soldiers at long distances from this country. I pointed out that, in order to give a soldier in Bagdad a right of voting by proxy, you would have, once every six months, to convey to and from him two distinct documents. [Interruption.] I think most people would take the Schedule to mean that the soldier has to send an application for a proxy, and the proxy has to be sent by the registration officer to the soldier, and then the soldier has to send the proxy form, signed, back home again for it to be used.
    So far am I convinced about that that I put down an amended Schedule, and my
    1736
    proposition, I believe, from the point of view of the soldier, at any rate, is far more satisfactory, because I suggest that the soldier who is going off to one of these distant districts, or a sailor who is going to be afloat, shall have the right at once to execute his proxy in the presence of his officer, so that there is no doubt about about the signature, and that proxy would then be delivered to the registration officer and should last for the continuance of the War. I think that is a far better system than the one which has been suggested. I do not see how these soldiers are going to change their proxies every six months or have to abandon or reassert their right to a proxy according to the particular place in which they are going to fight.
    You must say to the soldier and sailor, "If you want to exercise your right of voting by proxy you shall have that right during the War wherever you are," but such an improvement of our system, as I think that is, is only available for the War. You cannot give the soldier in times of peace the permanent right of voting by proxy. Therefore, I submit that you might make this experiment, so far as it affects soldiers and sailors for the duration of the War and twelve months afterwards, and you might get a better system by leaving Parliament free afterwards to see what permanent arrangements they will make to meet the position of the Army and Navy. I still hope that something of that kind can be done, and I suggest to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that he would achieve his prime object by getting this as a permanent method of voting for the absent merchant seamen. If he gets that now he will have got something of great value for that service which has been demanded for a very long time; but by tacking on this permanent right for the Army and Navy he is making a mistake. We had better agree unanimously that the proxy voting system for the soldiers and sailors should be for the duration of the War and twelve months afterwards, and then let it be reopened for consideration.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: I cannot understand the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman. He admits that the merchant seamen should have the proxy vote after the War. How can he then say that the position of the Mercantile Marine differs from that of the Royal Navy? There can

    1737
    be no argument from that point of view. Those who are serving with the Royal Navy are equally as entitled to exercise the rights of citizenship as those who are in the Mercantile Marine. Let us take the case of those who may possibly be serving in Bagdad. True, a man there is a long way off, but surely he has earned a still greater right of citizenship by going still further from the sea coast. How can we split straws over this business? Surely the mere fact of the Army being in India a long way from the country ought not to deprive them of the right of citizenship. Once we have accepted this principle, surely the House can agree that it is a simple matter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not in any way press his opposition, as I believe the last thing that any hon. Member desires to do is to deprive anyone in our Army or Navy of the right of voting by proxy which we are admitting ought to take place in the case of those who are serving their country.
    Mr. STEWART: I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for St. Pancras, and I wish he had made the same speech in Committee. We have been arguing about this matter for a considerable time, and it would have been useful if we had had the suggestion he has now made during the Committee discussion. We must press for the carrying of this Amendment. Perhaps the Home Secretary can do as he did in regard to the decision on the conscientious objectors, and that is, to accept this Amendment in principle and perhaps improve it in some of the wording. The men of the Mercantile Marine have no great Service to support them as is the case with the Army and Navy; but I think there a very general feeling in the country that the merchant seamen are now in a position when they ought to have a say in the policy of their country, wherever they may be. We do not want to do anything to discourage men from joining that Service because after this War is over there will be many openings for people, and if there is any stigma attaching to the merchant seamen it may operate against it and to our detriment by keeping men from joining the Service. We should be very wise to accept this Amendment, and to give to merchant seamen a charter ungrudgingly, and with all goodwill. I believe the House will not be content with empty words of appreciation, but that they will accept the Amendment as signifying their intention and desire that these men should
    1738
    have a real privilege granted to them, and not a temporary measure, but that they should for all time be allowed an opportunity of voting. Let it be said by this country, which depends more upon our merchant seamen than any country in the world, that no British seaman is disfranchised because he goes to sea.
    Colonel SANDERS: I appreciate the line taken by the right hon. Member for St. Pancras, and I think the House ought to appreciate the way in which he has come on in his views on this question. I say that in no offensive spirit at all. I know that he has gone carefully into the subject, and that although he did not at first like proxy voting, he has been convinced by debate that has taken place that if we want to get a vote for the distant soldiers and sailors, as we all do, this is really the only way by which a considerable number of them can get it. Coming back to the particular question before the House, my right hon. Friend said he thought that the case for the fishermen and the merchant seamen was practically made out, and I gathered that he was in favour of the merchant seameń and fishermen having a proxy vote as a general right for all time. That solution was, I think, proposed when we were in Committee, and I think it is a solution that has many attractions; but I do not see why when you have once admitted this right to the merchant seamen and to the fishermen that you can deny it to the men of the Royal Navy. How is it possible to say to one man, "You are in the merchant service, therefore you shall have a vote, but your brother, who is an A.B. in the Navy shall not have a vote."
    There are two parts of this Amendment which refer to two different classes. One deals with soldiers and sailors, and the other with merchant seamen and fishermen. With regard to soldiers and sailors, this Clause is only consequential on what we have already decided in Clause 5. Clause 5 puts these men on the register not for one election only, but it puts soldiers and sailors serving abroad on the register, not only for this War, but for the whole of our future history. That point was not casually decided as the Bill first appeared. Clause 5 only applied to soldiers and sailors for the duration of the War. It has been advisedly altered. The Government and the House have come to the conclusion that not only for the duration of

    1739
    the War, but for all time the soldier ought to be entitled to get on to the register for the place which he would have inhabited but for his services. That principle having been decided, surely it must stand to reason that, having acknowledged a man's right to a vote and having given him the opportunity of getting on the register, it would be a farce not to provide him with the means of voting. I cannot think that either the Government or the House would wish to say to a man, "We have put you on the register, we give you the right or the privilege of voting, but although you are on the register you will have no chance of voting. Such a thing would be a fraud on the soldier and the sailor, and would not lead to that condition of things which the House desires to see carried out.
    With regard to the question of the merchant seamen and fishermen, their case is not a temporary one. It will be just as strong after the War as it is during the War, if not stronger. Fishing and the merchant service will go on just as much if not more after the War than now. Merchant seamen and fishermen have got a very strong case for this privilege; because I think it is undoubtedly a fact that they must either vote by proxy or they will not be able, in a great many cases, to vote at all. The hon. Member who is sitting next to me (Mr. Tickler) represents a division where the fishing vote is very large. I remember elections taking place at Grimsby where the matter was most carefully canvassed as to the day on which the polling would take place, because the election was expected to be a close one, and it was not certain whether the fishermen would be home or would be out at sea. Surely that is making representative government an absurdity. Elections ought not to turn upon the state of the wind or the turn of the tide. The fishermen ought to have their votes, whether they are at sea or ashore, and if we do not give them that vote by proxy they cannot have it in any other way. Someone earlier in the evening said something about turning this Debate into a party affair. I would be the last to do that; but if I represented a fishing constituency, and I was a party man and wanted to make a party point, I could not want any stronger point than to impress upon the fishermen that this was the only way in which they could get the vote, and that the party to which I was opposed had done everything they could
    1740
    to prevent them getting the vote in that way. I want to advance an argument which was mentioned in Committee, and which has not been mentioned to-day. It was said that you will find that the merchant seamen and fishermen will leave their proxies with their trade union leader. I do not believe that that will happen. From what we have seen, I think that the men who belong to the Seamen's Union are far from being a particularly subservient set of men. I should say they are rather an independent body of men, and I think it is far more likely that they will leave their proxies with their wives or parents than that they will leave them with their trade union secretary. But even if they do leave their proxies with their trade union official, I think a bit too much can be made out of that argument; because if a man leaves his proxy with a trade union official it shows that if he had been at home he would have voted in the way the trade union officials wanted him to vote. After all, that only means carrying out the intention of voting in the same way that the man would have voted if he had been at home.
    There is one last argument against this Amendment. It is said try it and see how it works. But opinions may differ as to how it works. Those for whom the soldiers and sailors and the fishermen vote will say it works very well, but those against whom the soldiers and sailors and fishermen vote will say that it works very badly. I do not see who is to decide between the two. Even if the principle were adopted and it were acknowledged to be working well, a special Bill would be needed to renew it. Surely it is very much better to settle the question now. We have been told time after time that the reason for bringing in this franchise Bill is that we want to get the whole question settled because Parliament will have so many important things to go on with after the War. I believe that to be absolutely true; I believe that the pressure on the time of Parliament will be very severe indeed, and I should be very sorry to see this right to the proxy vote, which after all is not a very big question and which in times of peace will not affect an enormous number or men, should ipso facto cease unless another Bill is brought in. We have now got an opportunity of settling the question. Why should we not settle it for good and all? One can say that the principle is accepted, it is agreed that these men have a right to vote, and surely we might

    1741
    further agree that not only have they a right to vote, but that they are entitled to an opportunity of exercising that right.
    Sir R. ADKINS: With a great deal of what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken I entirely concur, and I only rise for the purpose of putting forward this point of view: We are all agreed, I hope, that all soldiers, sailors, and merchant seamen should have a vote and exercise it in the way which corresponds most closely with their own honest opinions on the issues which may be involved. But what one does feel is that while proxy voting may at the present moment seem to this House to be the only way of enabling these men to vote, yet the system itself is most imperfect and unsatisfactory. Mr. Speaker's Conference gave a great deal of time to this problem and did not see its way to go further than the postal vote. Whatever may be said about the postal vote, it is at any rate the vote of the man himself wherever that is possible, and it is obviously preferable to the proxy vote, because you are getting the voter's direct personal decision. One would not like this decision to be come to to-night, however, without registering the view that the proxy vote in itself is so imperfect that one cannot abandon the hope that in future some better method will be found. From the moment a man gives his proxy a divergence of opinion begins between him and the person to whom he has given it, and the longer he is away from the country the more are his opinions likely to differ from those of the relative or friend whom he has left at home, owing to different conditions, different influences, and a fresh knowledge of changed circumstances. I am sure hon. Members would be sorry to think there would be the slightest ground for thinking that the votes of our finest citizens, for such are our soldiers, sailors and merchant seamen, should be given under a misapprehension or by people whose views did not really correspond with those of the person for whom they are acting as proxy. Our object is, I am sure in every part of the House, to secure that these people should vote in the sense in which they wish to go, and I therefore venture here and now to express the opinion that the proxy vote at its best is a very imperfect and inadequate method, and the passing of this Amendment to-night, while it may stereotype a most imperfect method, will not, I hope, in the future stand in the way of a better method
    1742
    being devised, because our electoral system will not be all we want until every vote represents the judgment of the person giving it and especially so in the case of those who are serving their country in risk and danger outside.
    Sir G. CAVE: The position which the Government have taken up in this matter is, I think, very well known. So far as the seamen's claim is concerned, it is a very strong claim indeed. I remember when the point was first raised in Committee I expressed a great desire to meet the ca se of the seamen, but then came the question of how to deal with the soldiers and the sailors. The original proposal made in Committee had been that the right of the soldier and sailor to vote by proxy should be confined to the period of the War and the Clause was introduced in that shape, but the difficulty was to make the Clause read without applying the same limitation to the seamen, and there was considerable debate on the matter. It was suggested at one time that we might be unanimous if we agreed to keep the right of the soldier and sailor for the War only and to make the right of the merchant seamen permanent. I made that proposal for the sake of unanimity, but I found that it was not only not accepted but that it was very strongly deprecated. That convinced me that the only way to deal with the matter satisfactorily to all of us was to make the right permanent all round. After thinking the matter over we came to the conclusion that we ought to leave the matter to the judgment of the House on the Report stage, and in accordance to the promise I then made, the Government Whips will be taken off in regard to this Amendment. Personally, I support the Amendment; I think we must take a broad view of this matter. Probably the best thing is to make this provision in the Bill permanent, and if it does not work—if as my right hon. Friend fears it does not prove practicable, then we can try and amend it when the War is over. I am not without hope that the House will be unanimous in accepting this Amendment.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: We have debated this matter on many occasions and at almost excessive length. This particular Amendment is of very small importance compared with the Amendment we discussed in the Committee stage. Then the point at issue was whether the bulk of our Armies, the millions of men who are in

    1743
    France and Flanders, should be prevented from voting except by proxy. That was the proposal which was then before the House. Many of us have regarded and sitll regard the proxy vote as a very inferior form of voting. The man does not record his own vote at all; he simply nominates an additional elector, and we resisted strenuously the proposal that the proxy vote should be substituted for the postal vote. The House, in Committee, after prolonged discussion, decided that whenever the postal vote is possible it should be applied, and that the man himself, secretly and by ballot, should record his own opinion directly into the ballot box with the assistance of the post. We even went so far as to indicate that the date for the counting of the votes should in the special circumstances of this War be even postponed for the whole country for as much as eight days in order to allow more time for the votes to be thus recorded. Then there came the question of what was to happen to the sailors and soldiers who were in distant parts of the world, and we agreed unanimously that in their case it was not practicable even with the extension of the date of counting for them to record the postal vote. We agreed also, on the other hand, it would be undesirable to exclude them from the elections altogether, and therefore the principle of the proxy vote must be admitted in their case and similarly in the case of seamen and fishermen.
    Now we come to the very narrow point whether such a provision shall apply only for the period of the War or be regarded as part of our permanent law. I am still of the opinion personally that it would be much wiser for this Legislature to test this system at an election before making it permanent. It has never been tried in any part of the world; it may give rise to great abuses, in addition to which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) pointed out, you are saying that a man who may be five or ten years in the Army, quite out of touch with public affairs at home, taking little interest in our parties, and not knowing what the course of events has been, shall be allowed to nominate an additional elector in the constituency from which he originally came. Everything may have altered since he went away. New parties may have sprung into existence and some may have died, but still he is to be communicated with every six months, and
    1744
    during all these years he is to be invited to nominate an additional elector at home. I confess for my own part that seems to be a proposal of very doubtful wisdom. It has been said it would need a special Bill to continue this provision if it is found to work well, but I would point out it could be continued by a single line in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
    These are the opinions I then expressed in Committee and which I still hold. But I am desirous of responding to any appeal that comes from the Home Secretary. He has suggested that general assent might be given to Amendments where it is possible. There is here no great principle involved. We have secured the main purpose for which we have been contending in this House. I confess I view with some alarm and disquiet a tendency which I regard as an unfortunate tendency that has revealed itself in the later stages of this Bill for Divisions to take place more or less on old party lines. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who began it?"] It will only make matters worse if we indulge in recriminations across the floor of this House. I think it arose partly from the fact that the Government have allowed a little too much latitude in regard to Amendments departing from the original proposals of Mr. Speaker's Conference. But I do not quarrel with it on that account. The fact remains that the tendency has to some extent shown itself, and for my own part I should feel disposed to deprecate its being adopted where it can be avoided. I would suggest, therefore, while there are many hon. Members on both sides who attach considerable importance to the passage of this Amendment, and very few who attach importance to its rejection, therefore on this matter we should, if possible, give general assent to its acceptance, but of course on the understanding that the main provision in the Bill to which we do attach importance, namely, the Section which provides for a postal vote, shall stand. I see there is only one Amendment down to omit it, and if it is not moved, as I am told it will not be, I hope that this House will not be troubled with a Division on this occasion.
    Amendment agreed to
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (4, a), to leave out the words "afloat or."

    1745
    This is a drafting Amendment. The House will see in paragraph (b) (i.) a provision relating to a man who is registered as a naval or military voter and is serving or about to serve afloat or in any area on land which can be scheduled for the purpose of proxy voting. We do not need to schedule the area in the case of a man afloat.
    Mr. PETO: I should just like to ask the Home Secretary, if he leaves out these words and limits this to an area on land, whether he is not really making a restriction which he probably does not intend. Surely it would be as well to leave out the words "on land" as well, and to make the paragraph read that this shall be permitted in any area abroad mentioned in the Order. In that case no difficulty would occur as to whether the area included a certain portion of the sea or a certain portion of the land, whether it was an island or a bay. At any rate, it would leave the Home Secretary perfectly free, and would even cover troops on a transport vessel, or anything of that kind.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands the effect of the Amendment, which is that a person afloat can always vote by proxy. If we leave these words we shall have to schedule the sea as a proxy area. There is no need for that. It ought to be by itself a proxy area. If the hon. Gentleman resists this Amendment, he is really cutting down the right to vote by proxy. We cannot distinguish between one part of the sea or another. A ship may be in one place one day and in another on the next. It is better to treat the whole sea as one area.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4, a), after the word "that" ["that the case cannot be met"], to insert the words "it is not advisable that."
    This is a drafting Amendment. It does appear to me that to say as strongly as the Bill does in this paragraph that "the case cannot be met by an Order under this Section postponing the counting of votes" is hardly the wording to which the Home Secretary would wish to adhere. I only want to leave His Majesty, by Order in Council, the most complete freedom to decide whether it is advisable to put method A in force or not, and I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) in wanting to
    1746
    see method A—the actual personal vote—in force wherever it can possibly be given. I, therefore, think it would be better to have the words "it is not advisable that" inserted here. In every case where there was no strong reason to the contrary the Government would then presumably decide to give the widest opportunity possible to the personal vote, and would limit the proxy vote as far as possible.
    Colonel L. WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not quite like the form of this Amendment. It seems to me to leave the matter rather too open. I would not mind the insertion of the word "satisfactorily" after the word "be" ["cannot be met"], in paragraph (a). I think that would meet the hon. Gentleman's point, and would be a guide to the Council.
    Mr. PETO: That is just the point I had in mind, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in order to move that suggested by the Home Secretary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4, a), after the word "be" ["cannot be met"], to insert the word satisfactorily."
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: Does not that narrow this provision a good deal? Would it not be an indication to the Privy Council that they need not make this order postponing the counting of votes in certain cases in which, as the Bill now stands, they would make the order? I do not want to narrow that. The hon. Gentleman's speech was directed to widening it and to securing that the postponement of the counting of votes should take place wherever possible. I am afraid that the Amendment now suggested would not have that effect.
    Sir G. CAVE: This has nothing to do with the counting of the votes. We are dealing now with paragraph (a), which enables the Privy Council to schedule an area as a proxy area if it is so far off that you cannot deal with it by the postponement of the counting of the votes. There may be a case where it is not quite satisfactory to deal with it by postponing the counting of the votes, but if you leave the Bill as it is, the authority responsible for the proxy order may say that it can be dealt with by postponing the counting, and that, therefore, they will not make a proxy order.

    1747
    The effect of the proposed change is that if they say that it can be dealt with formally but not satisfactorily by postponing the counting, then they can make a proxy order. It gives a little more elasticity to the authorities dealing with the scheduling of an area.
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is just what I thought, that the effect of inserting this word would be that the authorities would not make an effort to secure quick transit by post, or in other ways to expedite the postal vote in a certain case, but will say they cannot do it very satisfactorily, and that they had much better let the persons vote by proxy. I want to limit the proxy vote and to have the personal vote wherever possible. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peto) wants to do the same thing, but now we are giving an indicaton to the Privy Council that they need not trouble, and that if this cannot be done satisfactorily they need not make an effort to see that it is done satisfactorily, but can dismiss the postal vote and make a proxy order, in that way extending the area of proxy voting and restricting the area of postal voting. That is just what we want to avoid, and the hon. Gentleman himself wants to extend the area of personal voting.
    Mr. PETO: My desire is exactly the same as my right hon. Friend's, but I do not want to have this so rigid that the authorities concerned would feel bound to schedule an area, and so run a very serious risk of disfranchising a large block of electors if the machinery happened to break down.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Amendment will not allow that.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (4, b), after the word "seamen," to insert the word "pilot."
    Mr. JOYCE: I desire to express my thanks that the Government should have seen their way to insert the word "pilot" here, because in many cases where elections have taken place the people have been disfranchised because men have been called away for service on the very day that the polling would take place. Now we are sure that the pilot, when he is brought in under the terms of the mercantile marine, of which he is a very important part, will be able to register his vote, if
    1748
    not personally, at least by proxy. I wish to thank the Home Secretary for inserting the words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (4, b), after the word "fisherman" insert the words "(including the master of a merchant ship or fishing boat and an apprentice on such a ship or boat)."—[Sir G. Cave.]

    CLAUSE 22. —(Deposit by Candidates at Parliamentary Elections.)
    (1) A candidate at a Parliamentary election (other than a university election) shall deposit, or cause to be deposited, with the returning officer, during the time appointed for the election, the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds, and if he fails to do so he shall be deemed to be withdrawn within the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872.
    (2) The deposit may be made by the deposit of any legal tender or, with the consent of the returning officer, in any other manner.
    (3) If after the deposit is made the candidate is withdrawn in pursuance of the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, the deposit shall be returned to the candidate; and if the candidate dies after the deposit is made and before the poll is commenced, the deposit shall be returned to his personal representative.
    Sir J. LARMOR: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out "(other than a university election)."
    This relates to the Clause enacting that every candidate shall make a deposit which shall not be returned unless he polls a certain proportion of the votes. As the Clause stands, university elections are excluded, but it is the desire of all the universities that they should partake of this safeguard against crank candidates.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment. If the purpose of a deposit is to ensure a guarantee of good faith, I assume that it ought to apply no less in a university election than in any other. I do not see any reason for distinguishing between university elections and any other case.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am willing to accept this Amendment. If the universities desire a deposit, I do not see any objection to it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "election" ["Parliamentary election"], to insert the words "or someone on his behalf."
    A candidate may not be in England at the time of the election if the election takes place before the conclusion of hostilities. This Amendment is necessary because, although the Home Secretary in Committee has included the words "or cause to be deposited," yet in that case, as well as in the case of direct deposit, it is the action of the candidate himself. It may and very likely will happen that the candidate is not in a position to give any directions at all, in which case the chairman of the party, if there be such a thing, or whoever is responsible, should be in a position to make a deposit on his account. This will particularly apply to Labour candidates. It will be necessary for them and for many of us to have the deposit made for them, and unless it is clearly recognised that the deposit may be made by someone other than the candidate or by his personal direction it may prove to be in practice very difficult. I cannot conceive any objection to this. It provides for a contingency which may arise, especially in relation to candidates in distant theatres of war. It is an Amendment made without any arrière pensée to help the arrangements for the election, and I hope that it will be accepted without any difficulty.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: I confess that I thought that this point was entirely covered by the provision in the Bill that the candidate should either deposit or cause to be deposited. I think that that would cover every case where a deposit is made on behalf of a candidate. I do not know if my hon. Friend thinks otherwise, but personally I believe his words to be entirely unnecessary.
    Mr. NIELD: The matter has been well considered from the practical point of view, and I feel sure that if there is any doubt we certainly ought to have these words. If these men who are serving abroad were to be in any way prejudiced if an election took place during the War it would be altogether contrary to the spirit of the House, and we should provide that there can be no difficulty in any case on the question of deposit with regard to these men.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: Can there be any doubt about it? The words are "shall deposit or causes to be deposited." That is, either deposit himself or cause to be deposited by somebody else.
    Mr. NIELD: Surely "cause to be deposited" means by the direction of the candidate. In the absence of communication with the candidate we should allow the money to be paid on his behalf.
    Colonel GRETTON: Perhaps there is a little more substance in the matter than the right hon. Gentleman realises. The candidate who causes the money to be paid, of course, actually takes the action for himself. But my lion. and learned Friend desires that a man, who will probably be well known in a district, should not be passed over when he is absent owing to circumstances which are not in his control. You may have a sudden election. The electors may very likely wish to return this man and you cannot in the short time available communicate to him and get his instructions to make a deposit. Therefore, somebody must make the deposit on his behalf and nominate him. That is really what I think is meant. Of course, on the other hand, there is the possibility that a deposit may be made in the case of a candidate of less substance, but on the whole I think that these words might be inserted, and if they are found later on to be likely to lead to an objectionable result they could easily be taken out.
    Sir G. CAVE: I will not resist it if it is persisted in.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3), leave out the word "candidate" ["candidate is withdrawn"], and insert instead thereof the words "person by whom the deposit was made."—[Mr. Nield.]

    CLAUSE 23. —(Forfeiture of Deposit in Certain Cases.)
    (1) If a candidate who has made the required deposit is not elected, and the number of votes polled by him does not exceed, in the case of a constituency returning one or two members, one-eighth of the total number of votes polled, or in the case of a constituency returning more than two members one-eighth of the number of votes polled divided by the number of members to be elected, the amount deposited shall be forfeited to His

    1751
    Majesty; but in any other case that amount shall be returned to the candidate: Provided that where a candidate is nominated at a general election in more than one constituency he shall in no case recover his deposit more than once.
    (2) For the purposes of this Section the number of votes polled shall be deemed to be the number of ballot papers (other than spoilt ballot papers) counted; and where the election is held under the system of the transferable vote the number of votes polled by a candidate shall be the number of votes polled by him as first preference.
    Amendments made: At the end of Subsection (1), insert the words "and in such case the deposits shall be forfeited to His Majesty, except such one as theTreasury direct to be returned to the candidate."
    In Sub-section (2), after the word "the" ["the transferable"], insert the words "alternative or the."—[Sir G. Care.]

    CLAUSE 24. —(Returning Officers.)
    The returning officer at a Parliamentary election (other than a university election) shall be: —

    (1) In the case of a Parliamentary county which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one administrative county, the sheriff;

    (2) In the case of a Parliamentary borough which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, a lounty of a city or town having a sheriff, the sheriff, and in the case of the City of London, the sheriffs;

    (3) In the case of a Parliamentary borough which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one municipal borough (not being a county of a city or town having a sheriff), or one metropolitan borough, or one urban district, the mayor or chairman of the council, as the case requires; and

    (4) In any other case such sheriff, mayor, or chairman, as may be designated for the purpose by the Local Government Board.

    Amendment made: After the word "shall," insert the words "notwithstanding anything in any other Act." —[Sir G. Cave.]

    CLAUSE 25. —(Payment of Returning Officers' Expenses by Treasury.)
    (1) The returning officer or acting returning officer at a parliamentary election
    1752
    (other than a university election) shall be entitled to his reasonable charges, not exceeding the sums specified in the scale of maximum charges framed under this section, in respect of services and expenses of the several kinds mentioned in the said scale which have been properly rendered or incurred by him for the purposes of the election.
    (5) The Court for the purposes of this Section shall be, as respects an election in the City of London, the Lord Mayor's Court; and elsewere in England and in Ireland the ocunty Court having jurisdiction at the place of nomination for the election to which the proceedings relate; and as regards Scotland " the Court" shall mean the Auditor of the Court of Session.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "or acting returning officer."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    In Sub-section (5), leave out the word "Lord." —[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]

    CLAUSE 26. —(Discharge of Returning-Officers' Duties by an Acting Returning Officer.)
    26. Except as herein provided the duties of returning officer at Parliamentary elections (other than a university election) shall be discharged by the registration officer as acting returning officer, and the acting returning officer shall have all the powers, duties, and liabilities of the returning officer under any enactments relating to Parliamentary elections (including the power of appointing deputies), and those enactments (including this Act) shall have effect accordingly.
    Amendment made: After the word "duties" ["duties and liabilities"], insert the word "rights." —[Sir G. Cave.]

    CLAUSE 27. —(Scale of Election Expenses, 46 and 47 Viet. c. 51.)
    (1) The provisions set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall be substituted for Part IV. and paragraph (3) of Part V. of the First Schedule to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (which relate to the maximum scale of election expenses), and that Act shall have effect accordingly.
    (2) Any duly nominated candidate at a Parliamentary election shall, subject to regulations of the Postmaster-General, be entitled to send, free of any charge for

    1753
    postage, to each registered elector for the constituency, one postal communication containing matter relating to the election only, and not exceeding 2 oz. in weight.
    For the purpose of this provision candidates who are under paragraph (4) of Part V. of the First Schedule to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, deemed to be joint candidates at an election shall be treated as a single candidate.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "duly nominated."
    After the word "weight" insert the words: "Provided that a candidate shall not be entitled to exercise the right of free postage conferred by this provision before he is duly nominated unless he has given such security as may be required by the Postmaster-General for the payment of postage in case he does not eventually become nominated."—[Sir G. Cave.]

    CLAUSE 28. —(Expenses Incurred by Un-authorised Persons.)
    (1) A person shall not incur any expenses on account of holding public meetings or issuing advertisements circulars or publications, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate at a parliamentary election unless he is authorised in writing to do so by that candidate.
    (2) If any person acts in contravention of this Section, he shall be guilty of a corrupt practice other than personation within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and the expression "corrupt practice" shall be construed accordingly:
    Provided that the court before whom a person is convicted under this Section may, if they think it just in the special circumstances of the case, mitigate or entirely remit any incapacity imposed by Section 6 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.
    (3) Any expenses incurred on account of any such purpose as aforesaid and authorised by the candidate shall be duly returned as part of the candidate's election expenses.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert instead thereof:

    (1) A person other than the election agent of a candidate shall not incur any expenses on account of holding public
    1754
    meetings or issuing for distribution advertisements, circulars, or publications, and shall not hold any public meetings or issue for distribution advertisements, circulars, or publications during the period between the issuing of the writ for an election and the close of the poll for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate at a Parliamentary election or influencing the result of the election unless authorised in writing to do so by the election agent of a candidate at that election.

    (2) For the purposes of this Section the term publication shall not include newspapers, as defined in Section one of the Newspapers Libel and Registration Act, 1881, bonâ-fide established before the issuing of the writ for an election and not established for the purposes of the election."

    The Amendment is for the purpose of dealing with certain organisations that may exist and that may interfere indirectly with the result of an election. I am quite certain that the framers of this Bill want to achieve the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, and this is really a matter of drafting, I maintain, in order that the purpose of these organisations may be defeated. What we want is an authorised person to act on behalf of the candidate, and we wish to get at organisations which work quite independently of the candidate, but who by their propaganda indirectly influence the result of the election. Before the time of the election all sorts of organisations for all sorts of purposes spring into existence. At the last election there was a Tariff Reform League, and, on the other hand, a Free Trade Union; on the one hand we had the suffragette organisation, and on the other the anti-suffragette organisation; we had organisations advocating sweeping reforms of the land system, and, on the other hand, an organisation to preserve the rights and privileges of the landlords. These organisations swoop down at elections, issue posters, and hold meetings. Although they are very careful to keep within the four corners of the law by never mentioning the various candidates before the electors, yet indirectly they take a great part in bringing about a particular result. The public and the electors are very desirous that an election should be made as calm and as clear as possible, and I submit that the propaganda should be confined to the official organisation of the candidate and to the speeches, meetings, and literature of the candidate himself.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I am afraid that the hon. Member's Amendment in its present form will not do. The hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out Sub-section (1), and then he uses some of the words which he proposes to leave out in his own Amendment. If I were to put the Amendment in its present form I would exclude an Amendment which stands in the name of the Home Secretary. The hon. Member will see that we must have the words "A person" as part of the Bill. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary's Amendment must come first and the hon. Gentleman can bring up his proposal afterwards in regard to the remainder of it. That would be in order.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, after the word "person" ["A person shall not"], to insert the words "other than a candidate or his election agent"
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is it necessary to introduce the word "candidate" at all? Under the existing law the election agent alone acts and is responsible, and I do not know whether it is necessary to have the word "candidate" at all. The point has been brought before me personally, and I am informed that it is not necessary to use the word "candidate" I would suggest that it should be omitted and that the Amendment should apply to the election agent.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I think the hon. Member is absolutely right, that in all these cases the election agent is legally responsible on behalf of the candidate; so that removes the candidate from the category of being a person whom the law allows to carry out the legal details of an election.
    Mr. NIELD: I may supplement that by saying that the agent has to make a separate declaration, and the candidate only makes a declaration as to the payment of his personal expenses. Therefore, I submit that the retention of the word "candidate" is not necessary.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Might I add that the retention of the word "candidate" might do great damage to him in connection with the expenses of an election, and in his own protecticn the word "candidate" should be left out altogether.
    Sir G. CAVE: I would point out that although the hand of the election agent is the hand by which the expenses are
    1756
    paid, the candidate becomes liable for them, and he is really incurring the expenses through his agent. I think my words are right.
    Colonel GRETTON: I am afraid that I am not an expert in election law. I understand that there are expenses in regard to which the candidate's agent has a special liability, while the candidate himself has a general liability. The agent might commit a fault for which the candidate is not held responsible. The matter is really a little more complicated than it appears at first, but what I think is really desired is that persons other than the candidate or his agent shall not incur the expenses, and in that case there could be no doubt as to the position of the candidate or his agent in connection with the law.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HARRIS: I am in some difficulty about the Amendment which has just been made at the beginning of the Sub-section.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I may perhaps be able to help the hon. Member. I would suggest that he should move to leave out the words of the Sub-section after the word "issuing."
    Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "issuing" to the end of Sub-section (1), and to insert instead thereof the words "for distribution advertisements, circulars, or publications, and shall not hold any public meetings or issue for distribution advertisements, circulars, or publications during the period between the issuing of the writ for an election and the close .of the poll for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate at a Parliamentary election or influencing the result of the election unless authorised in writing to do so by the election agent of a candidate at that election. (2) For the purposes of this Section the term publication shall not include newspapers, as defined in Section 1 of The Newspapers Libel and Registration Act, 1881, bonâ fide established before the issuing of the writ for an election and not established for the purposes of the election."
    I gather from the Home Secretary that he agrees with the purpose of my Amendment, which seeks to exclude outside organisations from interfering with the election of the candidate by holding meetings, issuing advertisements or circulating literature, or in any way interfering with the election either directly or indirectly.
    Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment. I certainly see substance in what the hon. Gentleman has moved and I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to accept it.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The object of this Clause is to carry out an opinion which was laid down by the Speaker's Conference, in Article 28, in which the Conference called attention to the growing practice of outside bodies interfering with elections, and bringing in all kinds of mechanism and paraphernalia which added enormously to the general expenses of the election, and which may or may not be encouraged by the candidate, and often did him no good at all; but undoubtedly caused great interference with the election that was taking place. The Speaker's Conference suggested that
    "any person incurring the expenditure by holding public meetings or issuing advertisements or publications for the purpose of furthering the election of a candidate shall be guilty of a corrupt practice unless such expenditure is authorised by the candidate and returned as part of his election expenses."
    This Clause is an endeavour to meet the spirit of that proposal. My hon. Friend, in his Amendment, wishes to dot the i's and cross the t's a good deal more. After consulting experts in electioneering and electioneering law, it has not been thought advisable by those who are helping us to put our intentions into an Act of Parliament to try to elaborate this Clause. Whatever you suggest in the way of Amendments, you will leave all kinds of loopholes through which very clever people will be able to drive coaches. A clever newspaper proprietor would be able, under this proposal, to make a free distribution of literature to assist the cause of a particular candidate. We have ex-examined the Clause very carefully, and the Amendment which is now proposed. We have not a very great deal of hope in the Clause, but we have some hope of holding it out as a warning to all kinds of agencies not to come into the constituency and not to spend money furthering the cause of a candidate unless authorised by the candidate or election agent. In that way we may do something to stop a practice which is to all of us most objectionable. We do not think, after very carefully considering the Amendment, that that will give us very much assistance. We see a great deal of loopholes in it, and we think, on the whole, that it is better to stick to our Clause, and not take the
    1758
    Amendment of my hon. Friend, and wait until we see by practice and experience, so that we may be able to amend the Clause effectively so as to carry out what is the general desire of the House and the Speaker's Conference.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I confess to a certain disappointment at the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman—an attitude of "wait and see" He complains that my hon. Friend's Amendment would open some loopholes, but his Clause leaves open not loopholes, but a wide door, and if you wish to keep people out it is better to have a wall even with loopholes than a wall with an inviting open gate. I confess I very much doubt, and so do those who are experts in these matters and have examined this Clause, whether it marks any advance at all on existing law. The present law is that a person who spends money in furtherance of a particular candidature must return that as part of the election expenses. That is evaded wholesale at every election by organisations issuing leaflets and conducting propaganda of all kinds, not in support of the election of any particular candidate, but in support of a cause, and if incidentally particular candidates are assisting that cause, well and good.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: There is an essential difference. If it is authorised by the candidate, he must return it as part of his expenses.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Baronet has missed my point. This Clause deals with expenses "for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate." Those are the weak words. The Free Trade Union or the Tariff Reform League would say, "Our leaflets are not issued for the purpose of procuring or promoting the election of any candidate, they do not refer to any candidate; they are issued to induce the country to adopt Free Trade, or to adopt Tariff Reform. Consequently these leaflets need not be returned as part of anyone's election expenses. We distribute them wholesale over the whole country. We did not distribute them for the purpose of securing the return of so-and-so. In fact, we do not know what their views may be. We may indeed issue them in some cases," it might be said, "not in support of any candidate, but against a candidate whom we want above all things to see rejected." Consequently many of those

    1759
    who have regarded this matter with an expert eye think that this Clause will leave the law precisely as it stands now. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is not doing anything to carry out what is the general desire of the House now. He says that this Amendment will not better the Clause, because there may occasionally be some loopholes in it through which a person may leap. How can any of these leagues evade this new Sub-section of the Amendment:
    "A person other than the election agent of a candidate shall not incur any expenses on account of holding public meetings or issuing for distribution advertisements, circulars, or publications
    . . . .for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate at a Parliamentary election or influencing the result of the election."
    That is the essential difference between this Amendment and the Clause in the Bill,
    "or influencing the result of the election unless authorised in writing to do so by the election agent of a candidate at that election."
    Therefore, we should be in the position of saying to any of those leagues, "You are incurring this expenditure all over the country for the purpose of influencing the result of the election, and, consequently, this expenditure, must be returned as part of the election expenses." As a result the abuse which we all condemn would be dealt with.
    Then there comes in this difficulty: It may be that old-established newspapers, like the "Yorkshire Post" or the "Manchester Guardian," would naturally seek to influence the result of the elections, and might urge the voters to vote for certain candidates in, say, the city of Leeds or elsewhere. It would be absurd to provide a by-law that the Press should not do as it has been accustomed to do, and which it renders public service in doing. We have, consequently, to deal specially with the case of the newspaper, and for that reason my hon. Friend proposed this Sub-section in his Amendment:
    "For the purposes of this Sub-section the term 'publication' shall not include newspapers as defined in Section (1) of the Newspapers Libel and Registration Act, 1881, bonâ fide established before the
    1760
    issuing of the writ for an election, and not established for the purposes of the election."
    Where is the possibility of any fraud in that connection? If it is a bonâ-fide newspaper, why should it not exercise its influence as it now does? What you will do will be to get rid of the evil which now exists of leaflets and pamphlets being distributed wholesale and of professional speakers being sent down from one end of the country to the other and of the payment of expenses of meetings, which, perhaps, double the amount spent on behalf of certain candidates, thus evading the law, while other candidates, who are the candidates of poorer parties, are not able to have this adventitious aid.In these circumstances, I hope that hon. Members, and the House generally, will express their agreement with the Amendment, and press upon the Government the desirability of accepting it.
    Mr. NIELD: I am bound to confess considerable alarm at the proposition made, and as to the extent of the prohibition suggested. I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can possibly be contemplating a funeral oration on Free Trade and the winding up of its affairs? I would be the last to complain of that, but has he forgotten that advertisements may be extended so as to include a miniature Madame Tussauds? I myself have seen the model of a Chinaman in chains, in slavery. Again, there was the notorious North Paddington shop where black bread and offal were exhibited as the food of the Germans in those days. If the term "advertisement" is going to include these displays, I should welcome it. I doubt if it would. I cannot for the life of me see that you can possibly say that each newspaper advocating the interest of a locality is an advertisement in the sense explained, and which can be allocated in the particular case of the candidate. It seems to me, as one with a lot of work and experience over many, many years in the ranks before I entered this House, that the proposals of the Government are amply sufficient to cover the case. Moreover, one knows perfectly well that leaflets are often issued perfectly rightly. Why should not these leaflets be issued? They are sent out on both sides. They are written by men of experience. It would be practically impossible for them to be issued by the candidate otherwise than as at

    1761
    present. The candidate could not undertake this work. Under the existing law in regard to expenses, generous as it is in comparison with what the law will be in the near future, it would be absolutely impossible for the candidate to get together the material necessary and deal with the matter himself in such a controversy, say, as between Free Trade and Tariff Reform. You could not possibly do it within your expenditure; and you cannot always expect newspaper proprietors will fill their columns with this information you want circulating. Look at the leaflets that have come out from an educational point of view, or imports and exports and so forth. They go into the hands of electors in that particular form. Let us recognise what all this means. Let any candidate go to his own printer and ask him to give an estimate of some of the cost of this work, and he will be frightened to death at the cost. If you are not going to have any educational literature at elections at all, say so, and let the election be conducted purely upon what is said at the street corner or in the hall. Forbid the post, and everything else, but do so at the outset and declare that the masses shall not be educated in these controversies which separate the two candidates. There may be many controversies, and it may be necessary to give directions, and these can only be given in the form of circulars issued by these persons and societies that make a matter of specialising at election time. I quite agree that some of this work has been carried to excess. I quite agree that the introduction into a by-election of leagues and organisations working on their own account and not in a way connected with the election is an inconvenience. Both candidates and election agents doubtless deplore this, because you have no control over these organisations. They go their own way. But a General Election is a very different thing, and I do think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that the Bill affords every possible protection for those concerned.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I admit at once that this matter is not without difficulty. I think it is absurd to expect all organisations to stand aside in regard to educational work, and allow the candidates to fight it out by themselves. These organisations have a perfect right to use the chance of an election to press forward
    1762
    their particular points of view—from a purely educational standpoint. I do not see that anybody who believes in the liberty of things has any right to object to them. What, however, we do object to is the abuse of this practice which leads to the flooding of constituencies with all sorts of electioneering organisations, and it is very difficult indeed to see how that particular matter is going to be met. I myself do not see that the Government proposals carry us very far, because any of these organisations can go into a constituency and throw their whole weight on the side of one candidate, or one party, and yet evade entirely the intentions of this Amendment. They might never even mention the party or a candidate. They may not ask anybody to support a candidate, and yet they may be doing his work from start to finish. I am not sure whether this Amendment might not now be amended in the direction of grouping, so to speak, all the organisations actually coming into the constituency in order to take an active part, or what becomes an active part, in the work of an election itself, and where that is done the candidate undoubtedly should be held responsible for the expenses. I think that ought to be managed in a far more water-tight way than is now proposed by the Government; in a far more strict way than the one proposed. Unless that is done I am quite sure that the Amendment as it now stands, though I admit there are very real difficulties, will not meet objections, for matters after this will go on very largely as before.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: The whole House will be glad indeed to prevent the evils which all of us fully recognise go on at elections. But if one examines this particular proposal, I think there is one very serious objection to it, in that it prevents the issue of any publication during the period between the issue of the writ and the close of the poll, and that it specifically exempts from its provisions any newspaper. Some of us know the uses which are made of local newspapers at the time of an election. You specifically allow any organisation to buy up for the time being any local newspaper, and you may use that local newspaper for all your purposes of leaflets and other publications. You will not attempt to stop or restrict it in any way. If I were a newspaper proprietor I should certainly vote

    1763
    for this Amendment, because it would certainly increase the value of newspapers during election time. That would be the only possible way whereby any organisation could issue a publication and printed matter during the course of the election.
    Mr. HARRIS: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will note that that part of the Amendment, "Section (1) of the Newspapers Liberal and Registration Act, 1881," covers his point?
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: With great respect, any newspaper coming within that Section would be entitled to issue a circular or pamphlet within the constituency, or to put in anything it liked in regard to the conduct of the election, and it could be distributed free. The only qualification is that it must have been issued as a paper prior to the issue of the writ. I have no doubt that when an election was coming anyone of these big organisations would start a newspaper three months before the election, and in that way get round the whole business. The candidate who was prepared to spend money would do it through the local papers. He would buy up local newspapers by giving a sufficient number of advertisements to get them to say anything that was desired. The fact that you have got this proviso shows the extreme difficulty of dealing with the whole matter.
    9.0 P. M.
    Mr. GILBERT: I should like to support the Amendment. When this Clause was before the Committee some of us urged upon the Government that they should strengthen it. I am still of the opinion I held at that time, that I do not think Clause 28 as drafted in the Bill is going to help us very much to put down what I think Members belonging to all parties wish to put down at election time. It is especially rife in by-elections. I would like to call attention to what has happened at recent by-elections in the county of London. I dare say hon. Members will remember what was called the "celebrated" Peckham election, which was entirely run by outside bodies; in fact, I think I may go so far as to say that some of the societies at that election were really bogus societies, specially got up for that particular election. No doubt hundreds of pounds were spent on political cries at that election, and none of that money, I believe, was ever
    1764
    returned in any election expenses. The hon. and learned Member for Ealing has rather supported the idea that these outside bodies should come into constituencies and be allowed to issue pamphlets, leaflets, and things of that kind. Once you allow this principle at General elections or by-elections, unless you pass the Clause in an amended form, you are going to have no control over the amount of money these outside bodies can spend. I remember another election in London where an ex-Minister of the Crown had to stand for re-election, and I think I am correct in stating that at that particular by-election there were something like twelve committee rooms in the main road of that particular district. There were all kinds of organisations, some of them for the purpose of returning the opponent of the Minister, and some specially set up in order to keep the Minister out I do not think Members on the opposite side of politics from myself will think that that kind of thing is fair fighting, and I think Members who have gone through election fights will agree that the
    way in which outside organisations have come into elections recently has become practically a public scandal. I hope now that we have the opportunity we shall, at any rate, strengthen the Clause in the Bill in order to make it very much stronger than it is. I think when this matter was before the House in Committee I mentioned the case of a certain by-election where the candidates of both parties agreed that no posters should be issued by either side, and that bargain was loyally kept, I believe, by the agents of both parties; but a certain newspaper, for the purpose probably of advertisement or circulation, and probably with the idea of helping one particular candidate, printed on their posters the particular candidate's name, and the whole of the division was posted with thousands of these posters. That kind of thing has happened in London local elections. The posters of certain newspapers have been brought out with electioneering matter upon them, and all the boards outside the newspaper shops have had those particular posters, and have been practically turned into election hoardings for the time being. I believe Members on both sides who are going to fight elections in the future want this kind of thing to stop. I am of the same opinion as other hon. Members who have spoken, that Clause 28 as drafted

    1765
    leaves things more or less as they were. This particular Clause is in effect in the Corrupt Practices Act at the present time, and I suppose during recent years —at any rate, before the War—there were no by-elections where there were not hundreds of pounds spent by various outside organisations in the interest of one or other of the particular candidates. I shall certainly vote for the Amendment if my hon. Friend goes to a Division, but I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment and strengthen Clause 28
    Sir G. YOUNGER: There is a very essential difference between this proposal and the existing law, in so far as certain things are done by outside agents, or by gentlemen who desire to assist the candidate, and very often do him a lot of harm. Of course, that is included in the election expenses.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Not if it is not authorised by the candidate.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: That has nothing to do with it. That is another point. This Clause provides that the expenses of certain people must be returned in the election expenses. The whole thing is one of great difficulty. I do not suppose any of us want to have things done that ought not to be done, and I am sure very often .I pray to be saved from any friends at election time. I have repeatedly found that they have done me more harm than good, and I am sure that is the experience of many people. They have issued posters, leaflets and pamphlets that you would not under any circumstances, and they have often produced very awkward and serious results. But the matter is of the greatest difficulty, and the very fact that the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment thinks it necessary—and quite properly—to make an exception in the case of newspapers, shows how the moment you make that exception you need not try any more to amend Clause 28. It would give an absolutely free hand to do what you like through the newspapers, and everybody knows who knows, anything about it how easily that would work. Anyone who has seen an election issue of a newspaper knows that it is not usually the issue which is sold at the bookstalls, but generally something quite different, and is filled with matter it is thought advantageous to a particular candidate. As election expenses have been so largely reduced, party
    1766
    funds would be used in newspapers. I should see to that myself. I should think that that was part of my duty if I had an opportunity of using certain matter which I could not afford to neglect. That would be done all over the place, and the last stage would be as bad as the first. We must be content to accept something like Clause 28, with a provision that in certain cases these expenses have to be met by the candidate, and we must take our chance.
    Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I think Sub-section (1) should be considered quite apart from Sub-section (2), because they involve different proposals. During the discussion some hon. Members have spoken upon one part and others have discussed the other part, and confusion has resulted. I desire to refer to Sub-section (1). I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Baronet who has just spoken, but what he has suggested does not appear to me to have met the case, neither do the Government proposals. I have had it brought home to me more than once, because I have fought two bye-elections in addition to general elections, and consequently I know at first hand just what the difficulty is which this Clause is intended to prevent. I do not think the Clause as it stands in the Bill does prevent those results. The outside incursions into a constituency do not profess to come on behalf of any particular candidate, but on behalf of some cause either for or against, and the consequence is that they help one candidate or injure another, as the case may be, but they could not be brought within the provision laid down here as to procuring the election of any candidate at the Parliamentary election. If the matter is left there I think the position will be very much like we are in at the present moment, and unless some other words are added to strengthen the provision in the direction we ask, the general desire of the House will not be met. The important words are "or influencing the result of the election." I recognise that those are very broad words, but they are in the direction we desire, and I would invite the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, realizing our difficulties, if these words do not satisfy him, to suggest some modification which will meet the general desire of the House. I submit that the words in the Bill do not meet the case. My hon. Friend

    1767
    has proposed words, but if they are not satisfactory perhaps the Government will suggest an alternative.
    Mr. FISHER: The Government will, between now and the appearance of this Bill in another place, give some consideration to this question. We have had a very interesting Debate on the whole subject as to how far you can prevent outside organisations coming into a constituency and interfering with an election. I share a great deal the view expressed by the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson). After all you cannot stop a great educational propaganda going on, and it will go on whether we are engaged, in a general election or a by-election or no election at all. Supposing the other day we had not admitted something like. 5,000,000 additional electors at local elections, does anybody suppose that you could have kept the women out of the constituency at an election by any such Amendment as my hon. Friend has put down? The women would know the views of the different candidates and they would throw their influence on one side or the other in that subtle way which is so familiar to us all. The women would say that they were carrying on an educational propaganda and they were not doing it to influence the election, but to influence public opinion of this country, and they would be right in doing it. They could speak at every street corner, and under this Amendment they could say that they were not incurring any expense, but were paying their own expenses. They might speak at every street corner and in every prominent public place, urging their views as to the necessity of admitting women to the local government franchise.
    Mr. HARRIS: I would not object to that as long as they did not expend money on it.
    Mr. FISHER: But they would say that they were not spending money on it. They would say that they were paid for the ordinary propaganda work throughout the year, that all this comes in a year's work, and that they were not paying for this particular action in returning a particular member. The Government have most carefully considered this question, and we find it full of the most enormous complications and difficulties. Clause 28 may be a hopeless failure, but, at any rate, it is a kind of warning to these outside organi-
    1768
    sations not to spend money in supporting a particular candidate, because it would have to be included in the candidate's expenses. Under the first part of the Amendment all the speakers and the people we have in mind will say that they do not enter into the contest for promoting or procuring the election of any particular candidate. They will say, "We are carrying on the same propaganda which we intend to carry on until our cause is triumphant." As regards expense, you will have enormous difficulties in regard to that matter. The second part of the Amendment would allow the free distribution of any number of newspapers, and that is one of the most potent matters in influencing elections at the present time. There may be a free issue of a newspaper which does not mention the name of the candidate, but it may contain most powerful articles, full of arguments declaring that there is only one cause worth fighting for, and anybody who reads that newspaper and looks at the election literature concludes that he must vote for So-and-so, who advocates the cause put forward by his own newspaper, and which, he believes is the only possible cause to bring salvation to the country.
    All these things will go on, and. I could drive not only coach and four, but twenty coaches with eight horses through the proposals of this Amendment. We have carefully examined this Amendment, but I may say in conclusion that I will ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to read very carefully all that has been said in this Debate, and we will reconsider this question between now and the time the Bill goes to another place, to see whether we can devise any form of words by which we may stop what we all think is the undesirable practice of outside organisations coming into an election area and interfering by a large expenditure with the election, and generally interfering with the rules of the election upon which the two candidates have agreed. If we cannot find any better words by which we can warn off associations from spending money in the actual prosecution of the candidature of any of those seeking to be elected whilst at the same time not interfering with legitimate educational propaganda, we will submit a Clause in another place.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: We realise that this Amendment, as drafted, will not possibly have the effect that is desired, and we are pleased to know that the right hon. Gen-

    1769
    tleman will consult his colleagues and try when the Bill gets to another place to put in some words to strengthen the Clause. The only regret we have is that between the Committee stage and now they have not been able to find any such words. It is really sad to think that it is not possible to grapple with this question. The Speaker's Conference was unanimous in pointing out this grievance, which is a modern one, and the whole House is satisfied that something ought to be done to meet it. We all admit the difficulty, and that there may be means of getting round the Amendment, but still with the legal acumen at their disposal the Government ought to get much nearer to it than they have at present. We are told that you can have leaflets and speakers flooding a constituency in favour of a particular cause. Organisations are created for a particular election and cease as soon as that election is over. We want to get at that, and, unless we do, what is the use of having a Clause limiting the expenditure of a candidate? You have limited the legitimate expenditure of a candidate, but other persons may come in and spend large sums, handicapping to an alarming extent not only working men but those who have limited means to fight a constituency. I sincerely hope that the Government, with their legal assistance, will be able to insert something in another place to meet what was felt by the Speaker's Conference, and what is felt by the whole House, to be a grievance which ought to be dealt with in the cause of purity of elections and the right of the voters to get a proper return at the elections.
    Mr. HOLT: I do not feel so sure about this Amendment as my hon. Friend appears to be. The effect of it will be to give an absolute monopoly to persons possessing newspapers. Anyone who has got control of a newspaper will have an absolute and complete monopoly for disseminating his views, and that seems to me worse than that the views of a newspaper proprietor should be counteracted by a party organisation. If my hon. Friend carried his Amendment or the spirit of it, the whole of the election literature would be in the hands of those who secured something in the nature of a newspaper trust. That would be a very serious state of affairs. Anybody who knows the state of the public Press at the present time and the extent to which it
    1770
    is controlled by a very small number of people, will see for himself that to put it out of power at a time of great public excitement to counteract the influence of a newspaper trust is a very serious and dangerous thing to do. I hope nothing will be introduced into this Bill which makes it impossible for private organisations, extemporised for the purposes of an election, to do anything which a newspaper is entitled to do.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "candidate," insert the words "or his election agent."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]

    CLAUSE 32.—(Alteration of Polling Districts where Necessary.)
    The local authority having power to divide any Parliamentary county or Parliamentary borough into polling districts shall not later than one month after the passing of this Act, take into consideration the division of such county or borough into polling districts, and make any rearrangements of those districts and of polling places which it appears necessary to make as a consequence of alterations effected by this Act.
    Mr. J. HENDERSON: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words "In all large and sparsely inhabited constituencies the returning officer shall provide such a sufficient number of polling stations as will enable the electors to record their votes without the necessity of travelling more than three miles to such polling station."
    This is a very important Amendment, and I do not think there will be any difference of opinion about it. There are in Scotland, at all events, and I believe in England, very wide constituencies, but I will only mention the one which I have the honour to represent. It is sixty miles in one direction and fifty miles in another. At the last three elections I was very much struck by the fact that there were a large number of the electors who were practically disfranchised. They were all three in the winter time. The election of 1906 was, I believe, on 18th January, and the two in 1910 were in the winter months. The first was on a bright frosty day, but at the time of the others there was deep snow all over the Highlands. I was so much struck by the fact that I had a map drawn showing the distances which some of the electors had to go to record their votes.

    1771
    A good many had to go as far as 7½ miles to the nearest polling station. Some had to go six miles, some five, some four, and some three. If you are going to enfranohise a person it is unreasonable to suggest that he should go 7½ miles to record his vote and 7½miles back again, and it is especially so if the voter is a woman. As the cost of providing the polling stations and so forth is to thrown on the Treasury, I fear there will be a tendency to cut down expenses. In this division, which is 16 miles by 50, there are only twenty polling stations.
    Mr. HOHLER: How many would you require?
    Mr. HENDERSON: About thirty.
    Mr. HOHLER: More than that.
    Mr. ANDERSON: One man one booth!
    Mr. HENDERSON: No; I suggest from thirty to forty. There is a way out of the difficulty. In the elections for local authorities the public schools are used for polling stations. If you use the parish school, such as we have it in Scotland, as a polling station, that would enable the bulk of the people to vote by walking, it may be two or three miles, to which they would not object. To ask a man, still less a woman, to walk 5 miles to a polling station and 5 miles back is simply to disenfranchise them. It is no use holding out to them an altogether empty gift. I can assure the House that well over 100 voters in that constituency were disfranchised at the last election when the snow was on the hills. With regard to the expense, the polling stations could be run at a great deal less expense than at the present time. At present the presiding officer, as a rule, gets three guineas. As election day is a school holiday, there is nothing to hinder the schoolmaster from acting as presiding officer, and in addition to his holiday he might get the additional remuneration of a guinea. That would give you three presiding officers where there are now one. It is the duty of this House to see that men are not disfranchised because of the fact that they happen to live in sparsely inhabited country, and that they should have a sufficient opportunity given them to record their votes, especially now that the registers are very much enlarged. How could a farmer or a farm servant start off at four five, or six o'clock in the evening to walk five or six miles to the polling
    1772
    station and come back again at night They could not do it. When we are providing all these facilities and putting the expense on the Treasury, the sheriff or returning officer should be charged with the duty of seeing that the people who are now enfranchised should have an opportunity of recording their votes. I am not particularly wedded to the words of my Amendment, but I hope that the President of the Local Government Board will put this matter sympathetically before his chief and see if he cannot meet me to some extent, at all events, and make some provision—I do not care how it is done—in one form or another, so that the people are not disfranchised.
    Sir JOHN FLEMING: I beg to second the Amendment. I know the constituency of the hon. Member quite well. I think I know every foot of it, and I have been round it in very wintry weather. There is no doubt at all that if there is a severe storm in these far northern glens it would be quite impossible for a large percentage of the voters to record their votes, more especially since women as well as men are now on the voting list. There are no keener politicians than the people of these highland glens away in Aberdeenshire or in any other shire of Scotland—and I do not omit the glens in the North of England. If there is a class of the community whose opinions are well worthy of being recorded, it is the class that lives amongst the hills. If the Government could see their way to meet my hon. Friend, and make more ample provision than there has been hitherto, it would be very much appreciated by the people who live apart from the busy parts of the country.
    Mr. HARRIS: In supporting the principle of this Amendment I would suggest to the Mover that it is rather limited in its words. He suggests that it should be confined to large and sparsely inhabited constituencies. I suggest that the words of another Amendment to the same Clause covers his and makes the principle, if it is a good one, general. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have had a very varied experience in constituencies. In my present constituency, the Market Harborough Division of Leicester, there has always been a very fair and generous provision of voting facilities, and no elector who is really anxious to vote should be dependent on motor cars or other vehicles, but ought to be able to walk independently on his own

    1773
    legs to record his vote. On another occasion I fought a constituency in the South of England, where the facilities for polling were most inadequate The election happened to be held on a very wet day. Many of the polling booths were several miles away from the villages or the places where the people lived, and the result was that the working people and others who had not at their disposal motor-cars and other vehicles were disfranchised through being unable to record their votes. It is very undesirable that election agents should interfere in this matter. As it is, the people who make representations to try and get adequate election facilities are generally the party organisations. The less party organisation agents interfere in these matters the better. It should be the duty of the local authority—the town council, the urban council, the parish council, or the parish meeting, or any properly elected local authority—to make representations to the responsible authority, and, finally, to the Local Government Board, to see that within a reasonable distance of all the electors there are ample facilities for them to record their votes when the election takes place.
    Colonel SANDERS: I am generally in sympathy with the object of this Amendment, but it seems to me that there are some very practical difficulties to it. In the first place, I think it is not the returning officer who decides the number of polling stations there shall be. I believe that is the duty of the county council. That being so, surely this is a matter which must, unless we alter the law altogether, remain in the hands of the county councils, and I think on the whole that is the proper place for it to remain, because the county councils know the circumstances in their own localities, and if there is any special hardship the county councils would be the proper authorities to deal with it, and they can adequately deal with it under their present powers without any further Clause in an Act of Parliament. But on the point of expediency I do not know that you can really lay it down that every elector must be within three miles of his polling station. Two or three hon. Members have spoken of circumstances in Scotland. We have very similar circumstances in the West of England. You get on the moors a very scattered population in some places, and if you were to. have a polling station within three miles of every
    1774
    cottage you would really multiply the number of polling stations almost indefinitely.
    Mr. HENDERSON: There are the village schools.
    Colonel SANDERS: The hon. Member talks of village schools. There are cases in which cottages are three miles away from a village school. If you lay this down as a general principle you not only have to have them at every village school almost in a moorland area, but you would also have to have extra ones at almost every farmhouse. So that while I am in sympathy with the general objects which the hon. Member wishes to attain, I think it is a thing which might very fairly be left where it stands at present, in the hands of the county councils, and I am not sure that as it stands the Amendment should properly be accepted.
    Mr. HOLT: I do not think the Amendment can really be accepted as it stands. The suggestion that every voter must be within three miles of a polling station is an impossibility. I know, both by my own experience in East Invernesshire, where I reside, and where this would involve a polling booth being established in my house, and also from my experience as Member for Hexham, where many people walk nine miles to vote for me, generally accompanied by people who have walked nine miles to vote against me, that it is quite obvious that if every moorland shepherd is to be within three miles of a polling station you are advocating that in certain parts of the country each individual should have a polling station for himself and himself alone. But I think, on the other hand, something more ought to be done than is being done now to make quite certain that people have a reasonable opportunity of voting. In my own Constituency there is a village with about 200 electors. It is a very substantial village, but there is no access to it by road. That is a circumstance which is not unusual in America, but I know of no similar case to-day in England. The access to the village is of such a character that the last time I walked from the nearest point of the road I put up a grey hen as I was going to a meeting. If these electors want to vote, if they are unable to go by rail they have to walk something like four miles over a grouse moor. I do not think that is a state of affairs which ought to be permitted. It ought not to be

    1775
    possible for a body anything like 200 .electors—I am not dealing with cases of one or two people—to be required to walk over moors without any proper track of any sort in order to record their votes. I do not think it is satisfactory to leave the matter solely to the county councils. I would rather suggest that it might be a better course to withdraw the Amendment and adopt the next Amendment and allow the smaller local authorities, town council, urban district council, and parish council, if they feel that a locality is not being fairly treated in regard to the provision of polling stations, to call on the Local Government Board to intervene and see that there is a polling station reasonably accessible to these small villages.
    Mr. FISHER: I think the House has shown all through the Debates on this Bill that it wants this measure to be as far as possible an enfranchising and not a disfranchising measure. On the Debate on the question of proxy voting it has shown its desire that people, however far distant they may be from the actual polling station, may, if any means can possibly be devised, be able to make their vote actually operative at a particular election. I am myself influenced by the arguments which have been used, which undoubtedly show that even on the old franchise and in the old elections, with many fewer electors than you are likely to have under the new Bill, there have been unusual difficulties put in the way of those who wished to recall their votes, and when one hears of men walking seven and nine miles, one cannot help feeling that, after all, one is doing something of real value in enfranchising people, because they really value the franchise when it is given them. It would be the desire of us all to place really adequate facilities in the way of these who desire to record their votes. The Amendment is undoubtedly conceived in far too narrow a spirit. The hon. Member seems to have forgotten for the time that he does not reside in West Aberdeen, but spends a great deal of his life in the neighbourhood of London, and there are other places than those which can be described as large and sparsely inhabited constituencies. I think he would be the first to admit that what he asks for large and sparsely inhabited constituencies should also be given to large but very thickly populated constituencies, where very often, as I know from experience, it is very difficult indeed to
    1776
    record votes, because there are too many voters allotted to a particular polling place. The whole question wants to be considered from a very much broader point of view. This Amendment and that of the hon. Member(Mr. P. A. Harris), while in spirit and intention they are good Amendments, yet ought not to find a place in this Clause. If hon. Members will look at this Clause they will see that it is only a temporary Clause, until we put in some more permanent machinery, which will have the effect of giving adequate polling facilities for the whole of the country. That will have to be dealt with in a new Clause.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I put this Amendment down as a new Clause on the Committee stage, and Mr. Speaker said it ought to come as an Amendment to Clause 32.
    Mr. FISHER: I was not aware of that. After all, we have had time to consider it, and those who are responsible for meeting the wishes of the House, and that is what we all desire to do, have come to the conclusion that a new Clause is wanted. That new Clause will be far more embracing than the Amendments which have been put down to this Clause. The new Clause will undoubtedly provide, and I hope it will satisfy hon. Members, that when proper representation is made to the Local Government Board by a local authority or by any influential body of voters that there are no adequate facilities for recording votes in their localities or polling districts, the Local Government Board will be able to give directions, which shall be obeyed either by the local authority or the returning officer—whoever is responsible for any default, negligence or incapacity to fulfil what is the dominant desire of the people in the locality—that adequate facilities be provided. The law is a little complex. It is different in England than in Scotland. In Scotland the returning officer has far greater powers as regards polling districts than the returning officer in England. In England the chief body concerned for polling districts is the local authority. In Scotland it is the sheriff or the returning officer. Whether it is the local authority or returning officer who are in default, if either of them have failed to provide proper and adequate facilities by which the large number of newly enfranchised voters and the old voters can record their votes without any great strain being put upon them by walking perhaps seven,

    1777
    eight, or nine miles, then it will be within the power of the Local Government Board to order that facilities shall be provided. It may be said that the Treasury having to pay the expenses in connection with polling booths and polling facilities might not be very much inclined to adequately meet the wishes of the voters in remote districts. I do not think my hon. Friend(Mr. Henderson) need fear about that. I believe the Treasury will catch the spirit of the House of Commons, and the spirit of the House of Commons is such that it would support the Local Government Board in this country or in Scotland in their determination, after adequate evidence has been submitted to them, that the returning officer or the local authority shall provide proper facilities in order that people may record their votes in the manner we desire.
    Mr. HENDERSON: After the sympathetic way in which my right hon. Friend has met me, and in view of his promise to bring in a new Clause to put this matter right, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to insert the words, "The local authority for the purposes of this Section shall, in the case of a Parliamentary borough which is coterminous with an urban district, be the urban district council of that district,"
    This Amendment is to deal with an urban district which is coterminous with a Parliamentary borough. For the first time in our Parliamentary history we have got what is known as a Parliamentary borough, which may consist of an urban district, but that case is not provided for in the Bill. I have no fewer than three cases in my own county of Middlesex where new Parliamentary boroughs have been created and where the boundaries of the Parliamentary boroughs are precisely the boundaries of the urban council district. The local authority under this Clause
    "having power to divide any Parliamentary county or Parliamentary borough into polling districts"
    is the county council. Therefore, you have this anomalous state of things, that for everything else, including urban council elections, these urban councils have entire autonomy; but for a Parliamentary elec-
    1778
    tion, of which they are a complete entity, they are to have the county council coming in to alter their boundaries as if they were one amongst many urban districts. The common case is a collection of urban districts, and there it would be impossible to allow these urban, districts to settle the matter, and it is left to the county council. But when you come to an autonomous area exercising every jurisdiction, it would be utterly against the spirit of the age not to allow that autonomous urban district to divide itself, so far as its convenience is concerned, into polling districts for a Parliamentary election, seeing that it is created an entire district for Parliamentary purposes as well as an urban area. There are in my county Willesden with its two divisions, Tottenham with its two divisions, each a complete Parliamentary area, and Edmonton, which is at present in the Enfield Division. The new Parliamentary borough of Edmonton is entirely an urban district. My own Division of Ealing has always had the powers which I seek to confer by my Amendment because it is a municipal borough, but in my Division, Acton, which has been turned into a Parliamentary borough as a new county division, is coterminous with the urban district area. There the county council will have to step in. When the House has gone out of its way to declare that there must be these new entities of a Parliamentary borough consisting of an urban district, it surely ought to provide that that new borough should have the power to divide itself into polling districts for holding a Parliamentary election. I am quite sure that the authorities could not have appreciated the effect of the words they use in the Clause which provides that the local authority having power to divide a Parliamentary county or Parliamentary borough into polling districts should be the county council. I am a county council man always in these matters, but it is an absurdity to leave the county council to come in and to exercise jurisdiction which can so much better be done by the local authority.
    Major NEWMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I know there is a certain amount of feeling between county councils and district councils on these matters, and in a place such as Edmonton, which is an urban district council, there is a very strong opinion that the council ought not to be overridden by the county council.
    Mr. FISHER: I have listened to the arguments advanced in support of this Amendment with a good deal of attention, and if the hon. Members will allow me I will undertake to consider the matter in connection with the Clause which, I have already informed the House, we intend to bring up at a later stage with a view to securing that proper facilities are given for voters to exercise the franchise.
    SIR R. ADKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman's consideration extend to the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones), providing that on local representation as to a failure to provide adequate polling facilities in a given district within two months after the passing of the Act the Local Government Board should order an inquiry and require the local authorities to provide such facilities?
    Mr. FISHER: I think I may say we shall also be able to deal with that point.
    Mr. NIELD: After the sympathetic statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 34.—(Definitions.)
    In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
    (1) The expression "constituency" means any county, borough, or combination
    of places, or university or combination of universities, returning a member to serve in Parliament; and, where a county or borough is divided for the purpose of Parliamentary elections, means a division of the county or borough so divided:
    (4) The expression "university constituency" means a constituency consisting of a university or a combination of universities; and the expression "university election" means an election of a member or members of Parliament for a university constituency:
    (6) The expression "alternative vote" means a vote—

    (a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's preference for the candidates in order; and

    (b) capable of being transferred to a subsequent choice in case no one
    1780
    candidate has a clear majority of the total number of votes counted at any count:

    (7) The yearly value of premises shall be taken to be the rateable value where those premises are separately assessed to rates, and in any other case shall be deemed to be the amount which would in the opinion of the registration officer be the rateable value, if they were separately assessed:
    (8) The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by His Majesty by Order in Council.
    Any Order in Council under the Act may be revoked or varied as occasion requires by any subsequent Order in Council.
    Amendments made: At the end of Sub-section (1), insert the words,
    "and elections for any such division shall be held in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as those of undivided counties or boroughs."
    At the end of Sub-section (4), insert the words,
    "and this Act in its application to university elections shall be read with the substitution of 'voting paper' for 'ballot paper' and with such other modifications as are necessary to adapt it to the special circumstances of these elections."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, after Sub-section (4), to insert,
    "(5) A person who is an inmate or a patient in any prison, lunatic asylum, workhouse, poorhouse, or any other similar institution shall not by reason thereof be treated as resident therein for any purpose of this House."
    Major NEWMAN: Does this provision apply to keepers, nurses and other people who actually do not reside in lunatic asylum institutions or is it to be applicable only to those of unsound mind.
    Mr. FISHER: I am told it only applies to those confined in the institution, and not to the nurses and attendants.
    Major NEWMAN: The right hon. Gentleman said. "I am told." Is he quite certain. It is an important point.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER: I should not like to say definitely, without consulting my right

    1781
    hon. Friend or one of the Law Officers of the Crown, but I give it as my own opinion, for what it is worth. If on inquiry we find it is not clear, it will be perfectly easy to make it clear in another place.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether "any other similar institution" would cover the case of a British subject confined in an internment camp? Would such a place come under the head "other similar institution"?
    Mr. FISHER: I should say that would be so,
    Amendment agreed to
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, after Sub-section (6), to insert,
    "(7) For the purpose of registration a person's age shall be taken to be that person's age on the last day of the qualifying period."
    That is the law now, but it depends on a decision in a particular case. It is thought better to actually put it into the Bill and thus make the law perfectly clear.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Colonel YATE: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words "The expression 'naval and military' shall for the purposes of this Act include the Air Service."
    Major NEWMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: We are all prepared to give complete recognition to the Air Service, but this is not the place in which to do it. There are various places where it will have to be inserted, and I should like to have time to go through the Bill and see where it may be necessary to put the words in. I can give a promise that these words, or some equivalent term, shall be put in, as we fully accept the spirit of the Amendment.
    Colonel YATE: In view of that statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. SANDERS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (7), to leave out the words "rateable value," and to insert instead thereof the words "gross estimated value."
    This Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) will, I hope, be
    1782
    favourably considered by the Government. The object is to substitute "gross estimated rental" for "rateable value." Rateable value, of course, is smaller than gross estimated rental, so that what is really being done by the Bill as it stands is to make the qualification for the vote not £10 but something higher than £10. That is clearly against the Report of Mr. Speaker's Conference, because that document said that the vote should be acquired by anyone occupying for the purposes of his business, profession, or trade any premises of the clear yearly value of not less than £10. The Clause as it stands clearly does not carry out that Resolution of the Conference, because the qualification required will be one of considerably more than £10. The effect of the Bill as it stands is to increase the qualification recommended by the Speaker's Conference and to increase it from £10 to £12, or slightly more. The Clause as it stands at present would prevent many people who at present possess the business vote from having it in future, and it clearly cannot be reconciled, as I have stated, with the Resolution of the Speaker's Conference. I believe that in Scotland the actual rental is taken, and it seems an absurd anomaly that a man should have a vote for a qualification of £10 in Scotland and that when he comes to England he requires very nearly £12 for a vote which is supposed to be on the same qualification.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I desire to second this Amendment. I brought it up in Committee, and the only point I omitted to state then was that this Amendment maintains the existing law. That, I think, is an important consideration. The Speaker's Conference talks about a yearly value of £10. It surely is not suggested by anybody at this late stage of the proceedings that the memorandum of the Speaker's Conference is to be accepted as if it were an Act of Parliament. It is very obvious in more places than one that it is not intended, with regard to local government franchise for instance, to leave things as they were. No recommendation was made, and therefore it must be assumed that the Speaker's Conference was satisfid with the position. That has been altered since, but it is absurd to suggest, as I think was suggested when I moved this proposal in Committee, that the meaning of these words is not the meaning that the ordinary man would apply to them. In Scotland we have a £10 rental which will qualify. In England, owing to the difference of the

    1783
    system, you require a £12 qualification. No one can contend that the Speaker's Conference suggested that there should be a difference of that kind in the two countries. They submitted the colloquial words which are held to apply, namely, the rent a man pays for his premises in the one case, and the rate at which he is assessed in the other. The fact that it is continuing the existing law, the fact that the Bill makes a distinction between England and Scotland because of these words being in the Bill and not those that are now being proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend is a very strong argument why the Government should accept and support this Amendment.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I want to be quite clear about this. There are two places in the Bill where an annual value occurs. There is the annual value of the premises which are going to entitle the man to a business vote and the annual value of the lodging which in Scotland is going to entitle the local government elector to the local government vote. I am not quite sure whether in each of these two instances this Amendment does not operate in a different direction. It will make it easier for a business voter to get his business vote, but it will make it more difficult for a lodger in Sotland to get his local government vote. I may be wrong, but I want the right hon. Gentleman before he accepts this Amendment to consider how far defining annual value in this particular way in every case in the Bill is going to affect the municipal vote, particularly in Scotland, because there is no doubt that if we make the value of the lodging higher than was intended a great number of persons, especially women, will fail to get that particular franchise. I really am asking a question, and perhaps some hon. Member who supports this Amendment will make the point clear.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Scotland to this particular Amendment. I hope it has had his attention before, and that there is nothing in this Amendment which will have the effect of disfranchising in Scotland any of the electors under this Act. As he knows, the rateable value is frequently, if not always, under the rental value in Scotland, and if you omit the expression "rateable value" and sub-
    1784
    stitute the "gross estimated rental" value you may in some instances disfranchise some people in Scotland. I hope that point is under my right hon. Friend's consideration, and that he will not advise the acceptance of any Amendment which will have the effect of disfranchising any people in Scotland.
    Mr. FISHER: The Conference desired that everyone should have a vote if they were in occupation of premises that were of the clear annual value of £10. What we have to decide is what is a clear annual value of £10; is it best interpreted by the words "rateable value" or by the words "gross estimated rental"? After all, and I say it again to the House, so far as I can gather we want to go on the generous side. If it can be proved that by taking the words "rateable value" you will prevent a number of persons occupying business premises getting their vote, and if there is a doubt as to what interpretation is to be put on clear annual value, I think you ought to take the more generous and liberal interpretation and adopt such a definition that will include rather more than less in the number of those who will be able to obtain the franchise. I think there is a good deal to be said for the arguments of my hon. Friends. I think there is no objection taken to them in this House, and I believe we shall best be interpreting the letter and spirit of the Conference if we accept the Amendment and take the words "gross estimated rental" instead of the words "rateable value." The hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) was afraid that if we applied this definition of the annual value generally we should be in some measure disfranchising the voters in Scotland. I have made inquiries as to that, and I am told that while this Amendment, if accepted, will probably enlarge slightly the number of persons who will be entitled to the occupation franchise in England, it will have no disfranchising effect whatever on any portion of the Scottish electors.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: At the end of Sub-section (7) insert the words "(8) The expression 'afloat' in connection with naval and military voters shall be interpreted in accordance with rules made for the purpose by the Admiralty."—[Mr. Fisher.]

    CLAUSE 36.—(Application to Scotland.)
    This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:—
    (1) Unless the context otherwise requires—

    (a) The expression "borough" means "burgh";

    (b) The expression "Parliamentary borough" means a burgh having the right of returning or contributing to return a member or members to Parliament;

    (c) The expression "county borough" means a county of a city;

    (d) The expression "Parliamentary county" means a county, or a combination or counties, having the right of returning a member or members to Parliament;

    (e) The expression "administrative county" means a county in-inclusive of every burgh situated therein except a county of a city;

    (2) The yearly value of any subjects shall be taken to be the value appearing in the valuation roll where those subjects are separately valued in that roll, and in any other ease shall be deemed to be the value which would in the opinion of the registration officer be entered therein if they were so valued:
    (3) Without prejudice to the right of a woman in Scotland to be registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area where she would be entitled to be so registered if she were a man, a woman in Scotland shall only be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) on the like conditions as in England, and Section three of this Act shall accordingly apply without modification so far as it constitutes a basis for the Parliamentary franchise as provided in Sub-section (1) of Section four of this Act:
    (4) For the purpose of the local government franchise the following provisoes shall be substituted for the first proviso enacted in Section three of this Act, that is to say:
    Provided that for the purposes of this Section the word "tenant" shall include—
    1786

    (a) a man occupying in virtue of any office, service, or employment any dwelling-house which is not inhabited by the person under whom he serves; and

    (b) a man occupying as a lodger any room, or rooms, of the yearly value (if let unfurnished) of not less than ten pounds who claims to be registered in respect of such occupation, or, where not more than two men are in the joint occupation of lodgings and the yearly value thereof (if let unfurnished) is not less than twenty pounds, each of such men who claim to be registered in respect of such occupation:

    And provided further that where any land or premises are of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds, it shall not be necessary in order to entitle the owner thereof to be registered as a local government elector in respect of such land or premises, that he should at any time during the qualifying period have occupied the same.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, in Subsection (1, a), to leave out the words "The expression 'borough,'" and to insert instead thereof the words "The word 'borough,' except as used in the expression 'Parliamentary borough.' "
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I would like some explanation of this Amendment. I do not understand where we are at all with regard to these burghs. We have in Scotland a certain class of burghs which are Royal burghs. We have a certain number of Police burghs, and a certain number of Parliamentary burghs. There is an Amendment on the Paper dealing with those Parliamentary burghs which now form part of a group, which are included in the counties, under the redistribution Schedule, and presumably, unless some means are taken to prevent it, will lose their status of Parliamentary burghs. There is the other class which for the first time are being included in groups of burghs, and which, one would think would receive automatically the status of Parliamentary burghs. Whatever it be, it does give certain advantages which other burghs do not possess. My contention, and that of many others, including my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gulland), is that the Parliamentary burghs

    1787
    should retain the status which they have now even if they are included in counties, and on the other hand I would suggest, and later on I hope to propose, that the new burghs—there are not very many of them—which are included in the new Parliamentary groups should receive automatically the status of Parliamentary burghs. I do not know how the Amendment affects the possibility of dealing with those two matters, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to let us have some explanation.
    Mr. MUNRO: The Amendment which I am moving is purely a drafting Amendment, and does not in any way touch the questions referred to by my hon. Friend, which will arise for subsequent consideration. The expression "Parliamentary borough" as used in this Bill receives a specific meaning, as the House will see, from Sub-section (1) of Clause 30—"each of the areas mentioned in the first column of the first part of Schedule 5 attached to this Act." In order to keep the meaning quite clear it is better not to translate the expression. But I can assure my hon. Friend that the points which he has raised and which I quite concede are important, are in no way affected by the drafting Amendment which I move.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (b).
    This is also a drafting Amendment. The expression "Parliamentary borough" seems now unnecessary, as the meaning is given in Clause 30, Sub-section (1).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (c).
    I move this on behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge), who is absent. He has three Amendments on the Paper, one of which is to leave out paragraph (e), and to insert the words "the expression 'administrative county' shall not apply to Scotland, but shall mean and be interpreted as a county, inclusive of the burgh or burghs situated therein, except a burgh forming a county of a city." The idea of all these Amendments is to substitute these words, in order to preserve successive registration.
    Mr. MORTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. MUNRO: I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment to leave out paragraph(c), which is quite consistent with the Clause I propose to move at a later stage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move to leave out paragraph(d).
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: May I ask why it is proposed to leave out these words? Are they considered superfluous?
    Mr. MUNRO:I propose to leave out the paragraph precisely for the same reason that I mentioned a few moments ago. A precise definition is given in Clause 30, and the paragraph is unnecessary here.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (e).
    Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend has two Amendments on the Paper, and I accept the second to leave out paragraph (e).
    Mr. WATT: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the Amendment to leave out paragraph (e).
    Mr. MUNRO: That is precisely the Amendment I am prepared to accept.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in place of the words left out, to insert the words, "The expression 'administrative county' shall not apply to Scotland, but shall mean and be interpreted as a county, inclusive of the burgh or burghs situated therein, except a burgh forming a county of a city"
    Mr. MUNRO: I do not accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1),to insert the words, "Where by the operation of this Act any Royal or Parliamentary burgh ceases as a burgh to return a member to Parliament, nothing in this Act shall affect in any other respect the rights and privileges of such burgh as a Royal or Parliamentary burgh, or the rights, privileges, and functions of the magistrates, town council, and officers thereof."
    This Amendment is rendered necessary in view of the very large number of burghs in Scotland which cease by the passing of

    1789
    this Act to have separate burgh representation. I have calculated that there are no fewer than forty-nine burghs in Scotland which cease to return Members of Parliament as burghs—that is, including the burghs so well represented by the right bon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Wick Burghs), and incidentally they also include the burghs I have the honour to represent (Dumfries Burghs). When there is that large number of forty-nine, it is very right that this House should be very careful to safeguard the rights and privileges of those burghs. The words that I propose are known to all those burghs, because they are the words of the Act of 1885. I think the fact that those words have been in operation for thirty-two years, with regard to the number of burghs, that by that Act of 1885 ceased to have burgh representation, shows that those words are words which should be accepted by the House as words with which those burghs are quite content. I notice that the Secretary for Scotland has subsequently on the Paper an Amendment of his own dealing with the same question. I confess my prejudice is against it, because he introduces words that are new and that the burghs have really not had much time to consider. The Amendment which I am moving has been on the Paper for quite a long time, whereas that of the right hon. Gentleman has only been down for a day or two. Therefore, these forty-nine burghs, I am afraid, have not had their attention specifically called to his proposal. Another objection I have to the right hon. Gentleman's words is that he mixes up two questions in the one Amendment; he mixes up the question of retaining the status of the old burghs with the question of preventing the new burghs having the status of Parliamentary burghs. I must confess I do not like mixing up those two things. I think, if the right hon. Gentleman does not wish the new burghs to have the status of the old, he should say so in a completely separate paragraph. It does seem to me rather unfair to the old burghs to make the retention of their status depend practically upon not giving that status to the new burghs. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will rather accept the Amendment I have, and which these burghs know and which are historic words, rather than the words of his own, which may mean the same thing but, at any rate, about which those burghs will have some suspicion.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: In seconding the Amendment I cordially support the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman as it stands on the Paper. Not that I for a moment think that it does anything more than in the later Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland. Whether it is essential that we should maintain the words of the old Statute is not perhaps very material; but it is certainly distinctly material if my right hon. Friend is right in supposing that these two paragraphs of the later Amendment are intended to hang together. If the paragraphs are to be taken separately, as they ought to be, and dealt with separately (a) deals with the status of the existing burghs and retains it for them. That is all very well. If the right hon. Gentleman is at all right in suggesting that (b) depends upon (a), I entirely agree with him that we must hang on to his Amendment and not accept the words of the Secretary for Scotland. I do not, however, believe that my right hon. Friend is correct. Obviously they ought not to hang together. Therefore it is quite immaterial, I think, whether the words of the Secretary of Scotland, which are perfectly ample and preserve the status, or the words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, are used. I suppose under these circumstances it would not be proper to deal with (b) except to say that if I am correct in my assumption there need be no particular Debate upon this Amendment which is before us, as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland is correct.
    Colonel GREIG: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gulland) that I think his Amendment does not hit the very burghs he wants to preserve. I know where his words come from. They are an exact copy from a Sub-section of the Act of 1885, but it does not hit the point. Let, me explain:
    "Where by the operation of this Act any royal or Parliamentary burgh ceases as a burgh to return a member to Parliament nothing in this Act, ... and so on."
    Take the case of the burgh which is in my county, not in my constituency. I refer to the borough of Renfrew. It is one of the burghs which now returns a member of Parliament, not y itself, but as one of a group of burghs. It is very questionable whether this Clause, as now suggested, would cover the case of the burgh which

    1791
    is only one of a group of burghs, and which does not itself return a member. If the hon. Gentleman turns to the Amendment put down by the Secretary for Scotland he will find that these cases are very clearly conserved. That is the case of a burgh which returns a Member and ceases by this Act so to do, by reason of being in a group of burghs which are dissolved, the burghs going into the county.
    "Nothing in this Act shall take effect so as to deprive any Royal or Parliamentary burgh losing separate representation under this Act of any right, privilege, or status, whether for purposes of local government or otherwise, hitherto enjoyed by such burgh as a Royal or Parliamentary burgh."
    Further down it says that the phrase " 'separate representation,' shall be construed as meaning the right to return, or to contribute as a burgh to return, a Member, or Members, to Parliament." Obviously, that is a legal question which I am afraid would destroy the very object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view if he insists upon his own words; whereas the Secretary for Scotland's later Amendment is absolutely accurate, and covers all.
    Mr. MUNRO: I would, respectfully, suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should not insist upon this Amendment, but should content himself with discussing the Amendment I propose to move at a later stage. I can assure him that I have taken the very best advice I can get as to the form of my Amendment. I think he will on reflection find that my Amendment is wider than his, and will cover without the least difficulty or doubt such a case as has just been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member behind me. It seems to me entirely proper to construe together the provision of the burghs which lose their present status with the provision in this Bill of the burghs which acquire a new status under the provisions of this Bill. If Mr. Speaker permits it, when I come to my Amendment, I shall put it to the House that they first of all consider (a) and secondly (b). I would, therefore, appeal to my right hon. Friend not to press his Amendment at this stage. The whole matter will be open when we come to discuss my Amendment, and there will be no prejudice.
    Mr. GULLAND: As the right hon. Gentleman assures me that every point of my
    1792
    Amendment is covered in his, and as his Amendment is wider than mine, with that assurance I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move to leave out Sub-sections (3) and (4), and to insert instead thereof the following,
    "(3) The Section of this. Act relating to local government franchise (men) shall not apply and in lieu thereof—
    (a) A man who is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for a local government electoral area if he is on the last day of the qualifying period and has been during the whole of that period—

    (i.) the owner of land and heritages within the area of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds: Where lands and heritages are in the joint ownership of two or more persons and the aggregate yearly value of the lands and heritages is not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint owners each of the joint owners shall be treated as owning lands and heritages of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds; or

    (ii.) the occupier as tenant of lands and heritages (other than a dwelling-house) within the area of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds: Where such lands and heritages are in the joint occupation as tenants of two or more persons and the aggregate yearly value of the lands and heritages is not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint occupiers each of the joint occupiers shall be treated as occupying lands and heritages of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds; or

    (iii.) the inhabitant occupier as owner or tenant of a dwelling-house within the area; or

    (iv.) the occupier of lodgings within the area of the yearly value if let unfurnished of not less than ten pounds;

    Where lodgings are in the joint-occupation of not more than two

    1793
    persons and the aggregate yearly value as aforesaid of the lodgings is not less than twenty pounds, each of the joint lodgers shall be treated as occupying lodgings of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds; or

    (v.) the inhabitant occupier in virtue of any office, service, or employment of a dwelling-house within the area which is not inhabited by any person under whome he serves in such office, service, or employment;

    (b) (i.) the ownership or occupation in immediate succession of different lands and heritages, dwelling-houses, or lodgings, as the case may be, in the same Parliamentary county or in the same Parliamentary borough shall have the like effect in qualifying a man to be registered as a local government elector for a local government electoral area therein, respectively, as the continued ownership or occupation of the same lands and heritages, dwelling-houses, or lodgings within that area; and

    (ii.) the occupation of a dwelling-house shall not be deemed to be interrupted by reason only of permission being given by letting or otherwise for the occupation thereof as a furnished house by some other person for a part of the qualifying period not exceeding three months in the whole;

    (c) In this Section "owner" has the same meaning as "proprietor" in the Valuation Acts, "lands and heritages" has the same meaning as in those Acts, and "dwelling-house" means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling;
    (4) Sub-section one of the Section of this Act relating to franchise (women)
    shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—

    (a) A woman who is not subject to any legal incapacity shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) if she has attained the age of thirty years and if either she or her husband is on the last day of the qualifying period occupying jointly or severally as owner or tenant any land or premises in the constituency (hereinafter in this Sub-section called "the qualifying premises"), and has during the whole of the qualifying period so occupied any land or premises in the
    1794
    county or county of a city in which the qualifying premises are situated:

    Provided that for the purposes of this Sub-section—

    (i.) the word "tenant" shall include a person who inhabits by virtue of any office, service, or employment any dwelling-house which is not inhabited by any person under whom he serves in such office, service, or employment;

    (ii) 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 or her in an unfurnished state;

    (iii) a woman, though she or her husband may have been occupying land or premises in the constituency on the last day of the qualifying period, shall not be entitled to be so registered if she or her husband, as the case may be, 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 such occupation;

    (iv) the occupation of a house shall not be deemed to be interrupted 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 four months in the whole;

    (v) not more than two persons shall be deemed to be joint occupiers of the same land or premises unless they are bon â fide engaged as partners carrying on their profession, trade, or business in the premises; and>

    (vi.) the word "county" means a county inclusive of all burghs therein except a county of a city, and the word "dwelling-house" means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling.

    (b) A woman registered by virtue of this Section shall be deemed to be
    registered by virtue of her own or her husband's local government qualification.
    This Amendment, although it looks a rather formidable one, is merely a drafting Amendment. As the Bill stands, the provisions of the local government franchise for men are to be found by

    1795
    reading together Clause 3 of the Bill along with Clause 36, Sub-section (4). Again, the provisions which give the Parliamentary franchise to women are to be found by reading together Clause 4 along with Clause 36, Sub-section (3) of the Bill. That is to say, you have to take different parts of the Bill so as to arrive at the local government franchise for men, or to arrive at the Parliamentary franchise for women. Legislation by reference this House has always considered to be undesirable, and it has been represented to me from various influential quarters in Scotland that it would be a more satisfactory method, now that we have settled the principles on which we are to proceed, that we should set out in simple form the whole code relating to these two separate heads, and my Amendment gives effect to that desire. As regards the women's Parliamentary franchise, my Amendment exactly reproduces, although in words which are self-contained, the proposals which are already in the Bill, and, as regards the local government franchise for men, the opportunity has been taken when I put down this new Amendment more closely to assimilate the local government franchise to men to the existing local government franchise to men as it exists to-day in England. The differences between the Bill as it stands in this matter and the Amendment I propose to move are these: In the first place. the limit of £10 for owners and occupiers is now inserted. In the second place, the necessity for a lodger claim drops out. That is abandoned. In the third place, the area of movement of a voter in the case of successive occupation is slightly extended under the Amendment I am now moving; and, in the last place, the provision of paragraph (2) in the proviso of Clause 3 of the Bill, which applies to England, is not applied to Scotland. That is the proviso which deals with a voter with whom we are not so familiar on the opposite side of the Border as on this side of the Border, and it has been unnecessary to apply that particular proviso to Scotland. So that the House will see from what I have said the Amendment is really of a drafting character, and I suggest to the House that it is a considerable improvement, so far as form goes, upon the Bill as it stands. That being so, I would ask the House to accept the Amendment I now move.
    Question: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3, a, i.) of the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "ten" ["yearly value of not less than ten pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
    This is the first of a series of Amendments I have on the Paper. The object I really have in view is much the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fifeshire (Mr. Adamson), namely, to reduce the lodger's qualification from £10 to £5, but I myself would prefer the Amendment that he is proposing to move to sweep away the valuation qualification altogether. It seems to me that the effect would be to sweep away or reduce the amount of that qualification in respect of lodgers and you still leave it comparatively high.
    Mr. MUNRO: I do not propose to sweep away the lodger qualification, which remains as it was under the Bill. The only alteration that has been made is that there is no longer any necessity for the lodger to claim.
    Mr. WHITE: I quite recognise the important step which my right hon. Friend has taken in sweeping away the need for a claim and that £10 is the same limit as under the existing law, but as my right hon. Friend knows there are very many constituencies in which by an arrangement between the parties and a general understanding the £10 has, in fact, been treated as a very elastic limit. I know cases in which £7 10s. is taken for practical purposes as the limit, and that is general in many parts of Scotland. When the decision of this matter passes into the hands of the official who, under the new circumstances will have to deal with it, the practical effect will be to put on a higher qualification than existed before. I do not suppose that I am at liberty now to go into the question of lodgers, because my Amendment does not refer to lodgers, and I have no wish to anticipate the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Fife. I move this Amendment with a view to asking the Secretary for Scotland whether he can see his way to reducing the existing limit of £10 to £5, or, better still, to sweep it away altogether. In either event I would

    1797
    then propose to reduce the amount as regards the owner of lands and heritages and the occupier of lands and heritages from £10 to £5 to fit in with the other.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr, MUNRO: The Amendment which my hon. and learned Friend proposes is to abolish the qualification for non-occupying owners. The promise I gave in Committee was that I would endeavour in my Amendment to preserve the local government franchise in Scotland substantially as it is to-day. I think, after consideration, the House will agree that my Amendment fulfils that promise; but now, after having given that promise, I am being pressed to alter the present local government franchise by reducing the qualification from £10 to £5, and I observe that by another Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Adamson) he desires to abolish this qualification altogether. Some people might say that it illustrates the danger of giving such an undertaking as I gave. At any rate, I gave the undertaking, and I have implemented it. I am bound to say, after the fullest consideration, that I feel myself disabled from going any further. I am retaining the local government system substantially as it is to-day, and in the circumstances in which I find myself I feel precluded from altering it either by diminishing the qualification from £10 to £5 or from £5 to nothing at all. I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that the present position of the local government franchise in Scotland is logical. The qualification in the burghs is £10 and in the counties £5. That rests upon the very simple principle that rents are higher in the burghs than they are in the counties. Accordingly, under the existing system, you have uniformity. If I accepted the Amendment, that uniformity would disappear. My hon. and learned Friend would be the last person who would desire that result to be brought about. However that may be, I regret, for the reasons that I have given, that I am unable to accept the Amendment, and I accordingly ask the House not to accept it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3. ii.) of the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words,
    1798
    "of the yearly value of not less than £10: Where such lands and heritages are in the joint occupation as tenants of two or more persons and the aggregate yearly value of the lands and heritages is not less than the amount produced by multiplying £10 by the number of the joint occupiers each of the joint occupiers shall be treated as occupying lands and heritages of the yearly value of not less than £10."
    The object of the Amendment is exactly the same as that of my hon. Friend (Mr. D. White). I want the occupier or tenant of lands and heritages to be on the same footing as lodgers, and I have another Amendment down on the Paper relating to the lodger voter. I was very sorry to hear my right hon. Friend expressing himself as he did with regard to my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. I would remind him of the sympathetic spirit that has been displayed by his colleagues, who have on several occasions said that this is not a disfranchising but an enfranchising Bill.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: So it is.
    Mr. ADAMSON: That is the object I have in view in moving this Amendment. I take the statement of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues as meaning that it should be made easier for a person to have the vote than it is under the existing law,, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give serious attention to the Amendment, which provides for putting the tenant or occupier on the same footing as I desire to put the lodger voter.
    Mr. MORTON: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. MUNRO: I am sure my hon. Friend will not be surprised, after what I have said to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. D. White) if I say to him regretfully, that I cannot accept his Amendment. He has said, quite truly, that this is an enfranchising Bill. So it is. Were it not that I have put down the Amendments I have on the Paper, there is a large number of voters in Scotland, who at present enjoy the right to the franchise who would have lost that right. I have preserved their right, in accordance with the promise I have given. Now that I have given that promise and implemented it I have been pressed from both sides to go a great deal further than I undertook to go. For the reasons I have already stated, I feel quite unable to accede to the request now made.

    1799
    The hon. Member (Mr. Adamson) has down Amendments with regard to the occupier and the lodger, but has left the owner to look after himself. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr D .White) is a little more consistent in the matter, but to all these appeals I am afraid that, for the reasons stated, I must turn a deaf ear.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3, a, iv.) of the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "of the yearly value, if let unfurnished, of not less than £10;
    Where lodgings are in the joint occupation of not more than two persons and the aggregate yearly value as aforesaid of the lodgings is not less than £20, each of the joint lodgers shall be treated as occupying lodgings of the yearly value of not less than £10."
    This Amendment has for its object the putting of the lodger vote in all parts of Scotland on an equal footing. The Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland no doubt provides for the present position so far as the lodger vote in Scotland concerned, being continued. It will, however, as he is well aware, also continue the great difference in the arrangements made regarding lodger votes in one district as compared with another. For instance, I know one large industrial county where the qualification for the lodger vote is on a purely accommodation basis, that is to say, if it can be proved that a lodger has the entire use of a room he is put on the roll as a lodger voter, while in another case the qualification is £5 in the country district and £8 in the town. Very largely the arrangement that prevails under present conditions is an arrangement made by the party agents. As a general rule, if the party agents come to an agreement as to the basis upon which the vote shall be granted, the presiding officer offers no objection to the arrangement. This is a very unsatisfactory condition of affairs. Now that we are dealing with this matter we ought to have the lodger voter placed on a better footing. I do not suppose that if the Secretary for Scotland were to give effect to my Amendment it would make a very serious addition to the number of lodger voters in Scotland. There would not be a very large increase if my Amendment were accepted,
    1800
    and now that the married women have been placed upon the register it is an additional reason for giving it serious consideration. It would also be a means of considerably reducing the cost of making up the register. The right hon. Gentleman has had representations made to him for one register for Parliamentary and local government elections. The Amendment would bring us nearer to that idea. The saving of the cost is a very important consideration for those representing Scotland. I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way in the interests of fair play as between one district and another, in the interests of reducing cost, in the interest of removing many difficulties and much dissatisfaction that has arisen regarding this matter, to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now Adjourned."
    Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE [MONEY].
    Considered in Committee.
    [Sir DONALD MACLEAN in the Chair.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of such additional sums as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Acts relating to National Health Insurance."—[Sir E. Cornwall.]
    Mr. HOLT: I am rather surprised at the way in which this Resolution has been brought before the Committee. I am astonished that the Minister who is responsible for this proposal has not made some proper financial statement. We have no information given to us as to the amount of public money which is likely to be expended as a consequence of it and of the measure which is going to be founded upon it. May I remind the Government of a fact of which they seem to be singularly oblivious, that we are now engaged in a very serious war. I have nothing to say about other forms of expenditure at this moment, but we are

    1801
    expending the most colossal sums. The public finances of this country are steadily becoming more and more embarrassed—
    It being Eleven of the clock—
    Sir E.CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): I would appeal to the hon. Member to allow this to go through. This matter was dealt with on Friday, and the Government and the Treasury have agreed to make this Grant. May I appeal to my hon. Friend to allow this to go through, so that we can have the Committee stage?
    Mr. HOLT: I am very sorry, but I must tell my hon. Friend that I intend to oppose everything that imposes a charge upon the Exchequer.
    The Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow—.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.

      "YOUNG INDIA."
      Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir D. Maclean) proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
      Commander WEDGWOOD: I know I shall be counted out very shortly, but I take this opportunity of raising a question which cropped up last week. It appears that a fortnight ago the Home Office raided the premises of the Indian Home Rule League in order to secure possession of the remaining copies of the book entitled "Young India," written by Lajpat Rai. It appears, also, that, having started this book, the Home Office came to the conclusion that it recommended sedition and assassination. It so happens that I have had the responsibility of writing a preface to that volume.
      1802
      I should not like it to be imagined that I would recommend a book which recommended sedition or assassination, and I think it would have been more in accordance with the traditions of this House if I had been informed of this raid before it took place and if I had been asked to explain my connection with the book in order that I might have been able to give such explanation as was within my power. This book by Lajpat Rai is a document which it is of the greatest importance should be known to the people of this country. It is no good our keeping our heads in the sand as to the opinions held by Indians in regard to British rule in India. I am one of those who believe that it is always well to let any opinion have free expression. If it is a bad opinion public opinion will deal with it far better than Sir A. Bodkin. If it is good opinion then in the long run it will make its way. I ask the House to observe and to realise that this book was published in this country in an edition of 1,000 copies only, and that a copy of it was sent to every Member of this House, and to those Members of the House of Lords who were considered to be of sufficient importance. Some of the copies were sent for review. I am not surprised, in view of the uses to which the publication was put, that the Home Office, in its efforts to stop its circulation, only captured five copies at the office. I have another five copies in my bag. It is not only necessary that this subject should be discussed in the country in order that the problem of India may be understood, but—
      Notice taken that forty Members were not present—
      Commander WEDGWOOD: I shall endeavour to raise this question to-morrow night.
      House counted, and, forty Members not being present,
      The House was adjourned at Nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.