Commons Sitting of 28 November 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL, BOUNDARY COMMISSION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Report (with Maps) of the Commissioners appointed to determine the Distribution of Members and the Boundaries of Constituencies in Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 943 (Jamaica, Report for 1916-17) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (TEACHERS' SALARIES).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 8th May; Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 161.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    INDIA (TRADE BANK)
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the reported establishment in India of a trade bank; and will he say to what extent this bank, in the event of the report being founded upon fact, is to be a State or a State-aided institution?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Secretary of State has seen statements in the Press, but has no further information. He has not sanctioned the establishment of a trade bank as a State or State-aided institution.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.

    POLICE RAIDS.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State in India or the Viceroy has been communicated with respecting the raid on the Indian Home Rule League's premises?
    Mr. FISHER: Not before the event. The Secretary of State was on the high seas when the India Office notified to the Home Office the fact that the book, the importation of which into this country and India was prohibited, had been published in England.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: He was not on the high seas, as I understand, when the raid was sanctioned.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that "Young India," by Lajpat Rai, was published more than two months ago; and why the notification of the alleged dangerous character of this book to the Home Office was postponed till after the Secretary of State's departure for India?
    Mr. FISHER:The India Office was not aware of the publication of the book in this country until some days after the Secretary of State's departure for India.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the book was sent to Mr. Montagu personally, and to all Members of the House when it was first published, and can he explain how it was that the India Office was not acquainted with the fact?
    Mr. FISHER: I do not know whether Mr. Montagu reads every book he receives.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the Government now withdraw the ban upon this book, in view of the fact that the hon. and gallant Member who wrote the preface is now an official of the Government?
    Commander WEDGWOOD:I will raise this question at eleven o'clock to-night.
    4. The HON. MEMBERasked the Secretary of State for India if he will state in what country Lajpat Rai is at present; and whether he is at large?
    Mr. FISHER: Lajpat Rai is in the United States of America. So far as is known he is at large.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Has the Government of the United States been communicated with with a view to the internment of this extremely dangerous person who, according to Sir Archibald Bodkin, advocates sedition and assassination?
    Mr. FISHER: Not so far as I am aware of.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary why in the recent raid made upon the premises of the No-Conscription Fellowship the police took a private cheque book, a file of trade union correspondence among which was at least one case relating to negotiations with the Ministry of Pensions about the settlement of a pension case for the widow of a member of a trade union, and among other papers taken was a list of the delegates and secretaries of trade unions, the taking of which has caused considerable obstruction of the trade union work; is he aware that the police broke open a private handbag and stole therefrom four boxes of matches; and will he see that all these articles are immediately returned?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): All papers and other articles which have been seized by the police under Defence of the Realm Regulation 51, and are found on examination to be innocent, will be returned to the owners, but I must not be understood as admitting the statements of fact made by the hon. Member.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that a quantity of articles were stolen, including, among other things, four boxes of matches?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have not thought it worth while to inquire about these details. The police had to deal with a mass of documents, and anything not falling within the Regulations will be returned.

    PRUSSIAN MILITARISM.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the German Government, whilst extensively circulating amongst their troops and their people complacent official literature dealing with the War and war aims, suppress or subject to severe censorship all leaflets and pamphlets of an independent character bearing on the same question; and whether he can take steps, with the help of the War Aims Committee,
    1980
    to place before the British people this example of the effects upon liberty of opinion of Prussian militarism?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts stated in the first part of the question. The second part is not a matter which concerns the Foreign Office.
    General CROFT: Is the Noble Lord aware of the fact that pacifist utterances in this country are very freely circulated in Germany in order to encourage the troops?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes, Sir; that is so.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is the Noble Lord aware that the speeches most widely circulated in Germany are those of the Prime Minister, and Mr. Hughes, of Australia?
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

    LEAFLETS (CENSORSHIP).
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary whether the Regulation 27 c affects leaflets published on the food question, as by food committees, or on War Certificates, as by war savings committees; and whether, inasmuch as such leaflets relate to the War, he will make a new Regulation excepting such leaflets from imposing any penalties on their writers, printers, or distributors?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first question is in the negative, and the second therefore does not arise.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Have the Government decided to withdraw the Regulation or to modify it?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Home, Secretary whether any other person has been authorised, apart from the directors of the official Press Bureau, to examine and pass leaflets under Regulation 27 c; if so, who is appointed; and at what address are applications under Regulation 27 c considered?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir. All applications should be addressed to the Press Bureau, United Service Institution, Whitehall.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary what provision in Regulation 27 c (Defence of the Realm Act) empowers him to allow the War Aims

    1981
    Committee to issue literature without the sanction of the directors of the Press Bureau?
    Sir G. CAVE: Any leaflet issued by or under the authority of His Majesty's Government is expressly excluded from the Regulation.

    FORTH AND CYLDE SHIP CANAL.
    Colonel YATEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has yet made up its mind as to which of the routes proposed for the Forth and Clyde Ship Canal will best serve the purposes of the Admiralty; and, if not, when their decision in the matter will be announced?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The views of the Admiralty and the views of other interests concerned will be fully considered by His Majesty's Government. The decision, when taken, will be that of His. Majesty's Government, and I am not in a position to forecast its probable date.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the decision will be taken?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir.
    Colonel YATE: How many years has Rosyth been under construction now, and how many years has the canal been under consideration?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: With great respect, I do not think Rosyth arises out of this question.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOSSES).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state why, in the weekly returns of losses of British merchant ships due to submarines or mines,' no statistics are given of the numbers of ships hit by torpedoes and mines which are not sunk, in view of the fact that information is given as to the numbers unsuccessfully attacked; and whether he is aware that the Italian Government is giving this information?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The weekly return for the Press was framed so as to include only the number of British merchant and fishing vessels sunk, and the number of merchant vessels unsuccessfully attacked. The number of vessels damaged has never been included. Many of them come back to service after repair. It is true that in
    1982
    a recent return the Italian Government included one ship which was damaged by a torpedo and towed into port
    Commander BELLAIRS: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us the reason why it has not been done before—it is much more interesting information than the number unsuccessfully attacked.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: One reason is that many of these ships go back to active service.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is it not the fact that there are many steamers torpedoed or mined which reach the shore and become total wrecks, and those are not reported?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should not say there are many.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is any record kept of the ships which have been mined or torpedoed, and which reach the shore and become total wrecks?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I imagine that is the case.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are they recorded in the returns any time?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. I have already stated that.

    ROYAL FLEET AND NAVAL RESERVES (LEAVE)
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that some thirty stokers of the Royal Fleet Reserve, immediate class, twelve stokers of the Royal Naval Reserve, and about twenty-one Marines, all belonging to the Chatham Division and drafted to one of His Majesty's ships, had received no leave since the commencement of the War till August last; will he say whether they have yet had leave; and, if not, will he take immediate steps to secure that leave be given to them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and learned Friend is apparently under the impression that the particular ship to which he refers came home from foreign service in August last. She did not. Had she done so, leave would, of course, have been granted. The ship in question is still on foreign service, and arrangements are actually in progress to relieve those of the men referred to who have been three years abroad; the relief of all such men
    will be completed as soon as opportunities. permit.
    Mr. HOHLER: I desire to repudiate any such impression. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that writing in July he stated that nine men had been sent to relieve these men, but that they were nine men of the Plymouth and not Chatham Division, and is he further aware these men applied in the ordinary service way in November, 1916, for leave, and will he say what steps he has taken since July to relieve these marines and stokers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If my hon. Friend will give me those facts I will put them before the proper authorities at once If a ship is on foreign service it is very difficult to relieve the crew. My hon. Friend knows that. We do what we can.
    Mr. HOHLER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have months since given him every detail, with even the name of each marine, in correspondence, and will he say what steps he has taken to get these men of the Chatham Division leave after service of three years?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have placed the matter every time at once before the proper authorities, and, unless I am very much mistaken, I have every time written to my hon. and learned Friend or answered his questions in the House.

    GERMAN SUBMARINES SUNK.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state how many German submarines were sunk on 16th and 17th November?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I can add nothing to the statement of the Prime Minister, which was based on information received by the War Cabinet from the Admiralty on the morning of the 19th.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman cannot give the figures for the 16th?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I simply stated that the statement made by the Prime Minister was based on information given him by the Admiralty on the 19th.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Was it in accordance with the information you gave?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, yes, Sir.
    Mr. HOGGE: Are we to understand that there were no ships sunk on the 16th and that five were sunk on the 17th?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In reply to a supplementary question, I said that the statement was made to the War Cabinet on the morning of the 19th, and fully justified the statement made by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he is trying to wriggle out of the two dates and why does he not come down and give us the frank figures and say whether or not there were submarines sunk on the 16th, and whether the five referred to by the Prime Minister were sunk on the 17th or on the 16th and 17th?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have nothing to add to the information I have given. It would be wrong and dangerous to the public interest to suggest that anybody was desiring to wriggle. I feel bound to say this. I cannot imagine that my hon. Friends would consciously say or do anything to assist the enemy, but I happen to know, and can assure the House, that endeavours to cast doubt upon statements made in this matter are eagerly watched by the enemy, and, further, do give the greatest possible encouragement to him and to his civil population.
    Mr. HOGGE: Do we understand that the only person in this House entitled to give information to the enemy is the Prime Minister?

    NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING YARDS.
    Mr. SCANLANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state where it is proposed to establish the new national shipbuilding yards; what arrangements have been, or are proposed to be, made with the landlords for the lands proposed to be taken for the purposes of such yards; and who are the landlords?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave to the hon. Members for Chippenham and Newcastle-under-Lyme on the 15th November, in which I stated that the new national shipyards are being constructed at Chepstow, Beachley, and Portbury, and that the land required has at present been taken over under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. It is intended that such land as is permanently required shall be purchased under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act. No arrangements have yet been made with the landlords. I am sending my hon. Friend a list of the landlords who are affected.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Committee that recommended these sites to the Admiralty consisted largely of Scottish shipbuilders?
    Mr. JOYCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to place maps of these sites in the Tea Room for the convenience of Members?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will consider that.
    Mr. KING: Will the names of all these landlords be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I imagine there is no objection to that, subject to my hon. Friend's (Mr. Scanlan) agreement. I will alter my promise to send them to him to an undertaking to issue the list with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    [The following is a list of the Landlords referred to by Dr. Macnamara in the last paragraph of his reply.]
    BEACHLEY.
    A.N.S. Nos. 1 and 2.
    Colonel Marling, V.C., C.B.
    Mr. Curre.
    Mrs. Saunders (who owns a cottage). The Standard Shipbuilding Company. The Chepstow Property Company. The Territorial Association.
    Mrs. Anderson.
    Mr. Hartland.
    The Wye Fishery Association.
    PORTBURY.
    A.N.S. No. 3.
    Mrs. Parnell.
    Mrs. Mirehouse.
    Miss Hall.
    The De Winton Estate.
    Miss Fry.
    Mr. W. P. Bridgeman.
    Lady Smyth.

    SERBIA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a document known as the Declaration of Corfu, signed on 7th/20th July, 1917, by Dr. Trumbitch and Mr. Pachitch, the Serbian Prime Minister, has been formally communicated to him by the Serbian Government; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government or the Allies have approved it and expressed their intention of enforcing their war aims accordingly?
    Lord R. CECIL: This document was communicated by the Serbian Government to His Majesty's Minister at Corfu. As to the second part of the question, it is not desirable to say more than that His Majesty's Government received the communication with great interest and sympathy.
    Mr. KING: As this is important, and is practically decisive for the future state of Serbia, may we not know whether the Government supports or discountenances this declaration?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have already said that the Government received the document with great sympathy.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: This document abolishes the independence of Montenegro altogether: was that received with sympathy by the Noble Lord and the Government?
    Lord R. CECIL: The general ideas prevailing is the document was received by the Government with sympathy.

    RUSSIA.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in conjunction with our Allies and America, he will issue a reasoned statement for the guidance and warning of Russia regarding the serious results, both immediate and remote, that are likely to follow if the present chaos is allowed to continue or a separate peace concluded?
    Lord R. CECIL: The question is under consideration.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that the secret treaties published by the present Russian Government reveal that the Allies were committed to aims of vast territorial aggrandisement; and can he state whether the existence of these commitments was the cause of the refusal of the request made by the Kerensky Government for a conference to reconsider war aims?
    Lord R. CECIL: I cannot accept as accurate the suggestion in the first part of the question. Nor is it the fact that M. Kerensky's request was refused.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer state that, at the

    1987
    coming Conference, war aims would not be discussed; and was not that the cause of the Lenin rising, and the failure of M. Kerensky to form a Government?
    Lord R. CECIL: I believe my right hon. Friend did make that statement; but he did not refuse the request made for a conference to discuss war aims. Nor can I allow the suggestion made by the hon. Member to pass that anything of the kind had to do with M. Kerensky's position.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a State document which has been published by the present Russian Government reveals that a director of a British bank was present at a conference of international financiers held at Berne in September last; can he give the name of the director referred to and the bank implicated; and can he state the circumstances under which a passport was granted?
    Mr. R. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the publication in Russian newspapers of an official statement that a meeting was held in Switzerland of international bankers and financiers on 7th September; whether passports were issued for this meeting; whether war aims were discussed at it; and whether it was the subject of any communications between the French and the British Foreign Offices?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have been informed that a statement of the kind indicated has been issued in Petrograd. If any such meeting took place no British subject, so far as I know, took part in it. Certainly no passport was issued to enable him to do so, nor have any communications on the subject passed between the British and French Governments.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the hon. Lord going to make inquiries as to whether the matter is stated correctly, that a British banker did attend this Conference; and can he say whether the name of the banker was censored from the telegram and therefore did not appear?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; I know nothing about the latter part of the question. We have made repeated inquiries about this matter in Switzerland and elsewhere, and the result of those inquiries is what I have already given to the House.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the Noble Lord say whether, in fact, a passport was issued to a director of a British bank about the time of the alleged meeting?
    Lord R. CECIL: I should like notice of that question.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: If the man is discovered will he be prosecuted?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a purely hypothetical question.

    GERMAN FORTIFICATIONS (CEMENT).
    General CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether samples of concrete captured in the Ypres area have been analysed by experts; and, if so, whether such concrete is made from cement of a higher quality than that produced in Belgium; and (2) the President of the Board of Trade whether Belgian cement is of an inferior quality to British cement and is unsuitable for ferro-concrete work; whether for reinforced concrete work such as is used in pill-boxes and other fortifications only the higher grade of cement is of use against modern artillery; and whether he has information as to the extra high quality of the concrete work in German pill-boxes which have recently been captured in the Ypres area?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have made inquiries, and am informed that, as the result of tests and analyses of numerous samples from different factories, the artificial Portland cement manufactured in Belgium is quite equal in quality to the average English product, and equally suitable for making concrete for fortification purposes. There seems no doubt that cement of German and Belgian manufacture is used for the construction of German pill-boxes and other fortifications. In the first place a paper cement sack has been picked up on the field of battle which from the lettering stamped on it clearly comes from Hanover, and in the second the metal label referred to in a letter by Captain Hewetson to the newspapers proves on examination to be from a Belgian factory. On one side it has the words " Cannon Brand Artificial Portland "; on the other, " Burcht, Antwerp." This indicates, I am told, that it comes from the Cannon Brand Artificial Portland Cement Works, of Burght les Anvers, a well-known Belgian

    1989
    cement factory, which was taken over by the German Government before March, 1916. On the other hand, no evidence has yet been discovered that British cement has been used in the German fortifications.
    Mr. BILLING: How can the difference between British and German cement be discovered when once they have been used?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am not sufficient of an expert to answer that question without notice.
    General CROFT: Is the Noble Lord aware that people are under the impression that some of this concrete is made in this country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: How can the Minister of Blockade say what is the impression of certain people?

    KELLNER-PARTINGTON WOOD PULP COMPANY.
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that at a mass meeting of the munition workers at Messrs. Armstrong and Whitworth a strong resolution was passed demanding that the transfer of Kellner-Partington's Company to a foreign syndicate should be stopped, as the sale will have a morally prejudicial effect on munition workers who have made so many sacrifices for the War, and further that the transfer will result in supplying our enemies with munitions and other military necessities; and whether, under these circumstances, he will at once forbid this transfer to this foreign syndicate?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. To the second I have already explained, in answer to questions, all the circumstances of the case, and have nothing I can usefully add.
    Major HUNT: Is there not a perfectly new German invention by which chemical wood pulp can be made to produce high explosives of enormous value to our enemies?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs is not an expert on the manufacture of explosives.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (HONOURS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether
    1990
    he has had under consideration the question of including in the list of Civil servants honoured by His Majesty the King for war services the officers and men employed in His Majesty's dockyards; and if he can make any statement to the House on the subject?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Officers and men employed in His Majesty's dockyards are equally eligible with other servants of the State for appointment to the Order of the British Empire or award of the Medal of that Order, in recognition of their services in connection with the War. I can assure my hon. Friend that when the time comes for recognising the excellent work done by the civil staff serving under the Admiralty during the War, the exceedingly important services rendered by the staff of the dockyards will, of course, not be overlooked.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that time will come?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot answer offhand, except to say that steps are being taken to see that due recognition is given to these men.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of their names appeared in the last list?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think it included any of our employés, but it must not be concluded from that they will be overlooked.

    ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITALS (WAR BONUSES).
    Sir C. KI N LOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a number of male civilian employés at the Royal naval hospitals are not receiving the last war bonus of 3s. a week granted as from the 2nd August, 1917and will he say why these civilian employés are treated in a different manner in this respect to the engineers' and electricians' staff?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is the fact that the employés in question have not received this bonus except where they are engaged in connection with the maintenance and running of the hospital machinery and electrical plant. This is in accordance with Treasury decision.

    DESTROYERS LOST IN NORTH SEA.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked (1) the date, time, and place of the court-martial to be held concerning the loss of the destroyers " Strongbow " and " Mary Rose" and the Norwegian convoy on 17th October; (2) the terms of reference of the courts-martial on the survivors of the destroyers " Strongbow " and " Mary Rose"?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The court-martial to inquire into the loss of the " Mary Rose " will probably be held at Chatham at 10 a.m. on the 3rd December. The court-martial to inquire into the loss of the " Strongbow " has had to be postponed owing to the condition of the commanding officer. The Naval Discipline Act does not admit of a court-martial being held to inquire into the loss of the convoy, but the matter will arise at the courts-martial on the two destroyers. The order to the Court will in each case be in the customary form " to inquire into the cause of the loss of the ship and to try the surviving officers and crew."
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: Will it be a public Court?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say. Power is taken, I think, under the Amended Navy Discipline Act to hear part or the whole of the case privately.
    Commander BELLAIRS: By what authority does the Admiralty act in not holding a public inquiry Is it by an Order in Council; if so, has it been laid upon the Table of the House, in accordance with the Naval Discipline Act?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If my memory does not fail me, one of the War Emergency Acts amended the Naval Discipline Act by including a Section giving the President of the Court and the Admiralty power to hear all or part of a case in private.

    SKILLED WORKMEN (ARMY).
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether representations have been made to him in reference to farriers, plumbers, and other skilled workmen urging that men belonging to these skilled trades now serving in the Army should, as far as possible, be employed in the work for which they are specially fitted; and whether he can give
    1992
    an assurance that steps are being taken by the military authorities to secure this result?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative.

    ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT, DUBLIN.
    Mr. BYRNEasked when it is proposed to place the employés of the Army Ordnance Department in Dublin on an equal footing with Army Ordnance workers in Woolwich?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): It is not proposed to depart from the policy of paying workmen in accordance with the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons.

    GAELIC (COURTS-MARTIAL).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he proposes to make inquiries from the General Officer Commanding the Forces in Ireland into the action of the president of a recent court-martial in Ireland in describing Irish as the language of the Hottentot; whether he proposes to distribute this description of their language amongst the Irish-speaking soldiers of the Connaught Rangers and the Munster Fusiliers and other Gaelic-speaking soldiers at the front; (2) whether it would promote the peace of Ireland to say "I don't care whether he is a Hottentot or a Sinn Feiner," and whether this was purposely meant to convey that the Irish were lower than the. Hottentots; whether tie will explain why the president of the court-martial at Cork on the 17th instant, when an accused person used an expression in Irish, instantly ordered the Court to be cleared; is he aware that, on an accused man answering in Irish when called on to plead, the president said he did not understand the Hottentot language, and will he state whether British officers in Quebec or South Africa are allowed to use offensive terms towards the French and Dutch languages respectively; and what action he proposes to take!
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no information about the matters referred to in these questions.
    Mr. LYNCH: Would the hon. Gentleman try to ascertain this information, on the ground that it tends to help Germany if Irish officials are allowed to call the Irish people Hottentots?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I really do not think it is necessary that I should ask any official to make inquiries. My hon. Friend need not be alarmed. The sanctity of the Irish language will not be affected by the obiter dictum of any man.
    Mr. LUNDON: If information of this kind is supplied to the hon. Gentleman, will he make inquiries?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think it is necessary.
    Mr. MOONEY: As this statement has appeared in all the Irish papers, surely it must have passed the Censor, and is not the War Office prepared to take action?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think so.
    Mr. JOYCE: Is this officer to be allowed to insult the Irish people as he wishes?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As I say, I am as keen about Gaelic as anyone, but I really do not think it necessary to ask officials to make inquiries at the present time.
    Mr. JOYCE: Why not give him a snub?

    TIMBER-CUTTING, JEDBURGH AND KELSO.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that cutting of timber trees is proceeding in the neighbourhood of Jedburgh and Kelso under the orders of Government, and that the useless branches are being burnt on the ground, whereas there are many women householders and others in and outwith those burghs who are prevented by the police from taking those branches home to use as firewood, and who would be glad if it could be arranged that they might take them away and so make a saving in coal and money; and whether steps will be taken to enable this saving to be made?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle):
    I have been asked to reply to this question. I am making inquiries, and will acquaint my hon. Friend with the result.
    Sir J. JARDINE: Does the hon. Gentleman know that on another Lord's estates, near Jedburgh, those of Lord Lothian, the women were invited very kindly to come and take away the useless branches?
    Mr. WARDLE: I was not aware of that, but I thank it is very possible, and it shows much public spirit.

    ITALIAN NEWS (CENSORSHIP).
    Mr. KINGasked why all information concerning the events which took place in Turin and elsewhere in Italy on 21st August, 1917, and following days was suppressed by the Censor?
    Colonel CRAIG (Treasurer of the Household): The Press Bureau have examined their records for the period from 23rd August to 17th September, and cannot find that any message on the subject was stopped by them.

    VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS (HOURS OF WORK).
    Mr. T. DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the condition under, and hours, which some of the Voluntary Aid Detachments work in military hospitals; will he cause inquiries to be made; and if he finds that the conditions in some cases are such as to be detrimental to the health and well-being of these young women, will he have the matter remedied?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Nursing members of the Voluntary Aid Detachments in Military hospitals work according to the timetable for regular military nurses (Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service). I will circulate this time-table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the time-table referred to:

    STAFF NURSES' TIME-TABLE.

    6.30 a.m.

    Called.

    7 a.m.

    Breakfast

    7.30 a.m.

    Wards.

    9 a.m.

    Light lunch, and dress.

    9.30 a.m.

    Wards.

    12.30 p.m.

    Lunch.

    4 or 5 p.m.

    Tea.

    Half a day every week from 2 to 10.
    A whole day every month from 6 p.m. previous day to 10 p.m. following day.

    STAFF NURSES ON NIGHT DUTY.
    Hours-from 8 p.m. to 7.30 a.m.
    A night off once a month.
    Two months' consecutive duty.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      TIME-EXPIRED MEN.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will have a settlement made immediately of the case of Private H. Mond, No. 203,691, C Company, 4th East Lancashire Regiment, a time-expired man of over forty-two years of age, it having been stated that instructions had been given for the discharge of the soldier to be carried out forthwith; that representations were made by the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 27th October that the man had been sent home pending his discharge and had been offered employment which he could not take because his discharge certificate had not been sent, and this discharge certificate has not yet been sent and the man is still unemployed?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am having inquiries made, and will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: As this matter has been under consideration for a long time, will the hon. Gentleman accelerate it?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly.

      3RD SOUTHERN NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will have inquiry made into the complaints about the conduct of the second lieutenant E. L. Smith, commanding the 3rd Southern Non-Combatant Corps at Durrington Camp, Larkhill, who, since he took charge of this company, has persistently carried out a policy of irritation, his latest act being to
      1996
      order the searching of kit bags of the men and their personal belongings and their private correspondence; and among other orders he issues, which are not imposed in any other company, are the maintenance of the summer practice of washing and wet-scrubbing huts, the consequence of which is that their huts often remain in a damp state for two or three days; and also his practice of making all available men parade at 6.10 a.m. for route march on empty stomachs, this being the only company on Salisbury Plain where this practice is followed?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: A full report has been called for, and on its receipt I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      40. Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Private Alan G. McDougall, No. 6,634, 3rd Reserve London Regiment, is now at Blackdown Camp awaiting court-martial; whether he is aware that Private McDougall has already been sentenced three times by courts-martial as a conscientious objector; whether, in view of the statement of the Secretary of State for War against successive punishments, the same treatment will be given to Private McDougall as to Private Scott Duckers; and whether he will be set at liberty?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries are being made in this case, and I will let my hon. Friend know the result.

      RECRUIT TRAINING (BADGES)
      Mr. WILESasked whether it is proposed to give any recognition in the shape of a badge or a medal to those members of police forces who, being old non-commissioned officers, were lent to the Army in 1914-16 for the purpose of training recruits and who have now returned to police duty?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The suggestion made by my right hon. Friend will not be lost sight of when the general question of the recognition, if any, of such services is considered.

      EAST AFRICA (TREATMENT OF GERMANS).
      Colonel YATEasked whether the only Germans interned in East Africa are the military men who have been captured,

      1997
      and that all other Germans, men, women, and children, are allowed to live in their own houses, to go on running their own shops, and to go about as they like, except that they have to be home by 6 p.m.; and, if so, whether steps will now be taken to clear Germans out of the country?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The whole question is under consideration. Negotiations are pending regarding the removal of all alien enemies from the region mentioned.

      GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
      Mr. BILLINGasked whether the Government has sanctioned the practice instituted at Donington Hall of allowing German prisoners of war periods of leave; whether parole is taken on these occasions; and, if not, whether they are accompanied by any guard?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Sanction has never been granted for periods of leave. The last two parts of my hon. Friend's question do not therefore arise.

      ARMY MOTOR TRANSPORTS.
      37. Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that within the last few weeks forty-three new Army motor transports passed through Doncaster on their way to Edinburgh empty; that they were subsequently handed over to the Manchester Command and were again dispatched empty; whether he is aware that they were subsequently dispatched from Manchester to Aldershot, again empty, when it was discovered they were required in Edinburgh, and that they were then dispatched from Aldershot to Edinburgh again empty; and whether he will say who is responsible for this waste of some 2,500 gallons of petrol and the loss of labour and transport facilities thus occasioned?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: This matter has already been brought to notice, and is being inquired into. I will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as I am in a position to do so.

      ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
      Mr. GILBERTasked whether the rule that officers and men are not to be
      1998
      sent overseas until they reach the age of nineteen years applies to the Royal Flying Corps?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; the Royal Flying Corps was particularly exempted by an Army Council Instruction of 8th December, 1916. It was found impracticable to apply the rule to this branch of the Service owing to the fact that a large number of the best pilots begin their training at the age of eighteen and become proficient and fully qualified long before they reach the age of nineteen.

      SOLDIERS' DEATH PENALTY.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked how many men have been executed by orders of courts-martial who had previously been in hospital in consequence of shell-shock?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: This information is not available.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that boards of guardians are refusing to provide relief to dependants of soldiers who have been executed by orders of courts. martial; and can he say how many dependants have been left by these men?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am not aware that boards of guardians have refused to grant relief in the cases to which he refers. Some boards of guardians have, however, passed a resolution asking that pensions should be paid in these cases, thus removing the obligation of the guardians to give relief. I have no information as to the latter part of the question.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such cases have come up and been discussed by boards of guardians, and that at least in one case relief has been refused; and can he take steps to prevent such a discussion and such a decision?
      Mr. FISHER: A discussion has come up before some boards of guardians in some of these cases. but this is a question whether or not we should give pensions and other rights to widows and children of deserters, and whether, as a matter of policy, we should put them on exactly the

      1999
      same footing as the widows of those who have died honourably in the service of their country.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: When the right hon. Gentleman is coming to a decision on this matter, will he bear in mind that some of these men have been executed shortly after having been in hospital for shell-shock?
      Mr. FISHER: I do not believe there is any ground whatever for that assertion.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
      Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the fact that many Territorial officers are being refused the wound gratuity on the ground that their wounds were not severe, although all the medical reports at the time of the casualty and the telegrams to the relatives described the wounds as severe; is he aware that there is a feeling that such treatment is meted out only to Territorial officers and not to officers in the Regular Army; and will he see that all officers of the forces are put on an equal footing in this respect?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of any such feeling. All officers are on an equal footing in this respect.
      Mr. WATT: The hon. Member has not answered the first part of the question, which is the main part.
      Mr. FORSTER: The main part was whether or not any distinction or difference was made as between Territorial and Regular officers. With regard to the first part of the question, gratuities are not payable in respect of wounds which are certified as severe only. My hon. Friend will find in the pay warrant that the gratuities are only payable in respect of very severe wounds.
      Mr. G. FABER: Who decided whether
      they are severe or very severe?
      Mr. FORSTER: The medical authorities.
      Mr. T. WILSON: The medical authorities where the officer is stationed or the central authorities?
      Mr. FORSTER: Various medical authorities. If there is any question it comes to the medical authorities at the War Office.

      MESOPOTAMIA EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (SOLDIERS' PAY).
      Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that soldiers in Mesopotamia have, in many instances, had to telegraph home for money in order to keep them going in the ordinary wants of a soldier; can he say whether this is due to his Department not paying the men regularly; and has he now seen this matter remedied?
      Mr. FORSTER: No such complaints have reached me, but the payment of soldiers in Mesopotamia is a question for the India Office.

      MR. KEIR HARDIE.
      45. Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the desire to create a democratic sentiment in this House, some steps will be taken to honour the memory of the late Mr. Keir Hardie, and to call attention not only to his Parliamentary work but also to his devotion to democratic ideals throughout his Life , and whether, accordingly, some fitting memorial will be erected in this Douse to typify the phase of national endeavour which he represented?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Those who, like myself, were colleagues of the late Mr. Keir Hardie, entertained, I am sure, a great respect for his sincerity and honesty, but I see no reason for adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member.

      INVENTIONS BOARDS.
      Major DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether steps have yet been taken for the more effective co-ordination of the various boards and bodies concerned with invention; and whether the promise that this matter should be considered has as yet resulted in diminution of the number of different boards that were concerned with this matter?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The question is one of great complexity, involving many important considerations, and it has not yet been found possible to arrive at any final conclusion

      GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (IRELAND).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister when Government employés in Ireland will be placed on an equal footing with Government employés doing similar work in Great Britain?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I have been asked to reply, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to his questions on this subject on the 12th March and 1st November.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      PROSECUTIONS.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to prosecutions in which traders and others have been found guilty of deliberate evasion of the restriction of food prices; whether he is aware that various groups of farmers have withheld milk supplies from all, including invalids and children, owing to a maximum price being fixed by a local food control committee, and, in view of the hurt done to the nation by food gambling and profiteering, whether it is proposed to take any steps by disfranchisement or otherwise, to express the public disapproval of those who have been guilty of these practices during the War?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I have been asked to reply. Traders and others found guilty of evading food regulations are punished by fine or imprisonment. Supplies improperly withheld are made the subject of requisition. It is thought that these methods of expressing public disapproval are sufficiently appropriate.
      Mr. ANDERSON:Are we to understand that men who have used the chance of war to plunder people are going to retain undiminished the rights of citizenship?
      Mr. CLYNES: I did not understand that my hon. Friend was in any circumstances in favour of disfranchisement.

      FOOD PROBLEM (DEBATE).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked whether, in view of the increasing gravity of the food problem and the need for further drastic steps being taken, he will assign a day
      2002
      for the discussion of this question, in order that the Food Controller may have the assistance and guidance of this House?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a discussion of this subject at present.
      Mr. ANDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position in regard to this matter is going to be very serious indeed, and does he not think that, under these circumstances, a discussion with suggestion in the House of Commons would be entirely to the good or is it going to be left entirely to an official bureaucracy?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite realise the seriousness of this problem both now and perhaps still more in the future. What I said was that I do not think a discussion at this moment would be helpful, but, of course, in this matter, I am entirely in the hands of the House, and if there should he a general desire I shall try to find time.
      Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent statement of the Food Controller threatening to institute compulsory rationing is causing prices to rise on account of the hoarding which is taking place?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that, and I am sceptical about it; but, in any case, it is the fact that we do look upon compulsory rations as something that may become necessary, and there is no harm in saying so.
      Mr. LYNCH: Is the the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the " Daily Mail," people are starving at the Ritz at the present moment?

      HIGH PRICES.
      Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement in the " National Food Journal " for 14th November, page 81, which attributes the high prices of food to the fact that currency is multiplied faster than the supply of commodities; whether, having regard to the fact that the Government control currency and also the issue of food, this contains a reflection on the Administration; and whether he will state that the Government is prepared to so adjust currency, supply, and distribution to keep the prices of the essentials of life within the scope of the wages of the working classes?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have seen the statement referred to. I can only repeat that, as I have stated several times in this House, the relation of currency to prices receives the constant attention of His Majesty's Government.

      SUGAR.
      Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in September last, a large number of sailors proceeding home on leave from a squadron which had escorted a convoy from America brought on shore with them at Devonport a large quantity of sugar which they had privately purchased in Nova Scotia, some men having as much as 56 lbs.; whether the Customs authorities at Devonport refused to admit the sugar duty free and refused also to accept duty for it as the incident occurred on a Saturday afternoon, and that in consequence of this attitude many thousands of pounds of sugar were thrown on to the refuse heap; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the matter, with a view to preventing a similar waste occurring again?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The importation of sugar has, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, been prohibited for more than three years, except under licence, and sugar brought into the country without licence has, at the request of the Royal Commission on Sugar, been seized by the Customs and added to the stock available for general consumption. The destruction of the sugar referred to was the act of the sailors themselves. The Customs authorities were in no way parties to it. I understand that the Sugar Commission have since authorised the Board of Customs and Excise to waive enforcement of the prohibition in such cases.

      CALF ORDER.
      Sir J. SPEARasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if, in consequence of the price of veal, the best calves are being bought for slaughter; and, in view of this, will he consider the desirability of immediately renewing the Calf Order?
      Mr. CLYNES: I have been asked to reply. The Food Controller is considering the desirability of issuing an Order restricting the slaughter of calves.

      DREDGE CORN ORDER.
      Sir J. SPEARasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if the Order preventing the use of dredge corn for feeding cattle, for which purpose it is grown, will increase the shortage of beef, mutton, and pork; and will he endeavour to get the embargo withdrawn?
      Mr. CLYNES: I am aware that the Dredge Corn Order aggravates the difficulty of feeding stock. It is, however, of paramount importance that grain fit for human consumption should, so far as possible, be reserved for that purpose. Grain unsaleable for milling can, of course, be fed to animals.

      WAR SAVINGS COMMITTEE (ADVERTISEMENTS).
      Mr. PRINGLEasked whether instructions have been given to the War Savings Committee and other similar Government Committees which insert advertisements in the Press, to place or Withhold such advertisements on account of the editorial opinion and conduct of the Newspapers affected; and, if so, will he state precisely what the instructions are?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that if such advertisements are withdrawn there is nobody in particular responsible and no general principle on which action is taken?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The question of advertisements raised by the hon. Member were, I presume, War Loan advertisements.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it the case that advertisements have been withdrawn on other than business grounds from periodicals which were recommended by the advertisement expert of the War Savings Committee?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It might very well arise that advertisements would be withdrawn on other than business grounds.
      Commander WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is fair to use his position to injure the advertisement circulation of a newspaper which

      2005
      does not come into contact with the Government adversely, and which is, I am informed, one of the best weekly newspapers of the kind?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have looked at some of the numbers referred to, and certainly it would be the last paper to which I,should send an advertisement for the sale of War Loan.
      Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Would it not be better, if a newspaper publishes a statement against the interests of the country, to take legal proceedings, instead of this petty persecution?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not a petty persecution. The advertisements are issued for the purpose of selling War Loan, and if an advertisement in any periodical is not likely to have that effect the money is wasted.
      Mr. PRINGLEasked whether the advertising expert to the War Savings Committee recommended the insertion of advertisements in the " Cambridge Magazine "; whether, in spite of this advice, advertisements are now withheld by the Committee from this journal on account of the views which it is said to support; if so, at whose instance has this action been taken; and who acts as censor for this purpose on behalf of the Government or the War Savings Committee?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave on the 12th November to a question by the hon. and learned Member for York and the supplementary questions thereto.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that the action taken is due to the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman of the opinions of that paper?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No. If the hon. Member will look at the answer, he will see that I state that I took no action whatever in the matter. The only action I could have taken would have been to reverse the decision of the War Savings Committee.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that the War Savings Committee on their own initiative overturned the view of their advertising expert as to the value of this periodical as an advertising medium?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; the hon. Member must assume nothing of the kind. I have no knowledge that our advertising agent had considered it.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that in the first instance the Government did advertise in this paper?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That does not prevent any business man from changing his mind.

      ARMY AND NAVY OFFICERS' PAY (JUNIOR RANK).
      Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement as regards the increased pay of officers of junior rank; whether he is aware that, having regard to the existing cost of living, the present rate of pay is insufficient for them to meet the obligations occasioned by their status; whether he is aware that in numerous cases young officers have been obliged to incur liabilities which they are unable to meet to retain their status; and, if the Government are unable to increase the pay of these officers, whether they are prepared to make a war bonus, the amount of which shall be governed by the duration of service?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As I said in answer to a similar question on Monday, I expect to be able to make a statement on this subject before the end of the Session.
      Mr. BILLING: Before the right hon. Gentleman makes that statement, will he consider the position of these officers, some of whom have a wife and five or six children, and have to keep up a certain position which is utterly impossible on the pay they get; and will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving them a bonus to meet the liabilities incurred and which many of them are unable to meet?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: In the existing circumstances under which our Army is serving there are many cases where the hardship to junior officers is far greater than in the case of privates, and it is for that reason that we are considering the question.
      Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman let his proposals become effective without undue delay? Is he aware that if this were a question of labour and a strike was threatened it would be settled within a week?

      AIR SERVICES (NEW UNIFORM).
      Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that it is the intention to introduce a new uniform for the Air Services as and when the existing naval and military uniforms were worn out; and, under these circumstances, will he say whether it is intended that during the interregnum there will simultaneously be three official uniforms for the Air Service?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the AIR BOARD (Major Baird): The position will be as indicated in the second part of the hon. Member's question. Any other system would be extravagant, and would involve difficulties of supply which will be avoided by a gradual change over from the existing to the new uniforms.
      Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that a grant will be made to officers to enable them to get this uniform or will they have to buy it out of their own pocket?
      Major BAIRD: I must ask for notice of that question.

      SMALL HOLDINGS (SOLDIERS AND SAILORS)
      Major HUNTasked whether the proposal announced recently by the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture as to the Government purchasing about. 1,500,000 acres from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the purpose of providing our sailors and soldiers with land and small holdings is to be proceeded with at once; and if he will say when legislation for this purpose will be brought in?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey):No such statement as that referred to was made by the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, but the whole question of the settlement of sailors and soldiers on the land is under the consideration of the Government, and an announcement in the matter will be made as soon as possible.
      Major HUNT: Can the hon. Gentleman say why this statement appeared in the " Daily Chronicle "?
      Sir R. WINFREY: No; I cannot.

      FREE PASSAGES TO DOMINIONS(SOLDIERS AND SAILORS).
      Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to give free passages to those of the men who have served outside the United Kingdom in this War under the Admiralty and the War Office who may desire to migrate to one of the Dominions?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the previous replies on this subject.
      Major HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is going to do anything about these men going abroad? Is he going to do anything to find them work, and can he say whether he is going to give them a free passage or not?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend must not assume that he is the only person interested in that subject. It is being discussed as thoroughly as it can be by a Government Committee, and this is not simply a question of a free passage.

      WAR AIMS COMMITTEE.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that speakers employed by the War Aims Committee refuse to answer any question addressed to them from the audience and state that in doing so they are acting under instructions; and will he take steps to have this embargo removed, so that full advantage may be taken of the knowledge possessed by these persons and their mission be made more fully effective?
      Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary. Secretary to the Treasury): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. War aims speakers are, and have been, always ready to reply as far as they are able to questions relating to War aims. The War Aims Committee has, however, requested their speakers not to enter into discussion upon any subject of a controversial and partisan character.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give instructions to the speakers that they are not to hide their own ignorance by making the statement that they are forbidden to answer questions?

      COURTS-MARTIAL.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the French Government has issued an order that, in the case of a private being brought before a court-martial, one of the members of the Court shall be a private; and will he take steps for a similar provision to be made in the British Army?
      Mr. MACPHERSON:The hon. Member's suggestion would require legislation, and it is not proposed to adopt it.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the Government take any steps similar to those taken by the French Government to mitigate the severity of the law and limit the number of executions?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know exactly what the French Government has done; but I am satisfied that the treatment in connection with courts-martial in this country has always been regarded as satisfactory.

      SUPREME WAR COUNCIL.
      Mr. KINGasked whether the Allied War Council in Versailles is empowered to consider the financial and economic claims of the various Allied Governments as to finance, munitions, food, transport, and other support; whether the Allied War Council is considering this aspect of a united war policy; and whether means are being taken to prevent competition and overlapping in the financial and economic spheres
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to all parts of the question is in the affirmative.

      SUPREME WAR COUNCIL (LORD CHIEF JUSTICE).
      Mr. R. LAMBERTasked whether Lord Reading is still engaged upon special war financial work; and when he will resume his duties as Lord Chief Justice of England?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As the hon. Member will have seen in this morning's Press, Lord Reading, at the request of the Prime Minister and myself, has accompanied the members of the British Government on their visit in connection with the impending meeting of the
      2010
      Supreme War Council. This work, which is temporary, would not prevent Lord Reading from fulfilling his duties as Lord Chief Justice.
      Mr. WATT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman receive his salary for administering justice in England?

    ENEMY AIR RAIDS.

      GOVERNMENT SCHEME OF INSURANCE.
      Sir HAROLD ELVERSTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the contingency of loss of rent through damage caused by enemy aircraft is covered by the Government scheme of insurance against damage by enemy aircraft; and, if not, whether arrangements will be made to cover this loss?
      Mr. WARDLE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Loss of rent can be insured against under the insurance scheme, but is not covered by the free compensation scheme.
      Sir H. ELVERSTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the Government scheme of insurance against damage by enemy aircraft, the sum of £500 is the total amount of free compensation an owner can recover, no matter how many losses are sustained or whether this sum of £500 applies to losses sustained within a fixed period?
      Mr. WARDLE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Each case of damage is dealt with separately on its merits, and if it comes within the terms of the Compensation Scheme compensation would be payable, whether the owner had been compensated in respect of previous raids or not.

      INCOME TAX (NAVAL OFFICERS).
      Mr. HOHLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that chief petty officers and other officers of the Navy are being assessed to Income Tax on the allowance made them for food and lodging in cases in which they are not victualled on the Navy; whether there is anything to justify this in the Income Tax Acts; if so, will he take steps to alter the law; and, if not, will he direct the practice to cease and order a refund of the moneys improperly demanded?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The money allowances to which my hon. and learned Friend refers are chargeable to Income Tax equally with the rest of the emoluments of these officers. I would remind him of the general principle of the law that allowances in money are chargeable to Income Tax, whereas allowances in kind are not so chargeable, and I could not undertake to introduce legislation modifying this principle.
      Mr. HOHLER: Does not my right hon. Friend realise the great injustice of this, and will he take steps to increase the allowance?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I did my best, when I examined the matter, to look into the question of reductions. It is not a simple matter. The money spent on food is part of the regular salary of these officers.

    MUNITIONS.
      WORKERS (INCREASED WAGES).

        STATEMENT BY MR. CHURCHILL.
        Colonel F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
        (1) the estimated cost of the 12½ per cent. advance recently given to skilled engineers by the order of the Minister of Munitions; if steps will be taken to show in a separate item in the accounts presented to Parliament the actual additional cost of such advances and the further cost of the advance if extended to other classes;
        (2) the Minister of Munitions the additional annual expenditure involved in the recent advance of 12½ per cent. to skilled engineers engaged on munitions work, and what further expenditure would arise if this Order were extended to semi-skilled and unskilled men; (3) the Minister of Labour whether any tendency has been shown among men on munition works employed on piece-work systems to transfer to time rates as the result of the advance of 12½ per cent. given to certain time-workers by the recent Order of the Minister of Munitions; (4) the number of men affected by the recent Order of the Minister of Munitions giving an advance of 12½ per cent. in the engineering trade and the additional numbers who would be affected if it were extended to semiskilled and unskilled men engaged on munition works; and whether the advance which has already been granted by the new
        2012
        Order of the Minister of Munitions was made after consultation with or on the advice of the Ministry of Labour?
        The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Churchill): I will answer the various questions on this subject together.
        Colonel F. HALL: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether it would not be in the best interests that separate questions put to separate Ministers should be answered by the different Ministers?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend, who has courteously postponed these questions until to-day will permit me to take what I think is the convenient course of giving a comprehensive answer to all these questions.
        The decision to abolish the leaving certificate made it necessary to readjust the wages of skilled time-workers in munition factories, who otherwise would have been led to move in large numbers to the more highly paid though in many cases less skilled forms of repetition piece work, with consequent wholesale disorganisation of munitions work. This was fully explained to the House before the Autumn Recess. At the beginning of the recess a Committee was appointed, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham City, to report upon the extent and method of the increase of time-workers' wages. All the Government Departments concerned were represented on this Committee, including the Ministry of Labour and the Admiralty, as well as representatives of the employers' advisory committee and of the trade unions' advisory committee. The question was brought before the War Cabinet early in October, prior to the date fixed for the abolition of the leaving certificate. In the result the War Cabinet decided to grant the 12½ per cent. advance on a wide basis to skilled time-workers, and the Ministry of Munitions accordingly issued the Order of 13th October. It was always intended by the War Cabinet. that a similar Order should be made in regard to the shipyards, and the original estimates of cost submitted to the Cabinet by the Ministry of Munitions covered both the skilled engineers and moulders and skilled shipyard workers. This decision covers approximately 300,000 men, and the conse-

        2013
        quent increase in the cost of production which falls indirectly upon the State was estimated at £6,500,000.
        Mr. BILLING: A year?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: A year of war. It was always foreseen that this settlement of what was known as the " skilled man's grievance " would undoubtedly lead to requests from the semi-skilled and unskilled time-workers who, under the restrictions prevailing when the leaving certificate was in force in the munitions works, had been prevented from obtaining the more lucrative forms of piece-work, and whose wages through the artificial conditions of the War had fallen below the pre-war ratio between time and piece rates. In consequence, after further full consideration by War Cabinet Conferences, attended not only by all the Government Departments concerned but by representatives of the employers, the War Cabinet decided to extend the 12½ per cent. advance to all time-workers on engineering work, on munitions, and in the shipyards. This further advance covers an additional 600,000 men, and adds an additional £7,500,000 to the annual cost of production. In the aggregate the two decisions of the War Cabinet therefore affect approximately 900,000 men at an ultimate cost of about £14,000,000. This is necessarily a preliminary estimate, and the actual application of the advance will require to be considered in detail.
        In reply to the latter part of Question 70, it would not be possible to show in a separate item in the accounts presented to Parliament the additional expense, as the Government does not bear the cost directly. In reply to Question 149, there is at present no general tendency for men to leave piece-work for time-work as a result of this advance.
        It remains to be seen whether these very substantial advances, involving serious cost to the State, will be accepted in the spirit in which they have been made by the Government, namely, that of loyal and earnest co-operation for the vital objects of the War. The House in considering these matters should realise fully that not only is output of munitions steadily increasing in volume and in quality, but that the efficiency both of the labour and the machinery employed on munitions has for some time been showing similar progressive improvement.
        Colonel HALL: May I ask whether, owing to this increase, there has been any increase in the output of work, whether the Minister of Labour agreed to this proposition, and whether the Employers' Federation were represented at the meeting at which this advance was agreed upon?
        Mr. REDDY:Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, could he state, for the information of the House, what is the difference between the salary of one of these skilled engineers and that of some of the colonels in this House?
        Mr. CHURCHILL:I have given a very good account of all the process of discussion by which these decisions were arrived at, and the hon and gallant Gentleman may rest assured that all the parties concerned had full opportunity of expressing their views before any of the decisions were taken. There has not been time to see the effect of this upon output, but I have mentioned, and I think it is a very relevant point, that the efficiency per man or per woman of those employed on munitions work, measured by output, is undergoing a process of increase, and that the increasing of the wages must be regarded in the light of that very important fact.
        Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not a fact that the differential treatment of time-workers as compared with piece-workers, as the result of the system previously prevailing, has been a continuous source of discontent, sometimes leading to strikes, and that the changes introduced by the right hon. Gentleman are likely to put an end to all that discontent?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, those were the powerful causes which have induced separate and successive authorities who have considered this matter to take the serious action that we have taken.
        Mr. BILLING: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to meet the aircraft workers in the same way?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: That is an entirely different strike, I understand. It is not about wages at all, but is on different aspects of labour questions altogether.
        Colonel HALL: Is the House to understand that £14,500,000 or thereabouts will cover the whole cost of these, increased wages?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: I dealt very fully with all these matters in my answer, which I weighed very carefully, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will study it.
        Mr. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these increases have had anything to do with the present unrest among railway men and their demand for higher wages?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, I am certain that they have had nothing to do with that matter. There have been various wages movements which have acted and reacted upon each other, but these increases are of much too recent a date to have operated in regard to the request put forward by the railwaymen now and some weeks earlier.
        Sir TUDOR WALTERSasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that in many of the controlled firms in the Sheffield area numbers of workpeople employed at weekly wages have not participated in the increases of wages granted during the War to certain sections of the workers; and whether he will take steps to have this hardship removed?
        Mr. KELLAWAY (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars specifying the establishments and the classes of workpeople referred to,
        I will have inquiries made.

        MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (STAFF).
        Mr. T. DAVIESasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has effected a reduction in the staff of his Department since he took office; by what number the staff has been reduced in women and men, respectively; and by what amount the monthly wage bill is reduced thereby?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given personal attention to the numbers of the staff of the Ministry since assuming office, and I have instituted a procedure which will,I trust, secure that an efficient system, both of criticism of new appointments and of periodical review of existing appointments, should be in operation. But the fact that the work of the Ministry is continually expanding with the growing output of munitions and that new war services of an increasingly complex character are frequently added, has prevented any actual reduction on the total numbers. On the
        2016
        contrary, though in certain cases changes have been made, or are in contemplation which have resulted, and will result in savings, other changes, notably those connected with the settlement of financial arrears, aeronautical supply, mechanical and chemical warfare, have necessitated increases, which more than counterbalance the reductions. Every effort will continue to be made to avoid redundant or extravagant staffing, but the variety and volume of the output of war material will continue to be the dominant factor.

        SALE OF HORSES ORDER
        Sir J. SPEARasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will consider the advisability of the withdrawal of the restrictions of the sale of agricultural horses, but providing that such horses shall not be removed out of the county?
        Sir R. WINFREY: The provisions of the Sale of Horses Order have the effect of securing a proper distribution of horses between agriculture and the essential industries and of retaining an adequate supply of them for farm work. The Board do not consider it advisable to withdraw the Order at the present time.

        STRAWBERRY PLANTATIONS.
        Mr. HIGHAMasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has sanctioned the Instruction issued by the executive officer of the Herefordshire war agricultural executive committee to the effect that any land planted with strawberries subsequent to 1st September, 1917, is to be ploughed up and planted with corn, roots, or potatoes; if he considers that the national interests are served by this proposed destruction of plants and consequent waste of labour and money involved both in the worn. of planting and the work of destruction; and if he will countermand the Instruction so given?
        Sir R. WINFREY: The board agree that the Instruction referred to is open to objection, and they are issuing a memorandum to all agricultural executive committees on the point. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of it.

        CURRENCY NOTES.
        Mr. D. MASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the continuous, and in many cases jusifiable, demands by employés for an advance of wages, owing to the increased cost of living, he will take steps to limit or contract the issue of Treasury currency notes, which now amounts to £195,000,000, and is one of the principal contributing causes of the ever-increasing rise in the prices of commodities?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for North Somerset on the 24th October.
        Mr. MASONrose
        Mr. SPEAKER: We have only five minutes left, and we are not yet half-way through the questions on the Paper.

      COMPULSORY CLOSING OF SHOPS.

        CHRISTMAS SUSPENSION.
        Mr. BENTHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now give his decision as to whether he will suspend the Compulsory Closing Order from 17th to 24th December, inclusive, thus following last year's precedent?
        Sir G. CAVE: I have decided to suspend the Order from Monday, the 17th, to Monday, the 24th December, both days inclusive.

        VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS.
        Mr. T. DAVIESasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the condition under which some of the Voluntary Aid Detachments are working in some public institutions; whether young girls in many cases have been doing night-work continuously for many months to the detriment of their health; and whether he has any power to put the Factory Acts in operation in such cases, so as to ensure those young women fair conditions under which to work?
        Sir G. CAVE: The Factory Acts do not apply to the employment of members of Voluntary Aid Detachments on nursing or -domestic work in public institutions. I would suggest that if the hon. Member has
        2018
        information to show that in any instances the conditions are detrimental to health he should communicate with the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance Committee.

BILLS PRESENTED.
CHEQUERS ESTATE BILL,--" to confirm and give effect to a deed of settlement relating to the Chequers Estate and other property; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER; supported by Sir Alfred Mond and Mr. Baldwin; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (IRELAND) BILL,-" to amend the Education (Provision of Meals) (Ireland) Acts, 1914 and 1916," presented by Mr. DUKE; supported by the Solicitor-General for Ireland; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir DANIEL GODDARDreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Archdale, Sir John Barran, Sir William Beale, Mr. Boyton, Mr. Burns, Mr. Chancellor, Sir Stephen Collins, Sir William Collins, Mr Dickinson, Mr. Dillon, Sir George Green wood, Mr. Hanson, Major Hills, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Hugh Law, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Mr. Charles Roberts, Mr. Aneurin Williams, and Mr. Tyson Wilson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Adamson, Captain Barnston, Colonel Clive, General Colvin, Mr. Denman, Mr. FitzPatrick, Major Hayward, Mr. Hicks Beach, Mr. Hinds, Mr. Lindsay, Mr. Lynch. Mr. Mallalieu, Mr. Nolan, Mr. George Peel, Mr. Charles Price, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Yeo.
Sir DANIEL GODDARDfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the National Health Insurance Bill): Mr. Butcher, Sir Edwin Cornwall, Mr. Currie, Mr. Falconer, Mr. Field, Major Goldsmith, Mr. Hackett, Mr. Hogge, Mr. Glyn-Jones, Mr. MacCaw, Mr. Morton, Mr. Peto, Mr. Pratt, Colonel Stirling, and Mr. Thomas.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. ASQUITH: May I ask the Leader of the House whether it is proposed that the House should sit on Friday, and, if so, what business will be taken on that day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: After consultation with my Noble Friend (Lord Edmund Talbot) we have come to the conclusion that it would not be worth while to sit on Friday, provided that the Report stage

  FIRST SCHEDULE.

  PART II—AMENDMENTS OF THE ARMY ACT.

  Section of Act.

  Amendments.

  176

  After Sub-Section (1) the following Sub-section shall be inserted:—

  "(1 A) All airmen of the Air Force who are attached or lent to the regular forces, subject,
  however, to the modifications contained in this Act."

  184 A

  The following Sub-section shall be inserted after Sub-section (1):—

  "(1A) Where an officer or non-commissioned officer of the Air Force is a member of a body of
  His Majesty's Air Force acting with any body of His Majesty's military forces under such
  conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Army Council and the Air Council,
  then, for the purposes of command and discipline, and for the purposes of the provisions of this
  Act relating. to superior officers, he shall, in relation, to such body of His Majesty's
  military forces as aforesaid, be treated, and have all such powers (other than powers of
  punishment), as if he were a military officer or non-commissioned officer, as the case may
  be."

  Lords Amendment: In paragraph on Section 176 of Army Act, leave out the words "or lent."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is due to the House that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should give some explanation of the Amendments introduced by the Lords. After the very long attention we gave to the Bill, we should have some explanation of the changes that have been made in another place.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the,AIR BOARD (Major Baird): This is a purely drafting Amendment. I did intend to explain the subsequent one.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In paragraph on Section 184 A of Army Act, at end, insert the words:
  2056
  of the Representation of the People Bill is completed to-morrow. If it should not be completed to-morrow, we should sit on Friday to complete it.
  Mr. ASQUITH: That does not include the recommittal?
  Mr. BONARLAW: No, Sir, just the Report stage.

  AIR FORCE BILL.
  Motion made and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.
  "Provided that under Regulations made by the Army Council and Air Council the officers and airmen of a body of the Air Force acting with any body of His Majesty's military forces on active service, or any such officers or airmen may, in such manner and in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be provided by or under those Regulations, be made subject to military law, and in such case they shall be subject thereto in like manner as if they were officers and air, men attached to the Army."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Major BAIRD: This and a subsequent Amendment to the paragraph on Section 84 of the Army Act are the only Amendments
  that are not of a purely drafting character. The purpose of these two

  2057
  Amendments is to enable the Air Council to apply military law to any body of the Air Force when it is serving with the Army, in the event of its being necessary, having regard to local conditions. Hon. Members will realise that that might become necessary in a case such as this: An Air Force man falls ill anti is put in a military hospital. He is, in fact, under Air Force law, and he cannot be dealt with by the Army. In cases of that sort it might be desirable to put him under military law. If you had a very large body of the Air Force serving with a very small force of the Army the same action might be desirable in the opposite direction.

  SECOND SCHEDULE

    PART I. — GENERAL MODIFICATIONS
    Subject to the specific modifications made in Part II. of this Schedule the Army Act shall apply with respect to the Air Force with the substitution of the

    TABLE.

    Terms in Army Act.

    Substituted Terms.

    "Army Act "

    Air Force Act.

    "Army Conncil "

    Air Council.

    "regular forces, "or" His Majesty's regular forces "

    regular air force.

    PART II.—SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS.
    The provisions of the Army Act mentioned in the first column of the following table shall be modified or excepted as

    Section of Army Act.

    Modification or Exception.

    32

    "air or military" shall be inserted before "forces" wherever that word occurs.

    175

    The following Sub-section shall be inserted after Sub-section (1):—

    "(1 A) Any officer of the naval or military forces of the Crown who is attached, or lent to, or seconded for service with the air force, subject, however, to the modifications contained in this Act, and with this exception, that if the members of the body of the air force with which any naval officer is serving are themselves subject to the Naval Discipline Act he shall remain subject to that Act."

    184 A

    The following Sub-section shall be inserted after Sub-section 1):—

    "(1 A) Where an officer or non-commissioned officer of the Army is a member of a body of His Majesty's military forces acting with any body of His Majesty's
    Air Force under such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Army Council and Air Council, then for the purposes of command and discipline, and for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to superior officers he shall, in relation to such body of His Majesty's Air Force as aforesaid, be treated and have all such powers (other than powers of punishment) as if he were an Air Force officer or non-commissioned officer, as the case may be."

    The Amendment is permissive, and gives power to apply military law, with the assent of the Air Council and the Army Council, to airmen, or to apply the Air Force law, with the assent of the Air Council and the Army Council, to soldiers.
    Mr. BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the position in regard to the airmen who are lent to the Navy, do they come under naval law?
    Major BAIRD: That is set forth in the Bill. Like everybody else serving on board His Majesty's ships, they come under naval discipline.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.
    terms set forth in the second column of the following table for the terms set forth in first column of that Schedule wherever those terms occur in the Army Act.
    provided in the second column of that table, and new Sections shall be inserted as provided in that table.
    Lords Amendments: In Part I., leave out the words "or His Majesty's Regular Forces."
    In Part II., in paragraph on Section 32 of the Army Act, leave out the words" before 'forces' wherever the word occurs," and insert instead thereof the words "after 'His Majesty's' wherever those words occur."
    In paragraph on Section 175 of the Army Act, after the word "Act" ["subject to that Act"], insert the words "In Subsection (2) 'any of' shall be omitted."
    Agreed to.
    In paragraph on Section 84 of the, Army Act, after the word "be" ["as the case may be"], insert the words,
    "Provided that under Regulations made by Air Council and Army Council the officers and soldiers of a body of His Majesty's military forces acting with any body of the Air Force on active service, or any of such officers or soldiers, may, in such manner and in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be provided by or under those Regulations, be made subject to this Act, and in such case they shall be subject thereto in like manner as if they were officers and soldiers attached to the Air Force."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I think we need some explanation as to whether this Regulation will be laid upon the Table of this House before coming into force. Here we are placing 5,000,000 officers and men under the command of an entirely new force. I have no doubt that in time the Air Force will be a properly organised and disciplined force, but at the present time there is no security for that, and it is a very bold and drastic step to take in military discipline to place the lives and liberties of 5,000,000 officers and men in this more or less casual way under an entirely new force. I think there should be some protection for the officers and men, who may know nothing of these Regulations, and I should like to know whether it is proposed to lay the Regulations on the Table before they come into operation.
    Major BAIRD: I think the fears of the hon. and gallant Gentleman are scarcely justified. The protection of officers either
    2060
    of the Army or of the Air Force can, I think, safely be left in the hands of the Army Council or the Air Council. It is only subject to the consent of these two bodies that any arrangements can be made, and I think we may leave it in the hands of these bodies to take only such steps as are necessary for an efficient and proper organisation. As the right hon. and gallant Member must be aware, the two Acts are almost identical, the Army Act and the Air Force Act only differing in the sense that the Air Force Act contains provisions necessary to make the Army Act applicable to the Air Force. Therefore, I do not think there need be any alarm that any injustice will be done to officers or men of the Army who come under the jurisdiction of the Air Force.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
    As amended, further considered. CLAUSE 36. —(Application to Scotland.)
    This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:
    (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 provisos 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—

    (a) a man occupying in virtue of any office, service, or employment

    2061
    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 claims 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:
    (5) The Section of this Act relating to registration officers and areas shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—
    The registration area shall be the area (whether a county, a burgh, or some particular portion or district thereof) for which under the Valuation Acts an assessor is appointed and the assessor so appointed shall act as the registration officer for that area:
    (6) The provisions regarding the appointment of an assistant judge in the Section of this Act relating to appeals shall not apply:
    (7) The first Sub-section of the Section of this Act relating to expenses of registration shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—
    The expenses of registration (including any expense incurred by a registration officer as party to an appeal) shall be assessed and levied in any one of the modes allowed by the Valuation Acts with respect to the costs and expenses of making up the valuation roll:
    (8) The Sections of this Act relating to returning officers and to the discharge of returning officers' duties by an acting returning officer shall not apply, and in lieu thereof:
    The returning officer at Parliamentary elections (other than a university election) shall as heretofore be the sheriff, and the power of appointing
    2062
    deputies conferred by Section eight of the Ballot Act, 1872, on certain sheriffs shall be exercisable by any sheriff who is returning officer for more than one constituency or who, by reason of sick ness or unavoidable absence, is incapacitated from performing any of the duties devolving upon him as returning officer, and in the event of of no such appointment being made by a sheriff so incapacitated or in the event of any vacancy in the office of sheriff at the time when any of such duties require to be performed, the sheriff-substitute at the place at which the writ for the election is appointed to be received, shall act as returning officer, and shall perform all the duties and have all the powers (including the power of appointing deputies) of such returning officer.
    Amendment proposed [26 th November], in lieu of Sub-sections (3) and (4) left out, insert 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 in the joint ownership of two or more persons and the aggregate yearly value of the lands and heritage 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

    2063
    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 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 whom 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-
    2064
    house' means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling;
    (4) Sub-section 1 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 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;

    2065

    (v.) not more than two persons shall be deemed to be joint occupiers of the same land or premises unless they are bonâ 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."—[Mr. Munro.]
    Adjourned Debate resumed on Amendment proposed, 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."—[Mr. Adamson.]
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Is that Amendment put in such a way as to save my Amendment which comes next, namely, to leave out the word "ten" and to insert the word "five"?
    Mr.SPEAKER: If this be adopted it will dispose of the main Amendment down to the word "or" at the end of Sub-section (3, a, iv.).
    Mr. GULLAND: The point which we were discussing when the House ceased consideration of this Bill the other night was whether the money qualification in respect of the premises of a lodger should still continue. I was rather disappointed that when the Secretary for Scotland had an opportunity of remedying this old anomaly in the municipal franchise he did not take advantage of it. This lodger vote no longer applies to the Parliamentary franchise, but in the municipal franchise it is an anomaly of long standing. It has been a constant source of irritation for over twenty years, and the people who have had anything to do with it in Scotland
    2066
    would have been very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could have abolished it in municipal matters as it has been abolished in Parliamentary matters. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the £10 limit was kept for owners and tenants, and therefore it sems to be reasonable that it should be kept for lodgers. But I would remind the House that the value is quite different in the two cases. For owners and tenants the value of £10 is on the valuation roll, and there is no doubt about it. It is an ascertained value which everyone knows, but with the lodger it is different. The £10 there has no relation to the £10 in the case of the owner or tenant. The valuation in the case of the owner and tenant is definite and undeniable. With regard to the lodger it is hypothetical and uncertain and has no relation to the valuation roll at all. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the leading case on this subject is the case of Kelly v. Little, 1897. That was a case at Quarter Sessions, which decided that in determining the clear annual value of an unfurnished lodging the fact that the house of which they formed part is entered in the valuation roll as of the annual value of £5 was not conclusive evidence that the lodgings were not of the annual value of £10. The result of that case was that the valuation roll, when it has to do with questions connected with the lodger franchise, is not conclusive evidence, but only an intimation of evidence to be taken into account along with other evidence. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is the case which has ruled this subject since 1897. I will give another case. It is that of Flynn in 1899, where the claimant set forth in his declaration that he had been for the statutory period tenant of a room of the clear annual value, unfurnished, of £10 or upwards.
    4.0 P.M.
    No objection was lodged, but the sheriff ascertained from the valuation roll that the house, which consisted of three rooms in all, was entered at £12 10s., and he rejected the claim. The Court reserved judgment and admitted the claim, holding that there was no evidence to rebut the primâ facie evidence of the declaration. I could give my right hon. Friend other cases, but I think I have made it quite clear that the entry in the valuation roll has nothing to do with the value of the lodger's holding.
    What is the system on which the lodger at present gets his vote? It really does not depend upon the valuation roll. It

    2067
    is the individual opinion of every sheriff, and I do not believe there are more than three or four sheriffs who agree on the basis on which they should allow a lodger to be entered. It has become very much a matter of private arrangement between the sheriff and the agents of the parties. In Glasgow, for instance, a lodger is admitted, provided his other qualifications are all right, on a rental of £10 10s. The room that he occupies necessarily is much less than that, perhaps one of two or one of three; but if the whole house has a rental of £10 10s., one lodger can get a vote, two lodgers on a £15 rental, and three on a £19 15s. rental. I understand in some other constituencies in the West of Scotland the scale is the same. In Edinburgh, on the other hand, it is different. I have had a great deal to do with it, and I know the Edinburgh case very well. For a large number of years it was the custom to survey each house where a lodger claimed a vote, and to strike a proportion of the value of the room that he occupied to the whole house, and if the proportion came out at £10 he got a vote; if it did not, he did not. Therefore, of course, in Edinburgh for many years there was a very small number of lodgers who got put on the roll. Then in Edinburgh an agreement followed whereby one lodger was allowed on a £13 rental, two for a £17 rental, and three for a £21 rental. But to show how changing the custom has been, not only in different parts of the country but in one borough, in 1914 this was changed again, and it is now agreed privately that one lodger is allowed on for £11 10s. and two for £15, with an additional £5 of rental for each lodger thereafter. Throughout the country every sheriff has his own reading of this Section. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, if he sticks to the provisions of his Amendment, what is to be the procedure in future? What is to be the test? At present he has a sort of hold because a lodger has to claim, and therefore his claim comes before the Registration Court and there is some means of ascertaining the facts. But now I am very glad to say my right hon. Friend has departed from the claim. But that makes it all the more necessary that we should have some definite understanding as to what this whole plan means. Therefore, I ask what is to be the test in future, and who is to be the judge of this hypothetical £10 value?
    2068
    These male lodgers are all on the Parliamentary register, and why should they not be also upon the municipal register? There was an old idea that to have a municipal vote a man should make direct payment of rates. That has gone long ago, because now a large number of tenants do not pay their rates directly, and the Service franchise men do not pay their rates directly, so that that excuse for retaining this system has gone, and it would be an immense improvement if my right hon. Friend would take his courage in both his hands and make the municipal the same as the Parliamentary register. At any rate, if he could now see his way to do that, he ought to sweep away this old anomaly, which has caused much friction and trouble in the past and will cause more friction in the future because of the new difficulties that will arise.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): My right hon. Friend has made a most interesting speech, and as I listened to him citing cases I could almost fancy myself back in the Law Courts again. But let us see the real meaning of the Amendment. Its object is to abolish the value limit which, under the existing law in Scotland, attaches to the lodger vote. What would the result of that be? Obviously it would mean adult suffrage for lodgers, and I have a little difficulty in seeing why they should be privileged in that respect when the House has determined that there shall not be adult suffrage all round. In addition to that it would involve this, that any number of lodgers could qualify for precisely the same premises. According to the decision of the House the other day an occupier must have a house of £10 value. An occupier who had a house just below £10 in value might have lodgers, and every one of them would be entitled to vote while he himself would not. That would be quite an anomalous position in which to place the lodger, however much one may desire to improve the franchise, as I hope we are doing. This would be to introduce quite a startling innovation into our law in Scotland and one far greater than any which I have been up till now asked to give effect to. I would remind the House of the history of the matter. The net result of the provisions of the Bill as introduced was that in Scotland a great measure of our local government franchise, including the

    2069
    lodger franchise, disappeared, and I was waited upon by members of all parties, Liberal, Conservative and Labour, and asked to maintain the local government franchise substantially as it is to-day. I have done so. No member of the deputation asked —
    Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, I did.
    Mr. MUNRO: If I am wrong, I withdraw, but, according to my recollection, no one suggested that the lodger qualification should be abolished. My hon. and learned Friend suggested the abolition of the necessity for a claim, and that has been given effect to. But, having given that undertaking, I am really not prepared to go further. The difficulties which have been pointed out by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gulland) and my hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) are really largely administrative, and I am hopeful that in the future many of the difficulties which have prevailed in the past may be overcome. The assessor will in the future, in the absence of a claim, have to make up his mind quite definitely as a skilled man upon the value of the premises, and I do not anticipate that under that system there will be so much difficulty as there has been in the past. Accordingly, I am hopeful that under the new system which I propose to introduce, in response to pressure brought to bear upon me in this House to which I have yielded, these anomalies of administration will disappear. At any rate, I put it to the House as a matter of fair play that I have met the demands which have been made upon me. In the first place, I have restored the lodger franchise, as I was asked to do. In the second place, yielding to pressure from all quarters, and after consulting the responsible and skilled authorities in Scotland, I have abolished the necessity for a lodger claim. Having done these two things, I am urged to go a great deal further than I undertook to go, and further than I think it would be proper to go in a Bill which is a compromise between parties, and therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, but will reach the conclusion, on reflection, that I have met him very fairly by making the two concessions I have referred to.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I congratulate the hon. Member (Mr. Adamson) on having received the support of the right hon.
    2070
    Gentleman (Mr. Gulland). I was, however surprised at his attitude, and I think his arguments have been very effectively met by the speech we have just heard. The House has already decided upon a £10 valuation for the occupier's vote, and why we should abolish it entirely for the lodger's vote I cannot conceive. The local government franchise is granted in respect of the payment of rates. The whole thing arises from the fact that individual owners and occupiers cannot possibly, in many cases, provide for themselves the necessary supplies in the way of water, lighting, scavenging, and so forth, which have to be provided by a co-operative system on which they are rated, and the local government franchise is a right to vote on the expenditure of money for these services. We have departed from that already in this Bill to the extent that we have given the wives of married occupiers votes to which they are certainly not entitled as ratepayers. I objected to it, and still do. It is a monstrous thing to have done. A person occupying one of a row of cottages, for which he pays £10, who is a bachelor, has only one vote in respect of the money he provides, and because a man in another cottage has a wife he has two votes in the spending of No. l's money. If we are going to make up our minds to abolish the old principles which have guided us in this matter, and which are obviously fair, we shall know where we are. But we should certainly not introduce a principle of that kind into a Bill of this sort which is only remotely connected with the question. We are getting on. I do not know what the next thing will be, but I support the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Munro) in the attitude he has taken. It appears to me to be a perfectly monstrous thing to permit, as this will permit, any number of lodgers, in a house which may not entitle its owner as an occupier to a local government vote, an opportunity of voting. The right hon. Gentleman's arguments are unanswerable. It is nothing to the point that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gulland) brought up the question, which has been discussed ad nauseam for years, on the varying opinions as to what constitutes a £10 qualification for a lodger. There are varying circumstances, and all have to be taken into account, and naturally the financial results are different in one case from what they are in another. It depends entirely on the valuation of

    2071
    property and land values, and all the rest in different localities. Therefore, it is not fair to say that in one case ten guineas qualifies and that in another it requires £11. The lodger's rent includes a great deal more than the actual proportion of the rent of the house for which the man may pay £10. Therefore, of course, the rental is necessarily higher. The right hon. Gentleman has made out an unanswerable case for the rejection of the Amendment, and I trust the House will support him.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The argument which has been drawn from the hon. Baronet is somewhat different from that which the Secretary for Scotland has put before the House. The hon. Baronet has suggested that the lodger franchise is based at present on a rate-paying basis. That is totally inconsistent with the facts, and I am surprised that the hon. Baronet, even in speaking to this House which is so willing to listen to anything which he says, should have put forward such an absurd proposition. He also told us that we are going to be guilty of a strange anomaly—that you will have an occupier of a house of less than £10 valuation not entitled to a vote, while lodgers may qualify for votes under this Amendment. That is precisely the law as it stands, according to the decision in Kelly's case which my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries Burghs mentioned. Though the rent was only £5, the lodger was entitled to a vote because he was held to occupy premises which, if they were unfurnished, were of the value of £10, so that that anomaly at present exists.
    Mr. GULLAND: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right in that. I think that the tenant of that house has a vote whatever its value. It is only the non-occupying owner, the owner of premises which are not let.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think that that is so. That just illustrates the difficulty of the hon. Baronet in appreciating the Amendment. The real question is, are we going to make the local government franchise, so far as lodgers are concerned, identical with the franchise for Parliamentary purposes? My own view has always been, in spite of the varying opinions introduced into the Bill, that there was no ground in logic for any distinction between these franchises, that in fact, if
    2072
    you were going to have a wide franchise for Parliamentary purposes, there was no possible ground for making a narrower franchise for the comparatively less important matter of local government. I am surprised that the Secretary for Scotland, now that the opportunity has been given him to take the judgment of his Scottish colleagues on this question, should have thrown the weight of his authority against a proposition at once so easy and so fair. It is true that at the deputation to which he has referred the bulk of the Scottish members agreed to a compromise to maintain the local government franchise as it is. Personally, I was always opposed to that. I had hoped that when it was left to Scottish opinion, Scottish opinion would have insisted on the local government franchise being identical with the Parliamentary franchise. I believe that Scottish opinion, by an overwhelming majority, is in favour of that policy, and I believe that, if the Government leave it to the unfettered decision of the Scottish members here, there is not the slightest doubt but that a majority of more than five to one would be in favour of that proposition. We have had the Government leaving such things to the House. It has become the fashion on the Report stage to leave decisions to the House. Is it to be the fashion to leave decisions to the House only when it suits the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs? That is the real proposition. The Secretary for Scotland once resented a suggestion which we made that he was in any way under instructions from the hon. Baronet. He has the opportunity of asserting his freedom this afternoon. After the speech of the hon. Baronet I hope that this matter, which is purely a Scottish matter, will be left to the House. I am sure that if it were left to the House and hon. Members voted as free men they would go into the Lobby with the right hon. Member for Dumfries.
    Mr. C. PRICE: I have received a communication from Edinburgh protesting against the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman made to the House on 13th October, which means that the lodger in order to secure a vote at all local elections must pay about 3s. 11d. per week for an unfurnished room. This protest points out that in past years political agents in Scottish constituencies arranged a lodger vote ranging from £10 to £16

    2073
    per annum, and if a lodger resided in a house rented below the sum arranged he had to lose a day's work attending Court to prove his claim for a vote, which prevented thousands of young men, particularly in mining districts, from obtaining the franchise. It continues:
    "This meeting is of opinion that the broad-based democratic franchise in the Representation of the People Bill, intended for Parliamentary contests, should be adopted for local government elections, and urges if Parliamentary sanction is not obtainable for this claim that £5 might be substituted for the £10 in Mr. Munro's Amendment in order to lessen the difficulties hitherto placed in the way of lodgers in low-rented houses obtaining votes."
    This protest, received from Edinburgh, expresses the opinion of a great mass of poorly paid people who exercise the lodger franchise. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give way because, notwithstanding the explanation made by him, I am perfectly sure that this view is one which is not entertained by the great mass of these lodger voters.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 112.

    Division No. 122.]

    AYES.

    [4.23 p.m

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

    Allen, Major W. J.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Frederick (Dulwich)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

    Pease,Rt.Hon.Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barnston, Capt. Harry

    Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

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

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hewart, Sir Gordon

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Pratt, J. W.

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Raphael, Major Sir Herbert H.

    Bird, Alfred

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bowden, Major G. R. Harland I

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Remnant, Col. Sir James Farquharson

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

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

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    Butcher, John George

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Cator, John

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

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

    Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Spear Sir John Ward

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. H.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Coats, Sir Stuart

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

    Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Tickler, T. G.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Currie, George W.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Wardle, George J.

    Dixon, C. H.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Heu y Edward

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

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

    Du Pre, Major W. Baring

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

    Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E. G. A.

    Fell, Arthur

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Whiteley, Herbert James

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Maden, Sir John Henry

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

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Marriott, J. A. R.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Younger, Sir George

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Yoxall, Sir James H.

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

    Gretton, Colonel John

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

    E. Talbot and Captain F. Guest.

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

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Boland, John Pius

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Alden, Percy

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Anderson, W. C.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Barton, Sir William

    Burns, Rt, Hon. John

    Crumley, Patrick

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Chancellor, Henry George

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

    Bliss, Joseph

    Chapple, Major William Allen

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. W. H.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Smith, Capt. Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    London, Thomas

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Edge, Captain William

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

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

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Field, William

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Sutton, John E.

    Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Fleming, Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Molloy, Michael

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Morgan, George Hay

    Tillett, B.

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Tootill, Robert

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Hackett, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Harris, Peicy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Parrott. Sir James Edward

    Watt, Henry A.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Hinds, John

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hogge, James Myles

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

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

    Holt, Richard Darning

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Roch, Walter F.

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

    Joyce, Michael

    Rowlands, James

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Keating, Matthew

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Scanlan, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—Mr.

    King, Joseph

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

    Adamson and Mr. Dundas White

    Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3, a, iv.), of the proposed Amendment, to insert the words, "Provided that this franchise shall not be affected by reason only of the fact that the lodgings are also occupied by a child or minor, or by more than one of these".
    The reason why I propose this Amendment is because there is among many electors an impression that if the lodger is not the sole occupier in the strictest sense, then even though the lodgings may be of the value to qualify a man, yet he may lose the franchise which is otherwise given. I remember a case that was brought to my notice of a lodger who occupied lodgings of an amount sufficient to qualify him, but if he had his young brother, who was merely a child, living in and occupying the room with him, that might operate as a disqualification. I am sure that in such cases, where the other occupant is a child or a minor, it would be very wrong merely to disqualify the lodger on that ground; therefore, I have put this Amendment on the Paper in order to make it quite clear that that will not of itself operate as a disqualification. It may possibly be that this Amendment may be unnecessary, but, even if it is unnecessary, I would suggest that it should still go into the Bill to prevent mistakes arising in future, and for the purpose of greater caution. I think it would be very desirable that an Amendment, with any variation that may be suggested, should be embodied in the
    2076
    Bill, so as to put beyond doubt the settlement of the question that I have raised, and make sure that the lodger who occupies and pays the rent of lodgings which are of the qualifying value shall not be debarred from the franchise merely because he gives hospitality to a child or minor who, I suggest, may be his own brother.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. MUNRO: I think my hon. and learned Friend, on reflection, will agree as, indeed, he indicated in his speech, that this Amendment is quite unnecessary. In my humble judgment it is either unnecessary or unjustifiable. I will put two cases to my hon. and learned Friend. Suppose in the first place there is a parent and child who live in lodgings; the parent is a party to the contract of let, the child is not; the mere fact that the child is residing in the room belonging to his parent does not in any way make him an occupier, and it could not possibly interfere with the right to exercise the franchise by the parent. As it has become the fashion to cite authorities on the subject, I will present my hon. and learned Friend with the case of Hamilton, reported in I. Fraser, page 208, where it was decided by the Court of Session that though a man resided in lodgings along with his wife—not a minor—there was no doubt at all that he was the occupier of the premises for the purpose of the franchise. That is one view, and in that view the Amend-

    2077
    ment is unnecessary. Take the other view: Suppose a man is residing in premises with a son, between the age of fourteen and twenty-one years, and suppose that both of them were parties to the contract for the letting of the oom; in that case I think my hon. and learned Friend will agree that the mere fact that one of the two is a minor should not in any way affect or prejudice the right to the franchise of the other, who is not a. minor.
    Mr. WHITE: My Amendment uses the words, "by reason only of the fact."
    Mr. MUNRO: Well, I submit that the Amendment is unnecessary, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press it.
    Mr. WHITE: After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, in Subsection (3, b, ii.) of the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "three" ["not exceeding three months "], and to insert instead thereof the word "four."
    The reason for this Amendment is that in regard to the Parliamentary franchise in the letting of a house, the period is four months. That has already been put into the Bill, and I suggest that, in this case, it should also be four months, instead of three. There is the further element that if you look further down the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, you find, in paragraph (iv.), the words, "qualifying period not exceeding four months in the whole." I suggest the substitution of four for three months in this instance to bring the provision in harmony with the general provisions of the Bill, and also into harmoney with the provisions of this Amendment. Unless this Amendment is adopted there will be some very considerable confusion as to the period of four months and the period of three months. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. GULLAND: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. MUNRO: Having heard the hon. and learned Gentleman, I shall accept the Amendment, because it removes what is an apparent anomaly in the Bill.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there in serted in the Bill.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in Subsection (5), to leave out the words,
    "The registration area shall be the area (whether a county, a burgh, or some particular portion or district thereof) for which under the Valuation Acts an assessor is appointed, and the assessor so appointed shall act as the registration officer for that area,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words,
    "Each burgh, the town council whereof was entitled under the law in force at the passing of this Act to appoint an assessor for the purpose of Parliamentary registration, and each county (exclusive of every such burgh), or, where any county is divided for the purpose of Parliamentary elections, each part of the county which lies within a separate Parliamentary division, shall be a registration area; and the assessor of the burgh or county under the Valuation Acts, or where there are two or more such assessors, one of them appointed for the purpose of Parliamentary registration by the town or county council, as the case may be, shall be the registration officer of that area, and all other assessors (if any) in that area shall, for the purpose of Parliamentary registration, be subject to the instructions of the registration officer and shall be bound to act on such instructions:
    Provided that, from and after the date when the first register under this Act shall have been completed, an officer of Inland Revenue shall not be appointed or continue to act as assessor for any burgh or county under the Valuation Acts without the consent of the Treasury."
    This Amendment proposes to substitute a new definition of the registration area for the definition which is at present in the Bill. It is imperative, as I think the House will agree, that the registration area should be well fixed and known, and the objection to the existing definition which is in the Bill at the moment is that it constitutes the valuation area as the registration area. As my Scottish colleagues know, the valuation area within the county may be changed from time to time, and that would result in great inconvenience in dealing with registration. The Amendment which I ask the House to

    2079
    accept proposes that the registration area should be the existing area for that purpose, the existing Parliamentary borough and county, and, where the county is divided into Parliamentary divisions, the registration area will be the division.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (6), to insert the words,
    "(7) In the application of the Section of this Act relating to right to the use of elementary schools, the expression 'any public elementary school in receipt of an annual Parliamentary Grant' means 'any school in receipt of a Parliamentary Grant.'"
    This is a drafting Amendment consequential upon the insertion of a Clause in the Bill which provides for the use of schools for candidates' meetings.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in the succeeding Sub-section to leave out the words, "The expenses of registration (including expense incurred by a registration officer as a party to an appeal)," and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "Any expenses properly incurred by any registration officer in the performance of his duties in relation to registration, including all proper and reasonable charges for trouble, care, and attention in the performance of those duties, and any cost incurred by him as party to an appeal (in this Act referred to as "registration expenses") shall be paid by the council appointing the registration officer. Provided that, where a burgh within the meaning of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, is not a separate registration area, the council thereof shall pay to the council appointing the registration officer a contribution towards the registration expenses, and Sub-section (4) of Section sixty and Section sixty-six of that Act shall apply, with the necessary modifications, to such contribution. The amount necessary to defray any registration expenses or any contribution thereto, as the case may be."
    This Amendment is intended to adapt the provisions of the Scottish Clause to the English provisions of the Bill as they now stand, and the House may take it from me that the general effect of the words
    2080
    which I now move is that the registration expenses shall be paid in the same way and by the same authority as they are under the existing law.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in Subsection (8), after the word "sheriff" ["shall as heretofore be the sheriff"], to insert the words "of the sheriffdom within which the constituency is wholly situated or, where the. constituency is situated in more than one sheriffdom, the sheriff specified in the Sixth Schedule to this Act."
    These words are inserted for the purpose of reference to a new Schedule which I propose to move later on. it is provided that the sheriff shall act as returning officer in constituencies which are wholly included in one sheriffdom, but when the constituency includes more than one sheriffdom—there are only seven such cases, I think—it is necessary to specify who shall be the returning officer and the House will see in the Schedule I shall move later our proposal on the subject. This Amendment is necessary to lead up to that Schedule.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert,
    "(9) In the case of Parliamentary elections the place of election shall be a convenient room situated in such place as the Secretary for Scotland may by order, from time to time determine.
    (10) For the purposes of the Section of this Act relating to alteration of polling districts where necessary the sheriff shall within his sheriffdom be deemed to be the local authority."
    The object of this proposal is that the place of election shall be determined by myself, or, it may be, my successor.
    Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. I. Duncan Millar) has an Amendment on the Paper dealing with that subject, and he has asked me to call attention to it in his absence. It suggests that the place of election shall be scheduled—that there shall be an additional Schedule to the Bill. We are desirous that the Secretary for Scotland shall indicate what principle he proposes to adopt in selecting the place of election.

    2081
    Take, for instance, the case of a county division named after the leading burgh in that division. Would the right hon. Gentleman propose that the leading burgh shall be the place of election? I represent at this moment the burgh of Hamilton, which is now merged in a county division called the Hamilton Division. Would Hamilton, in the view of the right hon. Gentleman, become the place of election? The same question might be asked in regard to Lanark and other places similarly situated.
    Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend has asked me on what principle I shall proceed in fixing the place of election. My answer is that public convenience will be the sole consideration. That it is the only possible principle. I very much demur to stating at this stage, and without the full consideration which each case will receive, what any particular place of election will be, and I think my right hon. Friend will agree that it would not be convenient now, without having had an opportunity to examine the circumstances and, if necessary, hear both sides, to pronounce any final opinion upon that matter. The difficulty is this—and it is brought out in the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire, where he talks about the principal burgh: What is the principal burgh? I do not think I could give any assurance on this point without much fuller consideration than I have yet been able to devote to the question.
    Mr. GULLAND: There is a series of other questions which may come up in connection with this matter, such, for instance, as the cases of counties which are united—Caithness and Sutherland. I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be more convenient and much better that this question should be settled in the Bill itself, rather than that the decision should be left for the Secretary of Scotland, who will be taking a good deal of odium on his head when trying to settle the claims of different places. Still, if he thinks this is the proper way of doing it, I hope he will make full inquiry; because I warn him there will be a good deal of feeling on the matter, and it is the possibility of that feeling arising which leads me to think it would be better to settle this in the Schedule itself, as has been done in the matter of the decision as to who shall be the returning officer.
    Sir J. BARRAN: Paragraph (9) suggests that the Secretary for Scotland may, from time to time, change the burgh which he may select as the returning burgh. I should like to know definitely from him if that is his intention. If it is, I hope he will make it perfectly clear, because, in view of the feeling which has been referred to by my ,right hon. Friend (Mr. Gulland), I think there is something to be said for settling the point now, instead of leaving it to the Secretary for Scotland. I suppose he will not endeavour to placate the people in the competing burghs, by making one burgh the returning place at one election and another burgh at another election. I do not think that that would be conducive to good feeling locally. Then there is the question of consulting all shades of local opinion on this matter. I think it will be to the advantage of those concerned if the right hon. Gentleman will indicate in what way he proposes to do that, so that those who are watching this matter with some degree of interest may know how to proceed in order to make representations on the question.
    Mr. MUNRO: I can, of course, only speak again by leave of the House. The proposal which was made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gulland), and which has been rather supported by the hon. Baronet who spoke last, is that Parliament should now fix this matter, rather than that it should be left to the discretion of myself or of my successor in office. The objection to that suggestion is that it would seem unfortunate to stereotype and determine the matter here and now, regardless of all the circumstances which may emerge. We may, for example, have a case where a new railway has been opened up, and has entirely altered the character of a burgh by improving the means of communication. Again, the size of burghs may increase or diminish. Many other considerations may arise, all of which, I venture to think, point in the direction of leaving this for determination, as circumstances may dictate, rather than stereotyping here and now a decision which may, in the circumstances of the future, become inappropriate. My hon. Friend asked how I proposed to satisfy myself with regard to local opinion on the matter. 1 hope he will not press me to state definitely what will be done, but I do not think it will be difficult to do, because there are many channels of information open to one, and my hon. Friend

    2083
    may rest assured that no determination will be arrived at without most careful consideration of all the relevant circumstances. I do not think he need have any fear of the prospect which he indicated of one burgh being fixed for one election and another chosen for the next election. But one must be careful, having regard to all the circumstances, in what one says now. Still, I do not think in normal circumstances such a case as that would be likely to arise
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MUNRO:I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert,
    "(10) Except as expressly provided in this Act—

    (a) 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; and"

    Sir G. YOUNGER: I desire to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end of paragraph (a), after the word "burgh," to insert the words,
    "and a similar status shall be conferred on all burghs included in groups of burghs constituted by this Act."
    5.0 p.m.
    I am perfectly content with the words of the paragraph, which provide that ParliamenLary burghs which are to lose separate representation and to be included in a county constituency shall not lose the status they now possess. Our point in that regard is well met by the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland. But I am pleading now for a similar status to be conferred upon burghs which are now included for the first time in a group. In the group which I represent at present three burghs are transferred to another county, and this Amendment will preserve their status. But there are four new burghs included with the group which do not possess a status at present, and I confess it is difficult to understand why they should not obtain it now. I believe that for rating purposes these burghs will be rated by the county authorities, but if they obtain the status of Parliamentary burghs then they will be rated by their own authority. The levy would be made by the county treasurer in the one case,
    2084
    and, in the other case, the burgh will be requisitioned for a certain amount, and the burgh authorities will impose the rate and collect it.
    There is not a very grave difference there, or a great difficulty. Other privileges are the privilege of registration. In all these local matters the burghs authorities prepare their own council roll, and will do so, I suppose, if they receive the status of Parliamentary boroughs. I thought the right hon. Gentleman shook his head when it was suggested to him the other night that this status ought to be given, and that he saw difficulties in the way. I have no doubt there arc difficulties, although I do not know exactly what they are. He will tell us if he does not intend to accept this Amendment, but it is not very far reaching as far as numbers are concerned. There are nine burghs in all: Prestwick, Saltcoats, Troon in the Ayr district, Ardrossan in the Ayr district. Clydebank and Grangemouth in the stirling and Falkirk district, Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly, and Buckhaven. Those are the burghs that will be affected; at least that is the information I have from the Convention of Royal Burghs, and I fancy it is correct. They sent me the names, and I think, so far as I have checked them, it is an accurate list. I can only say to the Secretary for Scotland, whether it has any influence with him or not, that the authorities of these burghs, seem very keen on receiving this status. I have received letters from most of them pressing me to bring the matter before the House and to endeavour to secure the status which others similarly constituted have hitherto possessed. I should be very glad indeed if the right hon. Gentleman can in some way or other meet their demand and grant this privilege.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. It deals with one I have lower down On the Notice Paper in a more limited form than that proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger), and I take this opportunity to deal with the principle involved. The hon. Baronet has just told the House that there are four of the burghs affected in his constituency. There are three of the burghs affected in my constituency affected by the rearrangement, and of course they will be put into two groups of burghs. The three in my Constituency are Cowdenbeath,

    2085
    Lochgelly, and Methil and Buckhaven. The borough councils of two of those three have communicated with me asking me strongly to support the granting to them of the status of Parliamentary burghs. I do not see very well how the Secretary for Scotland can refuse to agree to this Amendment. He has provided in his own Amendment for the continuance of the status of Parliamentary boroughs to those who are under this Bill, so far as representation is concerned, to lose that status, and I do not think he can refuse to grant it to those who are being brought in for the first time. I hope he will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My difficulty about this Amendment is that it has not appeared on the Paper, so that we have not been able to consider it. Further, neither the Mover nor the Seconder has explained to us what the effect of it will be, and my object in rising is the simple one to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will be good enough to explain in detail what this really means, because it depends on the effect of this alteration whether one approves of it or disapproves of it. We want to know what the effect will be on rating, on the question of school management, and on other points. I must protest rather against having an Amendment of this kind, which is a very technical Amendment and which may have effects of quite a serious character that none of us can appreciate without our having had time to consider the matter, sprung upon us in this way by manuscript. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter very carefully before he comes to a decision. I do not wish to oppose the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger), but I do not like to have things sprung upon us which we have had no opportunity of considering or of estimating the effect.
    Mr. MUNRO: I regret that I do not see my way to accept the Amendment which has been moved. In one sense my right hon. Friend (Mr. McKinnon Wood) is right in saying that this is a manuscript Amendment of which there is no notice on the Paper, but at the same time I think it is fair to the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) and to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gulland) to say that on Thursday evening, when this matter was partly discussed, it was more than suggested by both my right hon. Friends that they would oppose Article (b) of the Amendment I am now moving.
    Mr. GULLAND: I did not say that.
    Mr. MUNROH: I rather gathered that there would be some opposition to the second part of my Amendment. I will now take the opportunity to explain some of the objections which must be taken to the acceptance of this proposal. I think those of my Scottish colleagues who have followed the recent trend of legislation in Scotland will agree that, as a general rule, in recent years it has dealt with all the burghs in Scotland upon the same basis, and has determined their relation, not only to the counties but also to one another, by reference rather to population than by reference to whether the burghs happen to be Royal burghs, Parliamentary burghs, or police burghs. In other words, legislation in recent times of this kind has tended less rather than more in the direction of what one might call particularism. In the circumstances, the accident which takes a burgh out of a county for the purpose of Parliamentary representation could scarcely be regarded nowadays, I think, as a reason for altering its position in the very complicated web of local government, whatever the view may have been in former times I would submit to the House, particularly, that in the middle of a, war it is most undesirable that changes involving the separation of areas and of populations, many of them small, from the larger aggregates with which they are in the meant me associated for local government purposes, should be carried through. The policy of the present Bill, as I understand it, has been not to alter the status quo in any matter except that with which the Bill is primarily concerned, namely, Parliamentary representation.
    Let me take the nine burghs to which the hon. Baronet referred. To recognise these nine burghs as entitled to the position of Parliamentary burghs, as these were constituted more than fifty years ago before the introduction of our local government system, would be by the stroke of a pen to destroy, or at least to alter and impair in my humble judgment, a structure which has been most laboriously built up during the intervening years in local government matters. There is one other consideration I should like to put before the House. There are eight other burghs, eight large burghs with a population of more than 10,000, which are included in the county divisions—two of them, Motherwell with a population of 41,000, and Wishaw with a popula-

    2087
    tion of 25,000, being specially named in the Schedule. I ask the House, If the change is justified in the one case, why not in the other? These burghs to which I have referred include Motherwell, Wishaw, Alloa—
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Alloa?
    Mr. MUNRO: Yes, Alloa with 11,000. Well, if I am misinformed with regard to Alloa, I will withdraw that. Then there are Barrhead, Boness, Fraserburgh, Johnston, and Kirkintilloch, all burghs with a population of over 10,000, and all of which now form part of Parliamentary counties. If one were asked to extend the privilege to the nine burghs to which the hon. Baronet has referred, I do not think I should have any answer to the claim—it has not been made—on behalf of the burghs to which I have referred. I would only say that on this highly technical matter I have taken the best advice that is available, and I am sure that to give effect to the Amendment which has been moved would be to dislocate local government machinery in many directions, in the direction of representation on the county councils, valuation, education, registration, and the administration of a variety of Statutes. I am far from saying definitely that the change is not, or may not be, a desirable thing; but what I say is that if this change is made it ought to be made after most mature consideration and in a separate measure. It does not seem an appropriate change to make lightly in the course of the discussion of a Bill which really refers to other matters. In view of that, I appeal to my hon. Friends not to press the Amendment.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I shall be very glad to withdraw the Amendment if the Secretary for Scotland desires me to do so, but I am bound to put the point that although, as he truly says, it is an intricate matter, the burghs themselves are very anxious to have the status.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Further Amendment made: After the words last inserted, insert the words,
    "(b) Nothing in this Act, or in any Act in force at the passing of this Act as read with this Act, shall take effect so as to confer upon any police
    2088
    burgh acquiring separate representation under this Act any rights, privileges, or status, whether for purposes of local government or otherwise, not enjoyed by other police burghs.
    In this Sub-section the references to Royal, Parliamentary, or police burghs shall be deemed to include references to the magistrates, town councils, and officers thereof, respectively, and the expression '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."

    CLAUSE 37.—(Application to Ireland.)
    This Act shall apply to Ireland subject to the following modifications:
    (1) References to the Lord Chancellor shall be construed as references to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
    The Lord Chancellor of Ireland shall not sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of appeals from the County Court under this Act.
    In any county in which the jurisdiction of the County Court is exercised for the time being by two or more County Court judges, the appeals from the registration officer shall be dealt with by such one of those judges or his assistant judge as may be directed by the Lord Chancellor, or shall be distributed amongst those judges and their assistant judges according as may be so directed.
    For the purposes of this Act, County Court rules, Orders, and scales of fees, costs, and charges may be made under Sections 79, 83, and 84 of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877; but the provisions of those Sections as to the concurrence of, or certification by, County Court judges or the Recorder shall not apply:
    (2) The reference to the Local Government Board in relation to the approval of a deputy for the execution of any of the powers and duties of a registration officer shall be construed as a reference to the Lord Lieutenant, and other references to that board shall be construed as references to the Local Government Board for Ireland:
    (3) The clerk of the Crown and peace for an administrative county shall be the registration officer for any registration area which is coterminous with, or the whole or greater part of which is contained in, the administrative county, and the council of that county shall be the council by which the expenses properly incurred by the registration officer in the performance of his duties in relation to registration are to be paid subject in cases where the registration area is not coterminous with or wholly contained in the administrative county to such contribution by the council of any other administrative county as the Local Government Board for Ireland may direct: Provided that the expenses to be paid by a council shall not include any charges for trouble, care, and attention, in the performance of duties which are performed by the registration officer in person:
    All such expenses shall be paid in the case of the council of a county borough, out of the rate or fund out of which the general expenses of the council are paid, or out of any other rate or fund which the Local Government Board may on the application of the council approve, and in the case of a council of any other administrative county out of the poor rate as a county at large charge, except in cases to which Section twelve of the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1885, applies, and shall be regulated in accordance with a scale fixed by the Local Government Board:
    (4) For the purposes of appeals from the registration officer, and also for the purpose of the revision of jurors' lists, the powers and jurisdiction of the county Court shall, unless arid until the Lord Lieutenant otherwise direct, be exercised, as respects the Parliamentary borough of Dublin, by the persons who are at the time of the passing of this Act Dublin revising barristers, and as respects the Parliamentary county of Dublin by the person who is at the time of the passing of this Act revising barrister for that county; but while those powers are so exercised, the provisions of this Act as to County Courts shall apply to them as they apply to County Courts:
    (5) The expenses of any printing required in connection with registration shall be treated as part of the expenses of the registration officer under this Act, notwithstanding that the printing is arranged for by the county council under Section ninety-six of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898:
    (6) The expression "administrative county" includes a county borough:
    (7) Notwithstanding the limit imposed in Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-seven of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877, the salaries of clerks of the Crown and peace may be increased by orders made under that Sub-section to such extent as appears to the Lord Lieutenant and Council, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to be proper, having regard to the additional duties imposed on those officers by this Act:
    (8) Part IV. of this Act, and the provisions with respect to an urban district which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, a registration area, or with respect to the persons who are to be returning officers, or with respect to the discharge of returning officers' duties by an acting returning officer, shall not apply:
    (9) Section nine, providing for the preparation of two registers each year, shall not apply and only one register shall be prepared each year. The qualifying period shall end on the thirty-first day of August, and the register shall come into force on the first day of January and shall remain in force until the thirty-first day of December.
    Mr. M. HEALY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "orders, and scales of fees, costs, and charges."
    I shall be glad if the Chief Secretary will tell me what are the fees referred to in this Clause. This Clause provides that for the purposes of this Act a scale of fees and charges may be made under the County Courts Act. That is an enactment we are accustomed to when we are dealing with ordinary legislation relating to the usual kind of matters that come before Courts of law. At the present time there is no Court fee chargeable under any circumstances in Revision

    2091
    Courts. Whether the matter relates to something in the Court itself to the issue of a subpœna or to an appeal by case stated there is no Court fee charged or incurred. The same so far as I am aware is the law in England, and in the English part of this Bill there is not a suggestion that the law is going to be changed and that in England there is to be any Court fee charged in relation to any transaction in the Revision Courts. The English Clause 12 provides that, "An appeal shall lie to the County Court . . . . and rules of Court shall be made for the purpose of determining the procedure on any such appeals, and for applying and adapting thereto any enactments relating to County Courts and the procedure therein." There is no suggestion there that Court fees are to be charged. It is quite proper that Court fees should be charged in the course of ordinary litigation. Some people are strongly against all classes of Court fees, and think that they are a hindrance and obstruction to those who are seeking justice. Whether it is right or wrong to charge Court fees when A. brings an ordinary action against B., there is nothing whatever to be said for charging them in this matter of revision where no private interests are involved and where all the parties are simply endeavouring to the best of their ability to secure that there shall be a proper voters' list and where they are all engaged in a kind of public work. I gather that this is action taken by some eager official in the Government. This is not the first time that the gentleman who looks after these matters has sought to attack us in the matter of County Court fees. I have always been sharply on the watch in this connection. The fees are quite sufficient at present. We have never made any objection to them, though, if I had the drawing of them, I would make them somewhat less. There is nothing to be said in favour of introducing any question of Court fees where the right to vote is concerned. I am at a loss to conceive how it ever entered into the mind of any rational human being to attempt to do so. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my Amendment and will place Ireland in this matter in the same position as England. The English part of the Act makes provision that there shall be County Court rules regulating procedure. I have no objection to similar rules in Ireland. As it has never occurred to the English
    2092
    draftsman to suggest that in revision matters it was proper to charge County Court fees in England, I hope that nothing of the kind will be applied to Ireland.
    Mr. JOYCE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): My hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing the terms of the Bill as it stands introduce any new principle or any exception unfavourable to the case of Ireland. On the question of principle, whenever appeals are taken in matters of registration somebody has to pay the fees, and our system here in England is that the litigants should pay.
    Mr. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean County Court fees? My argument is directed to Court fees. There is no fee at present.
    Mr. DUKE: There is a fee when you go to a judicial tribunal. What is done by this Bill is to substitute the registration officer for the old Revision Court and to substitute the County Court judge for the judicial tribunal which formerly dealt with cases stated by the Revision Court. The principle which has been observed in the past has been that the litigant before the judicial tribunal should incur the fees, and should also pay the costs unless he finds people willing to act for nothing. I do not imagine that advocates in Ireland carry on the business of litigants before the County Court without being paid for it. It is difficult to see why it should be compulsory on the part of the State to provide the machinery without fees.
    Mr. CLANCY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that a fee is now payable by the person who appeals to the Court of Appeal?
    Mr. DUKE: It is in this country. I am speaking of the hearing of appeals in Ireland before the proper tribunal, whether it be the King's Bench Division or the Court of Appeal which hears the cases stated by revising barristers. We cannot set down one of those cases in this country without paying a fee. I cannot conceive that it is different in Ireland, and I will assume it is so until I am satisfied to the contrary.
    Mr. HEALY: So far as I know, and I have had quite a number of these cases, there is no fee chargeable in the Court of Appeal. In an ordinary appeal there is a

    2093
    fee of 10s. on setting down the appeal; but this is not an appeal, but a case stated by the revising barrister, and so far as I know there is no fee chargeable on the setting down of the case stated.
    Mr. DUKE: I know my hon. Friend has great experience, but I doubt if that is the case. There is no new principle in this matter. My hon. Friend based his objection chiefly on the ground that there was differentiation against Ireland in this respect, but he is quite mistaken.
    Mr. HEALY: Why is there nothing about fees in the English part of the Bill? I referred the right hon. Gentlemen to the Clause.
    Mr. DUKE: I read the Clause, and I inquired, and I am told that the English County Court Acts provide sufficiently for the enactment and collection of the necessary fees. But it happens that the Irish County Court Acts do not. This proposal is intended to bring Ireland to the same high level that we have already reached in these matters. There is no new principle or unfavourable differentiation, and I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. BRADY: I am very reluctant to advance my opinion against the legal opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, but my experience is precisely similar to that of the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy), whom everybody recognises as a leading authority on registration in Ireland. My personal experience is that Court fees are not chargeable on registration appeals. On that point I confidently appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Ireland. I am absolutely clear on the fact that Court fees are not chargeable in matters of this kind. What are chargeable are fees which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the last to eliminate, namely, the fees payable to the counsel and solicitors who argue these cases. That is a very different thing from Court fees with which the Amendment deals.
    Mr. DUKE: My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is of a contrary view to that expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. FIELD: Having had a good deal of experience in these matters, I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Cork, that no Court fees are
    2094
    payable now in revision matters. Are we going to be placed in a different position now from that in which we have been?
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain tnat it is not the intention of this Bill to impose any charges or any fees which have not existed in the past, and that I think would satisfy lion. Members who have raised the point. Personally I am not sufficiently acquainted with the law to express an opinion.
    Mr. CLANCY: Fees are going to be charged now which have not been charged in the past.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "Provided that no Court fee shall be charged in respect of any appeal under this Act."
    This Amendment raises the same question as before in another form. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if we can satisfy him that no Court fee has been hitherto payable in these cases, that he will give us an undertaking to set right this matter in another place, and leave us in the position in which we have hitherto been. The case is not at all as it has been in the past. What we are now dealing with is an appeal, created for the first time, from the registration officer to the County Court.
    Mr. DUKE: Perhaps it will save the hon. and learned Gentleman's time if I say that if I find Ireland is being differentiated against in the Bill as it stands I shall endeavour to see that Ireland is not so differentiated against.
    Mr. HEALY: That is not the assurance for which I asked. I do not know what the County Courts do in this matter in England. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be right in saying that there is no reference in the English Clause to Court fees. The English County Courts may, by other legislation, have power to charge fees. The assurance for which I ask is that, seeing it has not been the law in Ireland in the past that Court fees are payable, that we should still have the benefit of Irish law, no matter what the English law may be. That is somewhat different, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer that point. If in Ireland we have hitherto had the advantage that there have been no Court fees, I claim with the utmost urgency that we

    2095
    should have the same privilege. In order to obtain that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to move.
    Mr. BRADY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. CLANCY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given an assurance that Ireland shall not be differentiated against; would he consider that Ireland was being differentiated against if fees are now made payable which have never been payable in the past?
    Mr. DUKE: If I find that there is likely to be differentiation, then I shall reconsider the whole matter. That is all I can say. If I have been misinformed as to how the matter stands between the two countries, I shall reconsider the whole question.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: I think we ought to accept the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he will give the matter reconsideration if he finds that there is anything unreasonable and unjust to Ireland.
    Mr. FIELD: Put us in the same position as hitherto—that is all we desire.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. CLANCY: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "county" [" for the administrative county "], to insert the words "or the town clerk of a county borough as the case may be."
    This is the first of a series of Amendments directed to the same point. The question with which these Amendments deal was raised in Committee, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect, and some concession was obtained on that occasion. Various hon. Members and myself were in favour of the local officers in Ireland—that is to say, clerks of the county councils and town clerks of boroughs—being made the registration officers, instead of the work being put into the hands, for the first time, of the clerks of the Crown and peace. Since then the question has been considered afresh by those interested. The result is that I do not now move to amend the Bill so far as the county secretaries are concerned, although when we come to the Schedule there are one or two small changes which I will ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept. If the first Amendment is not accepted, all the others go with
    2096
    it. These Amendments deal with the town clerks of six county boroughs. I do not really think it is necessary for me to go into a full statement of the case again; it was gone into at considerable length in the former Debate to which I have alluded. The case of the town clerks, they say, is in the first place—and I think what they say is perfectly true—somewhat different to that of the county secretaries. In the case of the county secretaries the clerks of the Crown and peace have very much more to do. I think I am right in saying that practically the only thing the clerks of the Crown and peace have hitherto had to do with registration where town clerks exist was to print from an Act of Parliament a document which was called a precept and send it by post, or by hand, and I suppose one copy would be quite enough. The rest of the business, so far as I can make out, and I have made some study of the subject, and I had some personal experience a good many years ago in connection with this matter of registration, so far as the clerk of the Crown and peace was concerned ended there. The lists were completed and handed back to the clerk of the Crown and peace by the clerk of the borough. All the intermediate work was done by the town clerk and his assistants, who were under his direction and control.
    I believe I am stating what is absolutely true when I say that there has been no objection taken to them, or to the way in which the work has been discharged in any of the boroughs, or in any of the six boroughs of which these town clerks have carried out this work of registration. The lists were handed back to the clerk of the peace and he had to get them printed. That is part of his ordinary duty. He has to stock the registers completed and printed, to keep them in his office, and to sell them to the public. He is a whole-time officer of the Government. The work costs the ratepayers nothing. The remuneration he receives was paid him in his salary. All the rest of the work was done by the town clerks and assistants, as I have already said. They issued directions to the clerk of the unions and the rating committees. They were superiors to these other officers, who got permission, and utilised it, and so looked after the work. There is no particular difference between their case and the case of the county secretaries, which I have no doubt has been made familiar by this time to the Chief Secretary. Perhaps, however,

    2097
    he will excuse me mentioning it in a sentence. In the counties where the county secretaries operate they have the existing register before them on which to begin their work. The town clerk of a borough has no list of that kind before him. He has to make the list out from the commencement, and he has to certify it from the return made to him by the officers acting under him. Things are to some extent different in the counties, and in consequence of this difference, and of others—perhaps some of them sentimental reasons—the town clerks of the boroughs think that their status ought to be the same as hitherto, that their duties ought to be the same, and that they ought to have the same authority over the officers acting under them as they have at this moment. Really, I cannot understand why, in their case at least, the Chief Secretary hesitates to makes this concession. I do not know what he is going to do on the present occasion, but it seems to me that it will be necessary for him to give some explanation as to why he refuses to do what he is asked, supposing he is going to take that course. I know of no reason for refusal, and I cannot imagine any. Moreover, I believe there is absolutely unanimity on this subject, with the exception, I admit, of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy). The Unionists from the North of Ireland on the last occasion were unanimous in support of the proposal.
    Sir J. LONSDALEdissented.
    Mr. CLANCY: The hon. Baronet, at all events, was silent, though I am sorry to infer from what he has just said that he is against the proposal. I hope he is the only one, and certainly from the action of the Unionist Members from Ulster on the former occasion I must assume they are with us on this matter. One or two spoke in favour. I appeal to the Chief Secretary to make this concession, and I certainly do not know why he should persist in a proposal to degrade these officers.
    Mr. FIELD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I would like to remind the hon. Member that the Town Clerk of Londonderry was on the deputation, and he was exceedingly strong in the position he took up.
    There is only one further argument. The town clerks of these different cities are in a better position to carry out the
    2098
    registration business than would be the clerks of the peace, and for this reason: They have a knowledge not alone of the, localities, but of the persons. Surely the Town Clerks of Dublin, Belfast and Londonderry know more about the business to which they have been accustomed than the clerks of the peace. I know something about this, and I know that what my hon. Friend has said is absolutely true, that the clerks of the peace have practically nothing whatever to do with this matter.
    Mr. M. HEALY: As the hon. and learned Member who moved this Amendment has referred to me, perhaps I may say a word in justification of the position I take up. All my personal predilections are in favour of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for North Dublin has suggested that it was possible a statement might be made that these officers were not competent to discharge the duties of registration officers. Certainly that is the last suggestion I would dream of making. I know several of them. I know the very competent Town Clerk of Dublin, formerly a very respected Member of this House, and my friend the Town Clerk of Cork, and I have done business with the Town Clerks of Belfast and Derry, and found them all first-class officials. There is not one of these persons who is not perfectly competent to do the work of registration officer, and if you were for the first time setting up registration machinery, I think I would probably take the view of the hon. and learned Member. But we are not doing this for the first time. We are dealing with vested interests. This process of the registration of voters has been in existence for several generations, and all that time the work has been discharged, not by the town clerk, but by the clerk of the peace. Accordingly, when, as a member of the Speaker's Conference having some knowledge of this matter, I was appealed to to say what should be done in this matter in Ireland, I urged on that Conference that the proper line to be taken was that every official should be left, as far as possible, in the position in which he was placed under the existing law. Having taken that position at the Speaker's Conference having accepted my suggestion and recommended it, I cannot, of course,

    2099
    stultify myself in this House by taking a different line and supporting this Amendment.
    I was really surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member say that there was anything in this which degraded the town clerks. I was also astonished at his statement that this would make some change in their position. Surely, when we discussed this matter in Committee we inserted an Amendment in the Bill stating as plainly as the English language can state anything that the position of such officials is safeguarded. This leaves them as they are, and instead of injuring them in any way it largely increases their emoluments. It is beyond any doubt that this Bill will more than double their work. I should say it will probably increase their work threefold. One Amendment agreed to last week adding wives to the municipal list alone will enormously increase their work, and pro tanto, most properly, their money. Accordingly, neither from the point of view of dignity, nor from that of their financial position, will this in the least injure or degrade these gentlemen. I rise with regret, but I am bound to do what is fair and just, and what is fair and just in this matter is to take no man's livelihood or emoluments from him Accordingly, with much personal regret, and having, as I say, much sympathy with the officers of whom the hon. and learned Member for Dublin has spoken, I regretfully feel myself unable to support him on this occasion.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: It occurs to me that the position of the town clerks of the county boroughs is precisely the same as that of the secretaries of the county councils. We discussed the whole question in Committee, and it was decided that the work should be done by the clerk of the peace. Between hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway apparently there is a difference on this question, but, speaking for those I represent, I say at once we are entirely in favour of the position being given to the clerk of the peace, as in the past. As the hon. Member for Cork states, instead of the emoluments of town clerks being diminished, they will be, owing to the increase in the number of voters, considerably enlarged. I do not think, therefore, there are any legitimate
    2100
    grounds for complaint. Personally, I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not take a vote on this matter.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member opposite has appealed to me upon this question. These officials have been in communication with me, and everybody who knows them has the highest respect for them, and they are perfectly competent to discharge the duties of registration officers. Some of them hold conspicuous positions. It is not as if we were starting a new system and had to select for the first time the people best fitted to discharge these duties, for we are dealing with an existing system. I thought we had satisfied hon. Members from all parts of Ireland by inserting a provision which retained to every officer the duties he now discharges, or gave him the right to discharge the analogous duties that arise under the provisions of this Bill. That was of the nature of a compact between Irish Members and His Majesty's Government. If Irish Members say now "We were a little short-sighted in that respect, and although we agreed to deal with the matter in that way we suggest, on the combined representation of the whole of us, that you should now depart from that position," that would have weighed with me.
    Mr. CLANCY: I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to say that I or any of us entered into a compact with the Government to accept as satisfactory the words which he inserted in a subsequent part of this Bill. I deny that emphatically.
    Mr. DUKE: I certainly was under the impression that we had settled this matter by leaving the duties to be carried out by those who had been accustomed to perform them. Immediately you displace people from duties in which they have an interest you must compensate them, and if you do not reappoint them you cast some reflection upon their past services. The Amendment is one to reserve these duties to those who have discharged them, or where there is new duties we put them into the hands of those who have previously discharged similar duties. It has been argued that in the case of the county boroughs an increased charge would be thrown upon each county, but may I point out that the remuneration of the Clerk of the Crown and Peace would be

    2101
    paid out of the Exchequer, and the remuneration of the town clerk would have to be provided in a different manner.
    Mr. CLANCY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to say that half the expense incurred by the clerks of the Crown and Peace will fall upon the rates?
    Mr. DUKE: May I point out that whereas the Clerks of the Crown and Peace are remunerated wholly out of the Exchequer that town clerks would not be remunerated in this way.
    Mr. CLANCY: I understand that if the Clerk of the Crown and Peace is made registration officer the registration expenses which he would properly have incurred would be paid half by the Treasury and half by the ratepayers, and under these circumstances where is the saving?
    Mr. DUKE: If the town clerk is made registration officer half of his expenses, half of the personal remuneration which would come to him for discharging the duties of registration officer, would have to be paid out of the funds of the borough. This Bill provides the mode in which this remuneration shall be paid, and on this question I do not depart from the attitude I took up in Committee.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman and those who have taken the same views as he has just expressed, seem to know what is in the minds of the town clerks better than the town clerks themselves. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that many of us accompanied the town clerks of Ireland and other officials affected by the Bill when they waited upon him to put their case before him, and the case they put was entirely different from that which the right hon. Gentleman has just expressed, and by those who supported the same view. On that point I can give further evidence, because before these officials waited upon the right hon. Gentleman they met in Dublin, in the Mansion House, and passed the following resolution:
    "That this meeting of town clerks, secretaries of county councils and urban district councils, being the persons who possess complete information for the framing of the registration lists and who entirely compile these lists—"
    Is that a false statement? It must be, if what the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has stated is correct. The resolution proceeds:
    "and who bring to the Revision Court all the information for the testing and making of an absolutely
    2102
    correct Parliamentary and municipal record of voters. call upon the Government and the rish Members of Parliament to support such an alteration of the law with respect to the making of these lists as will leave the work in the hands of the popularly elected representatives of the Irish people in like manner to that which is proposed in clause 10 with respect to English officials."
    That is the opinion of the town clerks themselves. When we come to Clause 10, and the position of officials in England, it indicates the great misfortune of legislating for Ireland in the same measure as legislation is proposed for England. What is the fact with regard to England? It is that the Clerks of the Crown and Peace in England and the town clerk are one and the same person in almost all cases, whereas in Ireland they are quite different people. One is the clerk of a popularly elected body appointed by them, whereas the other is the Clerk of the Crown and Peace appointed by the Government. These men have done this business satisfactorily up to the present. They state that they are the persons who have done the work, and they have done it not only to the satisfaction of their employers but also to the satisfaction of the public. They are daily using the books from which these lists are compiled, namely, the valuation rolls and the rate-book. From these two books the compilation of the lists has to be done, and these books will have to be placed in the hands of men who do not use them.
    It has been pointed out that the work done by the clerks of the Crown and peace entitle them to carry out this registration work, but I would like to point out that the work done by them in the past has been merely of a perfunctory character. The real work was done by the other officials. I looked amongst my papers, because I had intended to speak in Committee on this subject, and I came across a statement made by the clerks of the Crown and Peace with regard to their remuneration, and they made a demand and passed a resolution that they shall be put in the same position with regard to remuneration as clerks of the county council and borough councils, and that this expense shall be borne by the rates and paid by the county council. If that be so, we shall be paying the cost of the salaries of gentlemen over whom we have no control. The county councils have now to pay their own servants appointed by themselves, and the effect of this change will be that they will be paying the expenses of officials over whom they have no control. I suggest to the House that this

    2103
    is a most inequitable proposition. I protest against the change, and I support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Dublin. I agree that there has been no sound or good reason given for the change, and if it is made it will be against the direct
    protest of those who represent the people whose servants are about to be disfranchised.
    Question put, " That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 335.

    Division No. 123.]

    AYES.

    [6.15 p.m.

    Adamson, William

    Hinds. John

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Anderson, W. C.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Barton, Sir William

    John, Edward Thomas

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Runclman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

    Black, Sir Arthur W.

    Jewett, Frederick William

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Joyce, Michael

    Smallwood, Edward

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Smith, Capt. Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    King, J.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Law, Hugh A. (Danegal, West)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lynch, A. A.

    Tillett, B.

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

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

    Tootill, Robert

    Crumley, Patrick

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Molloy, Michael

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Field, William

    Nolan, Joseph

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

    O'Grady, James

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Galbralth, Samuel

    O'Malley, William

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Hackett, John

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Boland and Mr. J. O'Connor,

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Allen, .Major W. J.

    Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir F. (Prestwich)

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Baird, John Lawrence.

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Greig, Colonel J. W

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Clive, Col. Percy Archer

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Clyde, James Avon

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

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Barnston, Capt. Harry

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Frederick (Dulwich)

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hombre, Angus Valdemar

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Been, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

    Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Craig, Norman (Kent. Thanet)

    Harris, Percy A. (Lelcester, S.)

    Bird, Alfred

    Cralk, Sir Henry

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Blair, Reginald

    Currie, George W.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Bliss, Joseph

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Boles, Lieut,Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

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

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

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

    Hewart, Sir Gordon

    Boyton, James

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Dixon, C. H.

    Hickman, Brig. Gen. Thomas E.

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Brookes, Warwick

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Broughton, Urban Hanlon

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

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

    Bull, Sir William James

    Fell, Arthur

    Horne, Edgar

    Burdett. Coutts, W.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

    Hunter. Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Butcher, John George

    Fitzroy. Hon. Edward A.

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Fleming, Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

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

    Cater, John

    Gardner, Ernest

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Nichelson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Nield, Herbert

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

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Kerry, Lieut.-Col., Earl of

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

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

    Spear, Sir John Ward

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Stanley,Rt.Hon.SirA.H. (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Larmon, Sir J.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Starkey, John Ralph

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pease, Rt.Hon. Herbert Pike(Darlington)

    Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert i

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Philipps, General Ivor (Southampton)

    Tickler, T. G.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Philipps, Captain Sir Owen (Chester)

    Touche, Sir George Alexander

    Leng, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Pratt, J. W.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

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

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmond

    Walton. Sir Joseph

    MacCaw, William .J. MacGeagh

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Wardle, George J.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

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

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Rees. Sir J. D.

    Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E. G. A.

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

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham) i

    Weston, J. W.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Whiteley, Herbert J.

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

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

    Marriott, J. A. R.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Winfrey. Sir Richard

    Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Mitchell-Thomson, W.

    Rothschild, Major Lionel de

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Mend. Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

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

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

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

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin, U.)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) .

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

    Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, West)

    Edmund Talbot and Captain Guest.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Question put, and agreed to

    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "the" ["the expenses properly incurred by the registration officer"], to insert the word "registration."
    This is one of a series of Amendments dealing with the definition of registration expenses. Clause 13 provides a general method for regulating registration expenses, and this and the series of Amendments which follow are mere drafting Amendments intended to take advantage of the definition which is found in that Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "properly incurred by the registration officer in the performance of his duties in relation to registration," and insert instead the words "of that registratien officer."—[Mr. Duke.]
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move to leave out the words "Provided that the expenses to be paid by a council shall not include any charges for trouble, care, and attention, in the performance of duties which are performed by the registration officer in person:"
    I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the words which I propose to leave
    2106
    out are inconsistent with his own Sub-section. The registration officer now will not only have larger duties, but also different duties to perform, because he will be discharging largely functions which hitherto have been discharged by the County Court judge. It will now be the duty of the registration officer to hear claims and objections and to decide them. He never discharged that duty before. It is really a duty of a judicial character, as distinct from an administrative character, and it is now cast upon him for the first time. I observe that in the case of England great pains are taken to see that he is properly remunerated for his work. It is stated that he is to be paid all proper and reasonable charges for trouble, care, and attention in the performance of the duty imposed upon him. When you come to the case of Ireland, it is provided that the expenses shall not include any charges for trouble, care, and attention. As this seems quite inconsistent with the right hon. Gentleman's Sub-section, I beg to move that it be omitted.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Amendments made: After the word the" ["Provided that the expenses"] insert the word "registration."
    Leave out the words "all such," and inserts instead thereof the words "The registration."
    Leave out the words "and shall be regulated in accordance with a scale fixed by the Local Government Board"—
    [Mr. Duke]
    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, after Subsection (3), to insert,
    "(4) Where an administrative county is divided into ridings the Lord Lieutenant may, by order, divide the Parliamentary county into a corresponding number of registration areas and make any adaptations of this Act which may be necessary in consequence of the division, and the clerk of the Crown and peace for any riding shall be registration officer for such of those areas as may he directed by the Lord Lieutenant."
    These words create a power in counties or in a county where there is more than one clerk of the Crown and peace to allot a district for registration purposes to each clerk of the Crown and peace. The The case which I have in mind in making this proposal is that of county Cork, which is divided into two ridings. The case cannot be dealt with simply by introducing words into the Bill which allot to each clerk of the Crown and peace one of the ridings, because it happens that the boundaries of the ridings cut across the boundaries of the constituencies. Some arrangement will be necessary, and care will have to be exercised in order to see that the duties of the registration officers for the various constituencies in county Cork are properly apportioned between the two clerks of the Crown and peace. We propose that it should be done by a reasonable arrangement, and the Amendment is moved with that object.
    Mr. HEALY: No doubt something of this kind is necessary, but I doubt if the right hon. Gentleman has considered the aptness of the words employed. That appears to be open to dispute. It is undoubtedly a fact that in county Cork the riding does not correspond with any electoral area. No doubt it will be necessary that the clerk of the Crown and peace of the West Riding shall be the registration officer for a small bit of the East Riding, and that the clerk of the Crown and peace of the East Riding shall be the registration officer for a small bit of the West .Riding. I cannot, however, see why such powers are required for the Lord Lieu-
    2108
    tenant. I do not suppose that the Subsection will be acted upon. The rational course would be to provide that the clerk of the Crown and peace who is clerk of the Crown and peace for the greater part of the area shall be the registration officer for that area. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why this precise form of words has been adopted.
    Mr. DUKE: The form of words adopted here is adopted for the purpose of giving the largest possible power to do what common sense dictates. I cannot conceive that any officer entrusted with the power of government in Ireland would do anything but that which he thought met the best necessities of the voters in those two. ridings. It is a somewhat complex problem with which to deal, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it will be dealt with in entire good faith and with a desire to meet the necessities of the case. If he or any Member representing county Cork will come to me at the time when an Order is proposed for the purpose of carrying out the objects I have explained to the House, I will do my best either to justify the Order which is proposed to be made or make such amendments as common sense may dictate.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4).
    The matter is somewhat technical, but I will endeavour to explain to the right hon. Gentleman as briefly as I can why I make this proposal. The Sub-section deals with the county and city of Dublin, and it deals with the voters' lists and the jurors' lists. I am in doubt whether that portion of the Sub-section dealing with the jurors' lists is in order. The title of the Bill is
    "A Bill to amend the Law with respect to Parliamentary and Local Government Franchises and the Registration of Parliamentary and Local Government Electors, and the conduct of elections and to provide for the Redistribution of Seats at Parliamentary Elections, and for other purposes connected therewith."
    The revision of the jurors' lists has not the smallest connection with anything covered by the Title of the Bill. If that objection had been taken at the proper time, I should have claimed that that part of the Sub-section is out of order. I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposal made in the Bill with regard to jurors' lists is ill-considered. It assumes

    2109
    that the present authority for dealing with the jurors' lists is the County Court. That is not so—that is to say, it is not the County Court qua County Court that deals with them. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Juries Act he will find that there is no jurisdiction conferred on the County Court qua County Court in the matter of the revisions of the voters' lists. The matter is dealt with in the Juries Act, 1870, which provides that the revising authority shall not be the County Court, but the authority which revises the voters' lists. It happens that the main authority which revises the voters' lists is the County Court, but it does not revise the jurors' lists qua County Court; it revises them as being the authority which revises the voters' lists. The relevance of that distinction to the present Sub-section is that in the County of Dublin the County Court has nothing whatever to do with the revision of the jurors' lists. In the county of Dublin there is a special tribunal. It is set up by a particular Act which vests, in a special Court appointed for the purpose, the function of revising the voters' lists. It is that Court, and not the County Court, which revises the jurors' lists in the city of Dublin. Accordingly, it appears to me that, in point of form, so much of this Sub-section as refers to the revision of the jurors' lists is ill-considered, and will not have the operation it is intended to have, for it provides that for the purpose of the revision of the jurors' lists the powers and jurisdiction of the County Court shall, as regards the Parliamentary borough of Dublin, be exercised by the County Court. I do not know whether the Sub-section has been considered from that aspect. The first point I make is that technically it is inapplicable, and has not the operation it is intended to have.
    On the merits of the Sub-section, let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that. for the first time, this Sub-section casts on the Recorder of Dublin the duty of revising the voters' lists. Of course, it does not cast it upon him immediately, but undoubtedly it provides that that function shall be cast ultimately upon him. It is a function he has never hitherto discharged It was never cast upon him by Statute before. It seems somewhat extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should propose to cast upon any judicial officer new duties of a wholly novel kind without making some provision that he shall, at
    2110
    any rate, get some remuneration for the duties he discharges. That is not, however, the particular aspect of the matter in which I am interested. My view is that the Recorder of Dublin has business enough to do. He is the hardest worked official in Ireland. The County Court jurisdictions of Dublin and of Belfast are quite sufficient to occupy the whole time of any judge. Whoever drafted this Bill did a thing which was ill-considered in taking power to cast these duties on an official who already has sufficient work to do. So much for the jurors' lists. In addition to the juror's lists, the right hon. Gentleman casts upon the Recorder of Dublin, for the first time, the function of a Court of Appeal in the matter of the voters' lists. It is a curious fact that that is a function which never from the beginning of time was vested in the Recorder of Dublin. Ever since there have been Courts of Revision the duty of revising the voters' lists has been wholly foreign to the functions discharged by the Recorder of Dublin. Whatever the reason for it was, under the Reform Act, when a Court of Revision was first set up, it was provided that the jurisdiction of revising the voters' lists in Dublin should be discharged not by the Recorder of Dublin, but by the chairman of the Quarter Sessions for the county.
    Never since there have been Revision Courts has any work connected with the revision of voters in the county of Dublin been discharged by the Recorder of Dublin. In the beginning it was discharged first by the chairman of Quarter Sessions and afterwards by a deputy appointed by him, and at present it is discharged by two barristers who are appointed under an Act specially gassed for that purpose. Not only did it cast upon them the duty of revising the lists for the city of Dublin, but also the lists for the county of Dublin, and it makes a curious distinction in the two cases. I do not know why it is that the Bill proposes to repeal the two Statutes which deal with the special jurisdiction of the revising barristers for the city of Dublin but does not propose to repeal the Statute which appoints a revising barrister for the county of Dublin. This Sub-section proposes ultimately to cast both jurisdictions on the Recorder, but in the one case the special Statutes under which the city of Dublin's revising barristers are appointed are repealed, and the special Section by which the revising county barrister is appointed is not repealed. If there is any reason.

    2111
    for that distinction, I, shall be glad to know what it is. I suspect there is probably a financial reason. At any rate, the distinction is made in the Statute, and when the proper time comes I shall be glad to hear what it is. However, my present object is to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he is proposing by this Sub-section to cast upon the Recorder of Dublin an additional burden in the shape of work which it is quite impossible that he can perform. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure me that he considers that the power contained in the English Section which vests in the Lord Chancellor the power, if he thinks fit, to appoint an additional judge to do the work sufficiently meets the case. If that is the right hon. Gentleman's explanation there is some substance in it, but I move the Amendment in order to obtain from him a full statement on the somewhat difficult matter which is involved in this Clause. When we were dealing with it in Committee he gave an assurance, with reference to the abolition of the office of the two gentlemen who held the position of revising barristers, which I thought would have been dealt with by an Amendment on Report. I do not see any Amendment down on the subject, but I suppose some Amendment is necessary in order to carry out the pledge.
    Mr. CLANCY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I wish to draw attention to the case of the Recorder of Dublin. So far as I recollect the facts are these: In 1884 a special revising barrister was appointed, by an Act of Parliament specially passed for the purpose, to revise the lists for the county of Dublin, and on that occasion, in consequence of the removal of registration work from the Recorder, his salary was cut down by £100 a year. I really think it would be a breach of faith now to increase his work without giving him back at least that £100 a year.
    Mr. DUKE: There is no intention of doing anything of the kind.
    Mr. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman is so well-intentioned that I might be inclined to accept his assurance except that, unfortunately, all members of the Government are not equally to be trusted. I would rather have the guarantee of an Act of Parliament than any assurance
    2112 s
    such as the right hon, Gentleman has given. I would suggest that some such words as these might be inserted at the end of the Sub-section, "Provided that no such direction shall be given during the term of office of the present Recorder of Dublin." That would preserve the right of the Government, after the present occupant ceases to hold office, to add to his duties without additional remuneration.
    Mr. DUKE: This Sub-section deals with a somewhat difficult situation. The case of the city and county of Dublin is somewhat anomalous regarding registration. The revising barristers hold office under Statute and perform their duties in a different way from that in which they are performed by any other revising barrister. They have discharged their duties to everyone's satisfaction as far as I am aware. If they were dismissed and compensated, you would have had to provide two compensations. You would have had to pay a deputy-judge or recorder for doing the work and to pay other members of the Board for not doing the work. In that view of the case the Clause provides that those who are efficiently doing their work shall continue to do it, and so shall not be so entitled to compensation, and that the judges of the County Court shall not be required to do the work, and so shall not be compelled to make a claim for increase of salary. That is the object of the proposal in the Sub-section, and the question is whether it does any injustice to anyone. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) began his criticism of the Sub-section by saying it was inapt from the technical point of view, because the Recorder, as such, has nothing to do with the revision of the jurors' lists.
    Mr. HEALY: No. I said the County Court had nothing to do with it.
    Mr. DUKE: My hon. and learned Friend was quite right as to the manner in which these duties are distributed, but the words are perfectly apt, because the functions which are dealt with here are the powers and jurisdiction of the County Court for the purpose of registration appeals. and for the purpose of the revision of the jurors' lists.
    Mr. HEALY: Not in Dublin.
    Mr. DUKE: The Clause is not dealing with the particular circumstances of

    2113
    Dublin. The powers and jurisdiction to which it refers are not the powers and jurisdiction which happen to be exercised under anomalous conditions in Dublin, but the powers and jurisdiction provided in the Bill itself for County Courts generally.
    Mr. HEALY: That is a Dublin Subsection.
    Mr. DUKE: That does not appear to me to be at all material. That is the foundation of the hon. and learned Gentleman's charge of inaptitude against the draftsman, and I think he is wrong. As to the other matters, first of all it is desired to protect the Recorder of Dublin from having to discharge these duties without remuneration. In Clause 12 there is a provision which empowers the Lord Chancellor to furnish the services of an assistant judge for the discharge of these duties if necessary. Why should it be supposed that this power will not be exercised at the time when the necessity to exercise it arises? If one of the revising barristers dies, or if two die, or if the three die, the occasion would arise for furnishing help to discharge these duties. At any rate, the position of the Recorder will not be interfered with in any way without some change in his remuneration, and he will not be asked to perform these duties without his consent. I do not think the Recorder ought to be called upon, and I am sure he would not undertake to perform duties unless he were able to do so. I regard that contingency as out of the case. I do not think it will ever materialise. The other question is with regard to revising barristers. It was suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) that a proviso should be added that no direction shall be given by the Lord-Lieutenant during the term of office of the present Recorder. Let me put a case. Assume that one of the revising barristers died. There would be duties to be discharged, and someone would have to discharge them. The result of the suggested proviso would be to disable the Government from providing, in the time of the present Recorder, for the discharge of those duties. That obviously is a thing we could not contemplate. The revising barristers are protected. The Clause was modelled with a view to protecting them in their positions. So far as the Recorder is concerned there will be no interference
    2114
    with his office and no attempts to put additional duties upon him without his consent.
    Amendment negatived
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (6), to insert the words:"and the expression 'overseer' means a town clerk, secretary of a county council, clerk of an urban district council, an existing clerk of the union, within the meaning of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and a collector of poor rate."
    Mr. HUGH LAW: I beg to move, as an. Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "an existing" and to insert instead thereof the word "a."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to make it possible for the clerks of unions to be employed. This point was raised in the Committee stage, and the Government found itself unable to accept it. I did not press it then, but further consideration has made me feel that the matter is of real and substantial importance. Therefore, I venture to trouble the House once more with it. I do not know whether the House will know, but the Chief Secretary is well aware of the point at issue. Clerks of unions appointed before 1898 are the existing clerks which are mentioned in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. Certain changes were made by the Local Government Act of that year, and the rights of existing clerks were safeguarded. Now the question arises whether clerks. appointed since that time ought to be able to be employed in the same manner as those appointed before 1898. I know quite well what objection will be raised to my Amendment. It is that in order to carry out my proposal it would be necessary to displace people who are already in fact doing the work. That, of course, is a thing which people naturally do not want to do, but if, as I think, the clerk of a union, whether he was an existing clerk before 1898 or one appointed since, is the man who is qualified with the best local knowledge and who, therefore, can bring to the performance of the duties of an overseer, exactly those qualities which are most to be desired, then I do not think it is in the public interests that the rights of certain other persons should be allowed to stand in the way. For that reason I hope that after further consideration the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible in the public interest to give to.,

    2115
    clerks of unions the same rights and powers as are given at present to the clerks appointed before 1898. It is immaterial when a clerk was appointed. The point is that the clerks of unions are the best men for this work. They are men who live in the district. The secretary of a county council may live at a great distance from the district, and he may not be familiar with the people or he may, as in my own county live 40, 50, or 60 miles from the homes of the people whose names have to be put upon the register. The clerks of unions are constantly brought into touch with the people; they have to check the rate-book fortnightly, and in many other ways they are in possession of information which no other officer in the locality can possibly have.
    An HON. MEMBER: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member reminds the House that so long ago as 1898 it was decided that the clerks whose claims are again brought to the notice of the House are not the best class of officers to discharge the duties of registration. By the Local Government Act (Ireland) of that year those duties were transferred to other persons who have been officially discharging them ever since. What the hon. Member proposes to do now is to reverse the effect of legislation which is now twenty years old, to take the duties out of the hands of people who are efficiently discharging them, with the consequence of having to pay them compensation, and to transfer them to a revived body of persons, who the House nearly twenty years ago decided were not the best persons to discharge them. I cannot consent to this Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (7), to insert: "(8) The reference to the local authority having power to divide any Parliamentary county or Parliamentary borough into polling districts shall be construed in the case of a Parliamentary borough as a reference to the council of the municipal borough, and in the case of a Parliamentary county as a reference to the council of the
    2116
    administrative county which is coterminous with, or includes the whole or greater part of the Parliamentary county, and any existing powers in that behalf of a municipal borough council or county council shall be extended accordingly and shall be exerciseable as respects the whole of the Parliamentary borough or the Parliamentary county as the case may be."
    The object of this Amendment is to clear up certain points in the definition of various Statutes in Ireland and the authorities which have the control of the division of polling districts. There are various Statutes which are somewhat complex. Various authorities are charged with the duty, such as the town council, town commissioners, justices, chairmen of quarter sessions, county councils, and so forth. The Sub-section which I have put down will place the duties in the hands of the proper local authority, which is to be the council of a municipal borough in the case of a Parliamentary borough, and the council of the administrative county in the case of a Parliamentary county.
    Mr. HEALY: I had two Amendments down to the right hon. Gentleman's proposed Amendment, but I do not propose to move them. I think his Amendment makes a beneficial change in the law by vesting the power of dividing constituencies into polling districts in the county or borough councils. Under legislation passed so long ago as 1873, the chairman of Quarter Sessions was vested with this duty, because at that time there were no local bodies in which the power could be vested, and the chairman of Quarter Sessions probably was the only tribunal who was considered to have sufficient local colour to deal with the matter. That has been somewhat modified subsequently. I think the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment will meet with general assent, subject to the provisions contained in a later Schedule of the Bill. While I am in favour of giving to the county councils this power, I think there should be some appeal, and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, in the provisions of a later Section, contemplates giving that appeal. At the present time the appeal lies from the Quarter Sessions to the Privy Council, but I think the appeal ought to be to the Local Government Board. In a later Schedule the right hon. Gentleman has incorporated a Section which provides for appeal, but as the appeal to the Privy Council is somewhat obsolete, because that is not the proper

    2117
    body to deal with a matter of this kind, I should be glad of an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will modify the Section giving the appeal by making it an appeal not to the Privy Council but to the Local Government Board.
    Mr. DUKE: When we come to the later stage of the Bill to which the hon. Member refers, I think I shall be able to satisfy him.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move his Amendments?
    Mr. HEALY:No.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. ARCHDALE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (8), after the word "officer," to insert the words "or with respect to the use of elementary schools."
    Elementary schools in Ireland at present are not permitted to be used for the purpose of holding meetings of any kind, and in my country we find that that answers perfectly well. We look forward to having a very lively time at the next election. When other parties come in we generally have a lively time. When the next election comes off, and our men come ever from the Front, if the words now proposed are not inserted, every national school in Ireland will be turned into a sort of Hindenburg Line, with one party inside holding a meeting and another party outside trying to put them out. It would be very much better to keep the national schools free from anything of that sort.
    Mr. LINDSAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. DUKE: I have made inquiries about this matter, and, having regard to the conditions in Ireland, I think on the whole that the using of schools for election meetings would not be an advisable change in Ireland, and therefore I propose to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (9), and to insert instead thereof:
    "(9) (a) The qualifying period shall be a period of six months ending on the fifteenth day of July and including that day;
    Provided that one month shall be substituted for six months in the application of this provision to a person who has been serving as a member of
    2118
    the naval or military forces of the Crown at any time during the said six months;
    (b) One register of electors only shall be made in each year and all provisions applicable to the autumn register shall apply as respects the yearly register(except that the yearly register shall remain in force until the fifteenth day of October in the next following year), and the provisions as to the preparation of two registers in each year and as to the spring register shall not apply."
    The object of this Amendment is to fulfil a promise which I made in the Committee stage with regard to the provision in the Bill for having two registrations in the year. This is not considered necessary, or, indeed, desirable in Ireland, having regard to the different conditions and I have drafted this Clause so as to preserve the old method of one registration in the year as being best adapted to Ireland.
    Sir JAMES DOUGHERTY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end of paragraph (a), to insert the words"Provided that the provisions of Section 9 in Part II. of this Act shall apply in the cities of Dublin, Belfast, Cork and Derry."
    The object of this Amendment is to except from the operation of the Chief Secretary's Amendment the four cities named, which are the only cities which, if the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners are to be carried into effect, will have separate Parliamentary representation when this Bill becomes law.
    An HON. MEMBER: What about Limerick?
    Mr. JOYCE: We do not want it in Limerick. One register is quite enough.
    Sir J. DOUGHERTY: My Amendment refers to the great industrial communities of Dublin, Belfast, Cork and Derry. I have no particular quarrel with the proposal of the Chief Secretary to substitute an annual for a semi-annual revision in the Irish counties. We all know that in the case of rural populations there is very little change. People are rooted to the soil and think twice before they change their place of abode. It is entirely different when we come to deal with industrial communities like those here mentioned. These have year by year con-

    2119
    siderable changes in the population. I know that the vote is preserved, but all the same there is the risk of accident, and a man may perchance lose his vote by changing his place of abode, and if he does lose his vote, then, under the Clause as proposed to be amended by the Chief Secretary, he is penalised to the extent of being left off the register for a whole year. The point, however, to which I wish to call particular attention and press on the Chief Secretary is this: In these industrial communities there is considerable migration from time to time from one city to another in Ireland and from one city to another between Ireland and Great Britain. When trade is dull in one locality the workmen there seek employment in another, and if the Clause as amended by the Chief Secretary is carried the effect would be that men coming from Glasgow, Sunderland, or the Clyde, or the East Coast to work in the shipyards of Belfast, or from some other industrial centre in Great Britain to take employment in Belfast, Derry, Cork, or Dublin, would find themselves in the position of having to take twice as long to get on the register in Ireland as if they had remained at home. This is a great anomaly which ought to be removed. This Bill is intended to sweep away some of the anomalies of the existing system, and though I do not think, after some of the things that have happened, that it is completely successful in this respect, yet it is desirable that we should remove anomalies if possible.
    Only two arguments may be adduced in opposition to my proposal. One is that it would be anomalous to have one system of registration in a city and one system of registration in an adjoining county. I do not think there is much substance in that objection, because the circumstances and conditions of the rural constituency and those of the industrial constituency are entirely different. But even if this were not so, the Chief Secretary knows by this time that Ireland is a country of anomalies, and that one more or less does not particularly matter. The only other argument is that of economy. Now, we are all economists in Ireland, but there is one thing we prefer to economy, and that is efficiency. I believe that it is worth while to have as perfect a registration as we can get in these cities, and if it does involve a slightly greater expenditure I do not think that that is a matter that should
    2120
    be allowed to be the determining consideration. I hope the Chief Secretary will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. SCANLAN: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. HEALY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. The Mover of it has spoken as if the proposal on the Paper was the Chief Secretary's. That is not so. The Chief Secretary simply proposes to put, in somewhat different words, a proposal, which is already in the Bill, and which was put into the Bill in Committee on my motion. It was moved by me not on my own individual motion, but with the backing behind it of the Speaker's Conference, which took the view that one registration was sufficient in Ireland. The proposal at the Speakers' Conference was not made by me, but by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division. All the Irish Members at the Conference were consulted. I myself represented the city of Cork One of the Members of the city. of Dublin was present. He also was consulted, as was also the hon. Member for East Down, representing the Unionists. We were unanimous that this proposal for a biannual register, however applicable in England, would not be applicable to the circumstance of Ireland. The matter does, not stand there. When this matter was raised in Committee there was not a dissentient voice raised against the proposal. It is in no sense a party question. Alt parties are agreed on it. The Ulster Members in Committee—I do not know whether they have changed since—sup ported the proposal that one register in Ireland would be sufficient. I doubt whether in the whole Irish representation any Member can be found, except the Mover and Seconder, to support the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of anomalies. He is himself the living anomaly. He is the one being in Ireland who desires the register to be made twice in the year
    Anybody who has had the misfortune to be much concerned in Irish Revision. Courts and knows the amount of labour which they involve, the amount of time spent on them, and the drag which they are on all persons interested in politics in particular constituencies, would view with absolute loathing and horror the proposal that we should have to go through that

    2121
    terrible process twice in the year. The right hon. Gentleman has, of course, the right to speak for Derry, which he represents. I know something of Derry. I spent five weeks fighting a revision in Derry, and that does not represent the whole of the work, as there were two Courts at work, so that there were really ten weeks' work in the revision of the city of Derry. Of course, things may be very different in future. The work we all hope and believe will be very much less, but it is idle to expect that in a constituency where political parties are closely divided there will not still be a considerable amount of work on every fresh occasion when a register has to be compiled. The one city in Ireland which would have a good case is Belfast. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Dublin!"] I have done work in these matters both in Dublin and Belfast, and I know that there is a strong feeling in Ireland in reference to the difficulties which arise from the shifting population; but I am not aware that there is any Member who is in favour of two registers in Ireland, even in relation to Belfast. There is also a considerable shifting of population in Dublin in regard to the terms of tenancy, which are such as do not exist in any other city in the whole world. The right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway may introduce an anomaly, if he chooses, in regard to Derry; but as to the rest of Ireland, I think we would all resist the proposal of being burdened with two registers in the year. I shall certainly resist the Amendment to the utmost extent in my power.
    Mr. BRADY: I understand that the Chief Secretary has not yet spoken on the Amendment, and I, therefore, ask him to keep an open mind on this point. I cannot help thinking that there is a good deal to be said for this proposition, at any rate, in such places as that which is represented by the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway, where there might be two registrations. The Member for Cork himself recognised, in the case of Belfast .and Dublin, that removals are very frequent. Many Members in this House enjoyed the opportunity of two elections in the year 1910, and at the second election the difficulties of a stale register were experienced, and in Ireland the removals presented considerable difficulty. Whilst I do not say that I am absolutely wedded to this idea of two registers, recognising as I do it would create certain anomalies as
    2122
    far as Ireland is concerned, I think there is a good deal to be said about this Amendment before we go into the Lobby. I would like to hear what the Chief Secretary has to say.
    Mr. DUKE: My right hon. Friend, in his argument in support of this Amendment, was, it was pointed out by the Member for Cork, introducing a new anomaly by providing for registration twice a year in the city of Derry as one of the numerous distinctions of that city, though I think it would be a great task to impose on the community there. I am convinced that Ireland, as a whole, is satisfied with one registration a year, and that they would not like the prospect of two registrations a year. In that state of circumstances I would suggest that the Amendment should not be pressed.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add,
    "(10) 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."
    The Amendment is designed to meet a new state of facts which has arisen by the introduction into the Bill of standards of valuation. In England the term used is "gross estimated rental," which is a term that is differently applied in matters of registration. When the House was minded to modify the standard of valuation, it was simple enough to make reference, not to the rateable value, but to the old words, "the gross estimated rental. "In Ireland there is no such easy method of making the kind of change which has been made by the Bill, though it might be desirable, on the ground of principle, that it should be made. But I am satisfied that to introduce the words "gross estimated rental" in registration proceedings in Ireland would lead to endless confusion. There would be disputed questions of fact in every case where political feeling runs high as to what was the gross estimated rental. The term which is now in use in

    2123
    Ireland is the rateable value, which is the only term understood, and what I desire to effect by this Amendment is to retain for Ireland the standard of value which is known there, namely, the rateable value.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "assessed" ["separately assessed to rates"], and to insert instead thereof the word "valued."
    I should like to know what the change is that has been made.
    Mr. DUKE: I tried to explain that the Amendment was to introduce the standard of value, as the phrase "gross estimated rental" is not applicable in Ireland.
    Mr. HEALY: If that is so, undoubtedly some Amendment is necessary, but I confess I am not entirely satisfied with the present proposal, because in Ireland the phrase is "separately assessed to rates." According to the wording of the Amendment, the value of the premises is taken. In Ireland we have the same valuation as in England, but the phrase in Ireland which is in use is "separately assessed to rates," and the words I would suggest to insert in the Amendment are that the rateable value shall be the rateable value where those premises are separately "valued," as put in my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. BRADY: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. DUKE: I do not think there is any necessity for taking a strong view on this matter, and therefore I shall not resist the Amendment, which, no doubt, will be understood.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "assessed" ["they were separately assessed"], and to insert instead thereof the word "valued."
    This Amendment is consequential.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

    CLAUSE 39.—(Commencement of "lit and First Register.)
    (1) This Act shall come into operation on the passing thereof: Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect—

    (a) any Parliamentary register for the time being in force, or any Parliamentary elections, or the constitution of the House of Commons, until Parliament is first dissolved after the first register to be prepared under this Act comes into force;

    (b) any local government register for the time being in force, or any local government elections, until the first register to be prepared under this Act comes into force.

    (2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the first register to be prepared under this Act shall come into force on, and remain in force until, such date as His Majesty may fix by Order in Council, and His Majesty may by any such Order alter, in connection with the first register, any registration dates, and direct that this Act shall have effect as so altered.
    (3) If any difficulty arises as to the preparation of the first register or the holding of the first elections after the commencement of this Act, the Local Government Board may by order do any matter or thing which appears to them necessary for the proper preparation of the register or the proper holding of the elections.
    (4) This Section shall apply to any new register to be prepared and to any elections held during the continuance of the present War and a period of twelve months thereafter, as it applies to the first register to be prepared under this Act and to the first elections held after the commencement of this Act, respectively.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section. (1, a), after the word "dissolved," insert the words "or ceases to have continuance."
    In Sub-section (2), after the word "dates," insert the words, "including the dates governing the qualifying period."—[Sir G. Care.]

    NEW SIXTH SCHEDULE—Returning Officers for Scottish Constituencies situated in more than one Sheriffdom.

    Name of Parliamentary Borough or country

    Name of Division.

    Returning Officer.

    Montrose District of Burghs

    —

    Sheriff of Forfar.

    Ayr and Bute

    Bute and Northern

    Sheriff of Ayr.

    Berwick and Haddington

    —

    Sheriff of the Lothians and Peebles,

    Caithness and Sutherland

    —

    Sheriff of Caithness, Orkney, and

    Zetland.

    Inverness and Ross and Cromarty

    Western Isles

    Sheriff of Ross, Cromarty, and Sutherland.

    Perth and Kinross

    Kinross and Western

    Sheriff of Perth.

    Renfrew

    Eastern

    Sheriff of Renfrew and Bute.

    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a second time."
    This is the Schedule to which I referred earlier in the afternoon and it carries out the Amendment to which the House then assented.
    Schedule read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    Major CHAPPLE: I should like, before I move the Schedule standing in my name, to know whether or not it is possible to reject these Schedules by vote, or whether the fact of having passed an Amendment to Clause 17 does not automatically incorporate them into the Bill, subject to any Amendment that may be moved to them.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It certainly does not automatically incorporate the Schedules in the Bill, and the House now has an opportunity of either accepting or rejecting the principle of the Schedule and then of amending it. After a Schedule has been amended it can be added to the Bill.
    Major CHAPPLE: Is it not a fact that on the Seventeenth Clause an Amendment was carried providing for the adoption of the alternative vote and its application on a system set out in Schedules 8 and 9? Has not the House thereby accepted the principle and determined by its vote that the scheme of alternative voting shall be as set out in those Schedules? Is it now competent for the House to make any modification inconsistent with these Schedules and to insert words against the intentions of the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I take it that the vote of the House was in favour of the principle
    2126
    contained in the Schedule, but it does not follow that it was in favour of all the proposals therein contained and these are open to Amendment.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: And does that mean that you will not require to put a Motion for the Second Reading of the Schedules?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have to deal with the Schedules in the same way as I deal with the Clauses.

    NEW EIGHTH SCHEDULE.
    If, on counting the first-preference votes of all the candidates by the returning officer, no candidate is found to have more than one-half the number of valid votes recorded, the returning officer shall proceed to deal with the ballot papers as follows:

    (a) He shall construct a table (Table I.), as shown in the Ninth Schedule, by setting out in columns the various preferences of the voters opposite the names of the candidates arranged in alphabetical order;

    (b) He shall, in the case of those ballot papers (if any) where second or subsequent preferences are not recorded, distribute equally amongst the other candidates such unrecorded preferences;

    (c) He shall construct another table (Table II.) by multpilying the first-preference votes of each candidate by a figure which is one less than the number of candidates, and the second-preference votes by a figure which is two less, and the third-preference votes by a figure which is three less. and so on, and shall then add together the totals thus found for each candidate and place them to his credit;

    2127

    (d) He shall find the average number of all the points thus given to each candidate, and reject all candidates whose points are not greater than this average number, and if only one candidate remain he shall declare him to be elected;

    (e) He shall, if more than one candidate remain, distribute amongst them the preferences of the rejected candidate, and proceed in a similar way till all but one are rejected, and this one he shall declare to be elected;

    (f) IF at any time two or more candidates, one of whom ought to be excluded, have an equal number of points, the returning officer shall by drawing lots determine which of them shall first be excluded.—[Major Chapple.]

    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Major CHAPPLE: I beg to move "That the Schedule be read a second time."
    Owing to the insertion of these Schedules in the Bill, I should like to say a word or two upon the objections that have been raised regarding their purport. It seems to me we have to keep clearly in mind that there are two distinct parts, or rather, two distinct regions in the alternative vote. There is the part that relates to the voter almost exclusively, and the part that relates to the returning officer. The voter need know nothing about what goes on in the returning officer's room. All systems of preferential voting are the same to the voter, in so far as the marking of the ballot paper is concerned. The ballot papers for proportional representation, or for any system of alternative voting, are practically the same. The voter has simply to put numbers in the order of his choice, and the numbering having been done, he has nothing else to do but to drop the voting paper into the ballot box. I want to emphasise that point, because so many objections to the alternative vote, and more especially to my system of counting. are based on the idea that it is very complex, and that the elector will never be able to understand it. But he need not be in the least concerned with what the returning officer does with the ballot paper. providing that he can be assured that the returning officer is going to carry out his intention as expressed in these preferential numbers. So much, then, for the voters' mechanical part in marking the paper and putting it into the ballot box.
    2128
    But there are some other points to which I should like to call attention with regard to the voter. He need not mark his ballot paper; he need not give his preferences. The compulsory marking of preferences is the law in Western Australia, where they have the system set out in the draft regulations of my right hon. Friend. It was found there that the result was frequently vitiated and that minority rule obtained: that is to say, a man was very often elected as the representative of a constituency, notwithstanding the fact that he was only able to poll a minority of the electors. This resulted from the fact that only about two-thirds of the electors recorded their second preferences. There was an opinion fostered for party purposes, at any rate, that the recording of second preferences weakened the chance of the first preference man getting in. So prevalent did this idea become that the State passed a compulsory law for the recording of preferences, and now ballot papers are invalid unless they contain at least one preference other than the first. If we adopt alternative voting, as we have already done, it does not matter whether the Government scheme or my own system of counting prevails, the fact remains that the electors can defeat the intentions of the alternative vote if they like to abstain from recording their second preferences, and then the whole system of alternative voting is vitiated, and the old system of vote splitting will continue. The question now is, if we are going to adopt the alternative vote as a means of allowing a multiplicity of candidates to seek the suffrages of the electors, and as a secondary means of preventing minority rule and minority candidates being elected, how are we going to deal with the electors who refuse to play their part in that attempt?
    Western Australia has its plan. The suggestion that I make in my proposal is that the voter may be induced to cast his second preference by the instruction given to the returning officer, that all unrecorded preferences shall be divided equally among the remaining candidates. That, I submit, it a perfectly legitimate method of inducing voters to record their preferences. If a man does not give any preference he has no part in the second election, which is conducted by the returning officer in his room after it has been found on the counting of the first preferences that no candidate has secured an absolute majority. If a man does not record his

    2129
    second preference vote he is taken as not having voted at all at the second election. Take an election in which there are three candidates, A., B., and C. The voter plumps for A. He refuses to vote for either B. or C., and the assumption is that he does not care whether B. or C. is elected. That to him is a matter of indifference—if he cannot get A. elected. He says, in fact, that he has no preference as between B. and C. It may be fairly assumed that if he has a strong preference he will record it. Under my proposal, therefore, his vote will be neutralised. He will get credit for his indifference. [A laugh.] This may be amusing to hon. Members, but surely it is a fair assumption that if a man has a preference he will record it, and if he has no preference then his vote should be neutralised. Suppose there are 100 votes thus to be disposed of, the returning officer will give 50 to B. and 50 to C., and that will make no difference whatever in the result. But the knowledge that the returning officer must take that course will surely induce the voter if he has any preference between B. and C. at all, to record that second preference in favour of the one he prefers. The fact that his second vote will be neutralised will surely induce him to record the preference, unless, indeed, there is some ulterior motive in neglecting to do so. We know that election agents will continue to manoeuvre, as they always have done, to determine which of the candidates is to be defeated, but still I submit that if the voter is made aware that in the event of his failure to record a second preference the returning officer will neutralise that preference by another unrecorded preference on the second ballot, he will be induced to record that preference. That is an essential part of the scheme, because the whole of the alternative vote is vitiated unless by some means or other you induce or compel a voter to record at least a second preference. If we adopt the alternative vote we must ensure its success, and we can only do so by requiring the voter to record his preferences.
    Some have thought it would be well to go even as far as compelling electors to vote, because the indifference of voters has frequently in the past vitiated election results, and if, that occurred it might lead to a country being governed by a clique. It is essential to good government that every elector should vote. It is essential
    2130
    for the success of the alternative vote, for the determination of your preferences, and for the election of the majority candidate that every elector should record at least a second preference. So much for the voter and what he is asked to do under this system.
    8.0 P.M.
    As to the returning officer, the whole thing turns upon the instructions which
    are given to him. My right hon. Friend, in his draft Rules has given each returning officer certain specific instructions as to what he is to do when he gets the ballot papers. But in the Schedule which I am advocating I think I have a better scheme. The right hon. Gentleman's scheme is erroneous; mine is free from error. The scheme of my right hon. Friend does not in all cases secure majority rule in a constituency, and, that being so, he does not
    fulfil the avowed intention of the alternative vote, which is to do away with
    minority rule and to substitute for it majority rule in every constituency. If
    the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman does not secure that, then I say it is
    fallacious; it is even worse, because it means that you will go to the constituency under false pretences. You say to the constituency, "It is your right under a democratic system to have a representative who represents more than half of the electors, and we are going to ensure that you get that, and therefore give you this alternative vote system." But the Government method does not do that. Then I say you go to the constituency under false pretences. You make a fraudulent claim if you claim that with my right hon. Friend's scheme you can ensure majority rule. It is going to have this effect, you will do away with the power of the two party caucuses. The constituency will say that since votes are not to be split it does not matter how many parties
    come forward. You will have this small body of educationists, or that of women
    suffragists, saying that since there is the alternative vote there is no danger of vote splitting and minority rule, and therefore all these candidates can stand. There are constituencies where the candidates are teachers, and in the future more teaching will be necessary. As you increase the vote you increase the necessity of having educative Members of Parliament. It is an advantage that as many candidates as care to stand, or who think they have a message and an opportunity of educating the constituency on certain lines, should

    2131
    do so. It is to their advantage, and to the advantage of the constituency, that you should have as many candidates as care to come forward. You are also encouraging the candidates themselves to come forward; you are saying to young, ambitious men "Come forward and stand if you think you have a message. If you stand you will not split the vote. We have the alternative vote scheme, and under that no matter how many candidates stand we will still ensure that more than one-half the electors will send their man to Parliament." It is a great advantage to have young men come forward. One of the abuses of the past is that a small coterie in a constituency can by a process of elimination say, "No, you must not stand. "No matter how promising they may be, or how great their power of education, they are all eliminated by all sorts of intrigue, because they are told that if they stand they will split the vote. Under my right hon. Friend's scheme we are encouraging the constituencies to call candidates to their platforms, we are encouraging young men to stand, but under false pretences, because my right hon. Friend's scheme does not ensure that in all cases the man who represents an absolute majority is going to be elected. That is my objection to it, and I go further and say that I would prefer our present system of gradually eliminating all but two, to keep vote splitters out, rather than a system which is going to give a multiplicity of candidates in nearly every election on this promise which is fallacious.
    What is the instruction to the returning officer under my right hon. Friend's scheme? That instruction is that if he find that with three candidates or more for one constituency one of those candidates has not an absolute majority of all the votes polled, he is to strike out the bottom man. That is grossly unfair. What right have you to say that the third man has not a chance and does not represent the majority in that constituency? It is grossly unfair. You say to him, "Since you are twenty, or a hundred, behind the top man, we are going to throw you out, and we are going to take your second preferences and distribute them among the other two, without taking the second preferences of the other two and giving them to you. "It is grossly unfair, and vitiates the whole principle, bringing about in many cases
    2132
    that minority rule of which I have spoken. That has occurred in a number of cases. I am going to give some party illustrations, because it is of no use disguising the fact that this is a great party question, in one sense. First of all, it is justice and democracy—and because it, is just, fair, and democratic I am supporting it—but secondarily, it is party. I am bold enough to say that the Liberal party and the Labour party have suffered great disabilities in the past because of the injustice of vote-splitting. The Conservative party can concentrate on one man: the Liberal and Labour parties cannot; and because they in the past, each struggling to get the seat, have split the vote and let the Conservative in, you have a party anxiety in this matter just as you have the democratic aspect of it as well. Under my right hon. Friend's scheme, if. a Unionist, a Labour man, and a Liberal stand for a constituency, the man at the bottom is going to be either the Liberal or the Labour man. In the great majority of cases that is what is going to happen.
    HON. MEMBERS: Why?
    Major CHAPPLE: Because the Conservatives concentrate on one man, and, the Liberals and Labour being largely allied parties standing for the same programme as they do in this House, either the Labour or the Liberal man will be at the bottom. Without disturbing the Conservative at all, you are going to ask the Labour or the Liberal man to stand out on the first count. You are going to make every three-cornered contest a cockpit In which the Liberal man and the Labour man are to fight each other for second place. The Liberal is going to try to put the Labour man at the bottom, and the Labour man is going to try to put the Liberal man at the bottom.
    HON. MEMBERS: Why not?
    Major CHAPPLE: Not at all! The object of the election is to secure that that man of these three is elected who represents more than half the electors. That is the object of the election, and that is the object of this Amendment of mine. Under my right hon. Friend's scheme the election is going to degenerate into a wrangle between those two parties, each trying to put the other at the bottom in order that he may be eliminated at the first count. It is unfair to those two parties to have a scheme which is going to degenerate into that kind of contest. Not.

    2133
    only is it going to lead to minority rule, and to defeat the purpose of this alternative vote, but it is going to be a scheme worse than the system in the past, which aimed at eliminating all those who tended to split the vote and to concentrate as much as possible on two candidates. What is my scheme as opposed to my right hon. Friend's scheme? When I say my scheme I am using that term for simplicity. It is not my scheme at all. I had nothing to do with it whatever. The only thing I have done is to interpret the scheme of Professor Nanson, which was brought forward in 1907, which has been tested time and again by test elections, mathematically and algebraically, and which has proved to be without error.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is there any place at all where this scheme really has been tried?
    Major CHAPPLE: I must say I often tire of people who demand that everything must have been done before or it shall not be done in the future. It is a most pathetic thing to find people constantly resisting new ideas, and constantly asking whether it has been done before. It is a disease with some people. You make a suggestion to them, and they say, "Quote your authority; has it been done before? If it has not been done before, then how on earth can you do it at all?" I have spent a large part of my life in a country where if in the House of Parliament a man got up and said, "There is no precedent for this," the whole chorus would be, "Hurry up and let us make a precedent, and be the first." You do not deter people of that cast of mind from doing a thing by having no precedent. The question to them is, Is it right or is it wrong? Will it suit the purpose? My hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson) turns intellectually pale when I tell him that there is no precedent for this.
    Mr. ANDERSON: May I make it clear that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was arguing that this had been tried and proved to be mathematically correct? I think I was perfectly in order, without going into the wider question, to ask whether it had been tried, and in what circumstances.
    Major CHAPPLE: I will allow the hon. Gentleman to escape along that route. What I said was that it had been tested over and over again, tested mathematically and in test elections. Perhaps he did not quite catch my words. The in-
    2134
    structions which I wish given to the returning officer are simple—the only difference between these and the system of my right hon. Friend being that. I give credit to each candidate for the value of the second preference votes just as he gives them to the bottom candidate. My right hon. Friend takes the second preference votes from the bottom candidate and distributes them among the others. I do this, but I also take the second preference votes of all the men and distribute them, pro rata, among all the candidates. Someone wrote to the "Morning Post" the other day and said that was unsporting; that it was not the sporting method of an Englishman to take the second preference votes of all the candidates and do for one of the candidates what you are doing for the others. If I take the second preference votes and distribute them, pro rata, amongst all the candidates, I am doing only what is fair and just. The right hon. Gentleman opposite who criticised this the other day talked about the different values of preference votes. It is the same vote. There is no difference in value between the first and second preference votes. If a man leaves £1,000 in his will to his eldest son on condition that he marries, and wills that if the son does not do so the money is to go to his second son, it is still £1,000. It has no different value. It is simply transferred from the elder son to the younger son. If a man gives his daughter a hat and tells her that if it does not suit her she is to give it to her sister, it is the same hat. My right hon. Friend gives a vote to Jones, and he tells the returning officer that if nobody else gives a vote for Jones, he does not wish to lose it altogether, and therefore he is to give it to Smith in preference to Pratt. It is the same vote. I have said this, before, and I am sorry to repeat it like a schoolmaster. I do not want to be dogmatic about it, but I must insist that you make no difference in the value of the vote. It is the same vote given by the same man to a different candidate under certain conditions. I have been accused of having entered into some deep and dark conspiracy and of working hand and glove with the Conservative party. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I shudder at the thought, and sometimes I go through a process of introspection. If the Conservative party turns its intellect to the study of this proposal and sees that it is sound. I welcome them to my view. I was even

    2135
    accused of staying away purposely on Monday last. I regret I was not here, as I should have enjoyed the triumph of standing at the Table and finding my Amendment carried by such a large majority. I was engaged on military duty which I regard as my first consideration, and my presence here I regard as a second consideration.
    My first instruction to the returning officer, if there is no one who has a majority of the votes polled, is,
    "He shall construct a table (Table I.), as shown in the Ninth Schedule, by seting out in columns the various preferences of the voters opposite the names of the candidates arranged in alphabetical order."
    "There could be nothing simpler than that. The second instruction is,
    "He shall in the case of those ballot papers (if any) where second or subsequent preferences are not recorded distribute equally among the other candidates such unrecorded preferences."
    That is a very important part of the whole scheme, and it is a scheme which ensures the success of the alternative vote. Mr. Nanson said this, showing what importance he attached to this provision:
    "The assumption that the electors who plump for A are equally divided as to the merits of B and C appears to he perfectly legitimate, but the electors have the opportunity of stating their preference, if they have one, and as they in the case supposed decline to express any, it may fairly be concluded that they have none. If then we adopt the plan just described—"
    which I propose—
    "for incomplete papers, it would be sufficiently simple for practical purposes and its use will tend to elicit from the electors a full statement of their various preferences."
    As an Amendment will be moved to this particular provision, I reserve until then what I have to say upon it. The next Instruction is
    "He shall construct another table (Table II.) by multiplying the first-preference votes of each candidate by a figure which is one less than the number of candidates, and the second-preference votes by a figure which is two less, and the third-preference votes by a figure which is three less, and so on, and shall then add together the totals thus found for each candidate and place them to his credit."
    What is the object of that? [An HON. MEMBER: "I do not know!"] If the hon. Member does not know it is because he has not studied it. When I heard someone remark, when I first put down this Amend-
    2136
    ment, that it was complex and difficult o carry out, I handed my Amendment Paper to two convalescent soldiers in hospital and asked them whether they could carry out an election upon these Amendments without any further instruction. They selected three candidates remote from anything concerned with the hospital or with politics. They chose Marconi, Edison, and Maxim, and the question was which of those by his inventions, had done most in the War. I got the papers ready for them, and those two men carried out that election without any instruction whatever beyond these Amendments, and without a single mistake picked out the absolute majority man. They came to me some time afterwards and said that the result of the election had led to a discussion as to the merits of those different inventions, and they wanted to carry out another election. They carried out that second election also in every detail of these instructions without a mistake and without difficulty. What is the use of saying the matter is complex and difficult? If it looks difficult it is in the written description. If I had to describe a game of chess to an individual who had never seen it and without a chess board and "men" it would take me an hour and a half to do so, and even then he would not understand it. If you had a chess board you could demonstrate the matter easily. These descriptions look long and tedious, but there is nothing simpler than to construct these tables.
    Mr. CROOKS: Does he understand the method of working the calculations?
    Major CHAPPLE: He does not need to understand the method of making the calculations.
    Mr. CROOKS: How can he do it then?
    Major CHAPPLE: He does not require to understand the calculation or the method of calculation any more than my right hon. Friend would require to understand how a banker keeps his books behind a counter. In that case. all he would require to understand would be that when he handed his money in it would be placed to his credit, and that when he went for it it would be there for him to get. He never inquires how the banker keeps his accounts, and if you put him amongst the books I would undertake to say he would not understand one column from another. My right hon. Friend was not in at the beginning of my remarks, when I drew a clear line of demarcation between the function and

    2137
    duty of the voter and the function and duty of the returning officer. The next instruction is:
    "He shall find the average number of all the points thus given to each candidate and reject all candidates whose points are not greater than this average number, and if only one candidate remain he shall declare him to be elected."
    That is simply a mathematical calculation, and it has been proved that it will get for you the man who can beat the others in single combat. You may use other methods, but this is the simplest way to attain the end you want. It is a mathematical calculation and it is perfectly simple and easy to demonstrate that by it you find out which of those three candidates, if he had stood against the other two in single combat, would have won on the ballot papers. It has been proved to be mathematically correct, and, Mr. Nanson says, absolutely free from error. The method of my right hon. Friend is not free from error. The next instruction is:
    "He shall, if more than one candidate remain, distribute amongst them the preferences of the rejected candidate and proceed in a similar way till all but one are rejected, and this one he shall declare to be elected"
    Some of my friends say that that is a little ambiguous. Perhaps it is, but I see an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Enfield (Major Newman) which sets out in full the intention of that instruction. So far as I can see there is no flaw in it. It is wider and there is no chance of failure. My hon. Friend (Major Newman) is equally accurate, so far as I can see. If the House will accept that I shall be prepared to substitute it for mine for the sake of greater clearness in carrying out the intention of the Sub-section. Let me quote again:
    "(f) If at any time two or more candidates, one of whom ought to be excluded, have an equal number of points, the returning officer shall, by drawing lots, determine which of them shall first be excluded"
    I have said drawing lots because it is an invidious thing to put upon the returning officer the task of giving a casting vote. It tends to the selection of a man of some particular party bias. If he draws lots it does not matter whether or not he has any party bias, for it does not in any
    2138
    way affect the issue. If there are two candidates whose votes are exactly equal, there can be no great harm in drawing lots, rather than that the returning officer should have cast on him the invidious task of making the selection. That, then, is the final instruction. I have just, in conclusion to emphasise the fact that this system has no ulterior party motive behind it. It deals with votes, and not with parts of votes. All the votes are of equal value. It must always be so. The only occasion on which first and second preference votes were not of equal value but achieved the desired result was in B.C. 480. One Greek general was required to control the Greek fleet. There were eight generals, and they were asked to give first and second preference votes. Each gave his first preference vote to himself, and his second preference vote to Themistocles, who, accordingly, was elected and put in charge of the fleet at the battle of Salamis, with what result every schoolboy knows.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR>: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why, if the alternative vote is equal to the preference vote, you multiply the first preference vote?
    Major CHAPPLE: I have explained, that that is a mathematical method to determine which candidate could beat all his rivals if several elections were held, and it is flawless. You do not halve or double his vote. You just give a man a number of points for his first preference, and for the second preference a certain number of points and so on. The thing is a mathematical formula by which a simple calculation gives the result you are seeking.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the proposed Schedule. I did so the other night. I did so because I understood the Amendment. My whole point, when we were discussing the question, was that the Government scheme was not a fair one, and that it was perfectly ridiculous to settle an election upon a second preference and in favour of the lowest candidate at the poll. I adhere to that opinion. It is because I have heard the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stirling-shire (Major Chapple) state in the course of his speech that I was perfectly correct that second preferences should be taken into account, that I saw a glimmer of common sense which I had not seen in previous speeches. The Division on the Amendment was by no means a Division

    2139
    in favour of the Schedule or a proper Division against the alternative vote. If we are to have the alternative vote, which remains in the Bill, the best thing we can do is to try to get the most improved Schedule that we can. I have put certain Amendments on the Paper, and certain of my hon. Friends have put other Amendments on the Paper in order to arrive at this. I am seconding the Amendment, not in the least because I believe in it, or understand it, but because it is capable of improvement, and probably, if we are to improve a system of this kind, I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cambridge University that we had better make the least absurd plan. I take it from the hon. and learned Member that this Amendment would in the least be better than the Government plan. I do not know whether the House has followed the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member with a sufficiently close attention to understand exactly the whole of the points he tried to make.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Did you?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I did not. I followed it so far. Some of it I did not understand. The hon. and gallant Gentleman explained paragraph (b), where it appears you count second preferences which have never been given. The effect of that would be to throw your own candidate out. That seems to me a somewhat extraordinary proposal to make. If you take out of the Schedule paragraph (b) you take out what appears to me to be the greatest absurdity in the scheme, and you get down then to a much more reasonable calculation than that which appeared in the Government White Paper. You can give a certain value to all preference votes for every candidate, and so you must come to something like a reasonable, fair, and just conclusion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stirling said it is not his own plan, but that of some philosopher in Australia. It is the best we can possibly provide. I am told there are still better plans which might be devised, which are more simple and more correct, and more easily understanded of the ordinary people. Be that as it may, we have to attempt to provide a Schedule which is the one likely to appear in the Bill when it goes to another place, and we had better send it up as reasonable, fair, and wise as possible.
    2140
    The whole difficulty arises from the inherent weakness of the alternative votes. The alternative vote is capable of being used in a way which, I am sure, we all deprecate. If there is one thing more certain than another it is that this amended Schedule gives less opportunity than would the Government plan for that kind of corrupt bargaining which I spoke about the other day. At all events it would he a very much more complicated and difficult thing, if I may use something in the nature of a slang expression, to have a " ramp " than under the Government scheme. That, again, is an advantage over the Government plan. There is, at least, two slight advantages. We can by Amendment in this House of paragraph (b) make the whole scheme a little more intelligible, and that I think is secured by the hon. Member's Amendment. We will then, at all events, not send up a quite ridiculous Section in this Bill when it goes to another place. What chance it may have of influencing that Assembly I do not know. I do not suppose they will be any more capable of understanding the situation than probably are some of us. However well some of us might have thought we did our mathematics at school, I do not know that we have carried them on with knowledge sufficient till now to be able to understand quite as easily as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself all these calculations which appear on the Paper. I do not think I have anything further to add. I have explained, at all events, my position in this matter, and, having seconded the Second Reading of this Amendment, I hope an opportunity will be offered to this House, if the Second Reading is carried, to arrive at a wise decision in this matter.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The House is in the unusual position of having a Motion before it which its own Seconder declares he is unable to understand, and I am afraid that many Members of the House who have listened to the interesting and lucid speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stirlingshire still possibly may not feel that in every particular they are wholly seised of what this system is. I have had the advantage of a little private tuition from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and, although I do not claim to be able to understand the whole of the system in all its details, I think I am able to understand enough of it to detect what appears to me a fatal objection to its adoption. It is this: Every person under his

    2141
    proposal who gives a second preference on his ballot paper is giving a vote which is against his first vote. Let me put the thing in a concrete form. If there are, let us say, 1,000 electors in a constituency who wish to see a Labour man elected for that constituency, they vote first preference for the Labour candidate. If they vote second preference for the Liberal candidate, then that second preference will 'count 1,000 points against their first vote. If, on the other hand, they do not give any second preference at all, then, under the scheme as proposed by my hon. Friend, they will be assumed to have given second votes both for the Liberal and for the Unionist candidate, if there is one. If there are four or five candidates they will be assumed to have given votes for all the remaining candidates, no matter how intensely they may dislike them, and no matter how earnestly they may desire their defeat. Of course, the position is much worse if the hon. Baronet's Amendment is carried, and they are not supposed to give any second preference votes.
    Take first my hon. and gallant Friend's scheme. There are a thousand Labour electors. They cast no second votes; nevertheless, they are supposed to give second votes to all the other candidates, and, if two, they will count 500 points each for the Liberal and the Conservative candidate. Suppose the hon. Baronet's Amendment is carried, and that particular part of this Amendment is struck out, then they give no votes to anyone else, and no points count to anyone else; but suppose, rashly and foolishly, they say, " We will give our second preference to the Liberal "; immediately that Liberal scores in the counting 1,000 points. If, of course, the Liberals, in their turn, give their second vote to the Labour man they get an equivalent advantage. But suppose they do not, the effect undoubtedly is that the Labour men, who wish to see the Liberal candidate returned in preference to the Conservative, but above all want to see the Labour man at the top of the poll, may find that, because they have foolishly given a second vote to the Liberal candidate, their Labour man is defeated by the Liberal by their own votes. That is the fatal objection to this scheme.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to deal with the point that no voter should be com
    2142
    pelled to give a second preference to any man he did not want to see in Parliament at all?
    Mr. SAMUEL: They certainly should not; but it seems ridiculous that a man should be invited to vote for a candidate whose return to the House of Commons he above all others wishes to defeat.
    Sir ERNEST POLLOCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point as to the protection against plumping and misusing this scheme? It is confusing the hon. and gallant Member's plan to put this in as the main scheme. Its object is to avoid plumping.
    Mr. KINGrose—
    Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps I may be allowed to go on in my own imperfect way. The difference between the alternative vote, as ordinarily understood, and as embodied in the White Paper laid on the Table of the House by the Government, and this scheme of my hon. and gallant Friend is briefly, in my opinion, this: Under the alternative vote, as ordinarily understood, the second preference is never counted at all until it is clear that the man whom you really wish to return is out of the running. It is only counted subsequently when, after the counting, it is clear that the candidate whom you wanted to see returned cannot be returned. Under this proposal the second preferences are counted simultaneously with the first—that is the important difference—and therefore, pro tanto, count against the first, and that is why, if and when this scheme becomes the law of the land, and is put to practical test at an election, no one who really cared for the return of a candidate would ever give a second preference at all, because he would know that he would be assisting the return of the man who is only his second choice, and not the man of his first choice.
    Major CHAPPLE: That is only on the assumption that he is cut out.
    Mr. SAMUEL: It is to the same effect, but not so fatal. Let me take my 1,000 Labour electors. If the scheme stands as is suggested, and they do not vote for anyone, they give 250 points to each of the other candidates.
    Major CHAPPLE: Five hundred.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, that is so. They give 500 points on the assumption that unrecorded preferences are distributed to each of the other two.
    Major CHAPPLE: Five hundred votes. There are 1,000 first preference votes which go to the Labour candidate, and no second preferences are recorded. In that case the returning officer is instructed to divide equally among the other candidates the unrecorded preferences, so that they get 500 each. [HON. MEMBERS: " That is what he said ! "]
    Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. and gallant Member is, of course, much more familiar with this scheme than I am. But their points are divided equally among the other two. If, on the other hand, they give the preference to one they all go to one. Consequently, they have twice as much effect if they give the preference than if they did not give the preference in enabling some second candidate to compete with the candidate whom they really want to get in. That is the flaw in the scheme, and that is why, when it was carefully examined by election experts before a General Election took place, everybody would urge the electors, if they really cared for the return of their candidate, not to give any second preference at all. The consequence of this would be that the scheme would not be applied. People would not give alternative votes, and we should be in just the same position in effect as we are now. It reminds me of what was said of a famous war-horse called Bayard, which was declared to have every possible good quality which could be desired in a charger, and which had only one fault, namely, that he was dead. This theory may have every point of theoretical virtue, but when it came to be applied you would find it would not be applied; consequently, it might just as well not be enacted in a Statute at all. Let me say just one word with reference to the objection that is raised to the alternative vote as ordinarily understood, and the ground on which the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) says he is going to vote for this scheme because he thinks the other scheme is unfair.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: This scheme, as amended.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes; he is going to vote for it, because he thinks the alternative vote is unfair. The reason is that you only count the second preference of the candidate at the bottom of the poll, and not the second preference of the candi
    2144
    dates who are first and second on the poll. You count the first preference of the men who are first and second on the poll Why, therefore, should you examine their second preference? You ascertain the wishes of the voters, and they are that A. or B. should be elected, and they count as set out in the first count and in the second count, while in the case of the other you count his second preferences, because the first preferences are not enough to secure his election. He is ruled out on the first count, and you have then to see what are the desires of the voters in the event of his election being made impossible, and it is only in regard to him that the question of the second preference arises.
    Major CHAPPLE: Is it not the case that those who give their first preference to A. might wish if A. cannot be elected that C. should be elected; and those who voted for B. might also wish that C. should be elected if B. is not elected? Neither A. nor B. might have an absolute majority but C. might.
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is a possibility.
    Major CHAPPLE: It is a common thing.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not saying that the alternative vote is a perfect system. I admit that is a possibility, but it approximates as a rule more closely to, justice than any other and far more-closely than the present system, which notoriously results in some candidate being elected whom the great majority of the people have actually voted against. It has been said that this system has not been tried in any part of the world, and that we ought not to adopt a scheme which has not been tested. My hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) was mistaken in saying that it has not been tried, because it has been tried in the Diocesan Synod of Victoria. Therefore, if the House of Commons and the House of Lords adopt this scheme we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that our opinion is shared by the Diocesan Synod of Victoria, and these-two bodies will be the only ones to adopt this particular scheme. We are not a body of students trying to devise the most theoretical system of the alternative vote, but we are a practical legislature trying to frame a system which can be applied for the use of 16,000,000 electors. I submit to the House that it would be-beneath its dignity to send up to another

    2145
    Chamber a finely drawn, not to say fantastic system such as this, which everyone knows is not seriously intended by the main body of the House, and which was put into the Bill in a fit of absence of mind on the part of some hon. Members, and because of the absence of body on the part of the others. We learn to-day from the hon. Baronet opposite that he supported it because he regarded it as a means of defeating the alternative vote. Those who are favourable to the latter cannot do otherwise than vote against the inclusion of this particular scheme.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I do not think the speech we have just listened to has done justice to the Mover of the Amendment. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Major Chapple) made a speech which I am sure the House will agree was good-humoured, and he dealt very aptly with the thrusts made against him. I think his speech deserves a good deal of consideration, and I think that his scheme has not been fairly criticised by the right hon. Member the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel). I am not much in favour of doing sums orally, and I am not capable of doing them. I find just as great difficulty in following the sums and conundrums put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland as I do in following those put by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire. Without a blackboard in front of him the Member for Cleveland fails to instruct me just as much as the hon. Member for Stirlingshire failed. Nevertheless, I observe that there is this similarity, that when the House becomes impatient they both say that it is so simple, and they repeat a jargon of figures and numbers which fail to convince me.
    Why I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland was unfair, is this: The hon. Member for Stirlingshire set out with two objects. His view is that the White Paper prepared by the Government gives an unfair result, and I believe him. I am quite clear, although I do not understand mathematics, that it is advocating a bad system. He starts out with a system which is to give us something better and a more just result, and how did he do it? He says there are two desiderata. You have to secure that the split vote does not result in the return of a member whom two parties do not want to see returned. That is the first thing, and that is the ground on which he complains that that
    2146
    result is an unfortunate thing. Then he says you have in any of these schemes of alternative voting to avoid the system being used improperly by plumping, and if you allow by means of the caucus a plumping system to be used, all your alternative systems of voting will fail. But he says, " I will show you a more excellent way, and in my scheme I avoid the disaster which may be brought about by a system of plumping." To avoid that you have to assume that every voter has done something more than simply to vote for one candidate. Then he appeals to the arithmeticians and persons well versed in figures. I do not think he is able to put forward his own authority for it, and he says you can appeal to Professor Nanson, who has been endeavouring to overcome this difficulty, and this is the way in which he has solved it. When we are told what is the distance of the earth from the stars or the sun from the earth, or something of that sort, we are quite able to believe it, although we do not quite follow the methods by which the solution is arrived at, and I am prepared to accept the authority of Professor Nanson, and of the hon. and gallant Member and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Larmor), when they tell me that if you follow this particular method out you will avoid two dangers. This House is accustomed to dealing with matters upon the authority of others, and it is quite justified in accepting from the hon. and gallant Member the authority of Professor Nanson. It is quite true that we are not students here and that the House will never be able by simple debate to find out the best scheme. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cleveland Division says that this scheme has not been tried except in a diocesan synod. I do not think that is a taunt that should be levelled against any diocesan synod. Why should not a diocesan synod adopt a perfectly fair method of voting? This House ought not to cast any such aspersion on a diocesan synod. I do not know why it should be assumed to be a stupid body. I do not know why it should be suggested that a diocesan synod in Australia should not have the confidence of this House just as any other congregation. I, for one, rather deprecate that sort of taunt. The right hon. Gentleman said that we wanted a system for rough use, and I quite agree with him, but when you adopt a system of alternative voting and get away from a

    2147
    system which we can all understand you are placed in the difficulty of finding a system which must be commended by experts and not by ordinary Members of this House. The alternative vote was adopted, and Scott tells us:
    " Ever in temptation strong,
    We leave the right path for the wrong;
    And ev'ry devious step thus trod
    Still leads us further from the road."
    This is quite true, and having gone on the wrong lines we are trying to retrace our steps. If you are not going to have the simple system whereby you vote for one man and not for another, and you are going to have a system whereby you bring in preference votes, then you must rely on experts to guide you; and for my own part I think this system does deal with two very important points which must never be left out of sight. You must rely not upon a Debate in this House, but upon a system which has the greatest authority of mathematicians behind it. We want to avoid the result of a split vote, and the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire says, quite fairly, if there are three parties, A. B. and C., that you must not assume that the person who votes for C. would not have a different preference as between A. and B., and you must not discard his vote. The programme of the Government seems to me to throw out the third candidate much too early and before you can fairly estimate the weight of his votes. It may be that this system is capable of improvement, but, if we are to discuss it and to have every man telling us what his system would be, I do not believe that we shall arrive at any just result. I am perfectly ready to accept the authority given to us, and on these grounds I shall vote for the Schedule of
    the hon. and gallant Member for Stirling-shire.
    9.0 P.M
    Captain BARNETT: It requires a considerable measure of temerity for any
    member of the party to which I have the honour to belong to rise in this House and speak about the alternative vote after the very remarkable speech made the other night by the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson). It is difficult to follow all the mental processes of the hon. Member, but I gather that he regards the principle of the alternative vote as something truly belonging to the party with which he is identified and that he resents any member of any other party
    2148
    having any views about that great principle or venturing to express them in this House. I repudiate the proposition put forward by the hon. Member.
    Mr. ANDERSON: What proposition? The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that I associate this principle in some way with some party that I represent. I have never done anything of the kind, and I have never put it forward from a party point of view at all.
    Captain BARNETT: I would remind the hon. Memebr of his own words, though perhaps he was carried away by his own eloquence. He said that hon. Members on this side of the House, and myself in particular, had a political advantage in our minds when we supported the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire. Those were his exact words.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Very well!
    Captain BARNETT: I say most emphatically that the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division has no right to impugn the sincerity of hon. Members who support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire, because at the very outset we most carefully explained that it was not that we loved the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire more but that we loved the draft Rules less. We thought the scheme put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was a less practical scheme than the scheme put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Stirling. I myself said in so many words that I supposed we were now committed to the principle of the alternative vote, and that therefore we ought to address ourselves to the task of seeing how we could best make it a working proposal. Then the hon. Member charges us with insincerity. Why? We have put our cards on the table. We said exactly what was our position. We do not like the alternative vote, and it was carried against our wish, but now that it is carried and the principle is in the Bill, we are trying to make its application as fair as possible. So long as I am a Member of this House, I shall claim for myself the privilege of holding views on any political principle and of expressing them when the time comes to do so. We have heard to-day a very interesting and illuminating speech from the Mover of the Amendment. I wish to identify myself with a great deal of that speech, but there

    2149
    are one or two things in it which I criticise. There was the hon. and gallant Member's reference to plumping. He sees that plumping is the weak spot in this scheme, as it is the weak spot in every alternative voting scheme. The hon. and gallant Member has made an honourable and gallant attempt to wrestle with that difficulty. He says, as the voters for A. have not thought it worth their while to exercise their preference as between B. and C., that the returning officer shall decide the second preference of these people.
    There is another side to the picture, namely, that you may make a man give a vote to people for whom he has a profound detestation. I should consider that rather a blot on the scheme. In his previous speech the hon. and gallant Member told us that in Western Australia, which enjoys the benefits of the draft Rules scheme, they found that the principle of alternative voting was so vitiated by the not giving of votes that they found it necessary to introduce a Bill to compel a man to vote 1 and 2 or to lose his vote altogether. That is an absurdity. The hon. and gallant Member sees that difficulty. It would be far better to disfranchise a man altogether if he failed to vote at a certain number of elections than to make him give a vote in a particular election which he did not want to give. It has been suggested that a man who does not exercise the franchise is unworthy of it, and that if he cannot show good cause for not voting in three or four elections you should sweep him away altogether. I am not sure that I should not vote for that myself. It is an entirely ,different proposition to say that a man is to have his second-preference votes, which he has never recorded, given to people for whom he does not wish to vote. There was one reference in the hon. and gallant Member's speech which I did not quite like. He said he had tried the scheme on his patients and had held a sort of mock election. As a soldier and a humanitarian, I protest against that. I do not think that convalescents in a hospital ought to be exposed to the task of understanding the hon. and gallant Member's figures and schemes. That ought to be left to sane men of cool judgment and discretion, who are in perfect health and who could deal with the task in a proper way.
    I was very much impressed during the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) with the way in which it showed that
    2150
    the arguments in favour of the different schemes of alternative voting destroyed one another. In the last Debate, and when I heard the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire to-night, I thought we had riddled with criticism the draft Rules issued in the White Paper, but when I listened to the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland I thought he was making out an almost equally good case against the alternative scheme of the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire. The right hon. Gentleman told us a story about a famous race-horse whose name was Bayard and whose character was everything that a horse's character ought to be, but that he had only one fault—he was dead. What is the dead horse in this Debate? It is not the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member, but the draft Rules, which were killed by Monday's vote, and they ought now to be buried. On the other hand, the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member is a live proposition, because it is still before the House, and we are going to vote for it, and I hope we shall carry it, not because we think it is perfect, but because we feel it is a great deal better than the scheme we have already riddled with criticism and have killed in the Division Lobby. When we have carried it we can address our minds to the improvement of the Schedules and try to make the scheme a workable proposition. Only this afternoon, in reference to the Amendment which the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) is going to move, namely, to leave out paragraph (b), a very earnest Member of the opposite party said to me " This is the keystone of the arch." I replied, " If you destroy the keystone of the arch by taking away an absolute absurdity—and it is an absurdity—and bring down the whole structure, it does not say much for the stability of my hon. Friend's architecture." We have had the tragedy of the Kilkenny cats enacted here. We have seen the hon. and gallant Member tearing to pieces the draft Rules, and we have seen the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland trying to resuscitate them at the expense of my hon. Friend's proposal. There is nothing in the draft Rules that has not been damaged by criticism; therefore, let us do what we can, out of the wreckage of these various schemes, to build up something which will give us a practical method
    Major NEWMAN: I was astonished to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland. I shall endeavour to show the House that this particular scheme, be it good or bad, perfect or imperfect, is one designed to benefit the average man of the middle party. Without going into party politics, I claim that the Liberal party are the middle party, and I shall show that this particular scheme would benefit the Liberal party as against the Labour or Conservative parties. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland said it was unfair that a man should have his votes given to another candidate against his will, merely because he had not recorded any preference on his voting paper. If hon. Members take that objection, it can be got over in a very simple way. Instead of multiplying the first preference votes by two, in the case of three candidates, multiply them by one and a half. If you do that, you need not transfer any votes at all. The scheme of Professor Nanson is that of a scientific and mathematical man. This afternoon I had a conversation with a gentleman who about a year ago met Professor Nanson in Australia, riot in connection with Greek or mathematics, but on the question of the alternative vote. Professor Nanson is strongly in favour of proportional representation, as are, of course, all scientific and wise men. He was twitted, and rightly so, with not supporting proportional representation but with apparently giving his support to this scheme of the alternative vote, or, as they call it in America, the preferential or contingent vote. He said perfectly openly that his reason was that he thought the best way to get people round to the transferable vote in multi-member constituencies was to let them try their 'prentice hand on this system, which, however perfect, must be unjust, to teach them how to make their preference and to teach the returning officer how to count their votes, and in a short time they would gladly go on to the single transferable vote in multimember constituencies. There is one great and obvious difference between Professor Nanson's scheme and what we loosely call the alternative vote, or even the second ballot. In the alternative vote as they have it in Australia you say to the man, " I want you to imagine that your candidate is knocked out—either dead or disqualified because he is unable to produce £150 for his nomination—and now
    2152
    you come to vote for someone else. if you do not like the next man you may give no farther vote."
    Professor Nanson's scheme is quite different from that. He wants to get at the average candidate that the average man wants, and therefore he goes on a much more scientific and elaborate, and therefore a fairer plan. He sets up his tables, and gives his two votes, one to his first preference and one transferable vote, and he then gets the average, and if only one candidate has the average he is returned. If there are two men above the average then, as I shall show in my Amendment, he proceeds to set up his tables afresh on a slightly different system, and gets a majority voting for one man or the other. That is the great difference between the bludgeon method; as I call it; of the alternative vote, or the second ballot, and this scheme of Professor Nanson's. After all, the alternative vote, as we understand' it, fails, and is bound to fail, because it does not give the third man a proper run for his money. When the tables are set. up and the votes are transferred the third man may be the first man, but under the alternative scheme that man is put out at once, and his votes are merely used to put some other man in whom those who voted in the first place for the third man did not want at all. The House is inclined to laugh at the hon. and gallant Gentleman for moving the Amendment, and at us for supporting him. But the difficulties for the elector are very few. I have an Amendment down to leave out the hon. and gallant Gentleman's ninth Schedule. I do not think it is necessary. If the House reads what happened in Western Australia in 1907, when the Electoral Bill was produced, embodying the scheme of the alternative vote, they will see that there were none of these Schedules showing people how to vote, and showing the returning officer what to do. Rules were made for voting, and it was left to the returning officer to get his clerks together and instruct them, and when the day of election came along the electors had enough instructions before them to know how to record their votes, and the returning officer to see that the votes were correctly recorded. I cannot help thinking that what was done there ought to be done here. I hate legislation by Order in Council, but in a case of this sort you do not want elaborate Schedules showing exactly how votes are to be recorded. Let

    2153
    that be done by Order in Council, put it down exactly how the man has to make his cross and his 1, 2, and 3, and then leave it to your expert staff to make the return in an efficient and honest manner. That is all you have to do. I think this scheme of Professor Nanson's is worth a trial, and I shall support it.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I think we have got into rather an absurd position. Many of the opponents of the alternative vote, of whom I am one, supported this Nanson scheme not, I think, for love of the scheme at all, but because they disliked the alternative vote. But it is not surprising that I could not join in That particular move. Nor could I support this Amendment on its merits. I do not believe, notwithstanding all that has been said, that the sober common sense of the British people would ever approve this scheme of voting. The only point is what is to be done. It matters little from my point of view whether the Amendment is passed or not. I am not quite sure whether, if the Amendment is lost, any other scheme on the Paper will be in order. If not, we shall have a provision in the Bill relating to a Schedule which does not exist. If, on the other hand, it is held that a later Amendment is in order, we shall have in the Bill that Amendment which I dislike almost as much as the one now before the House. My feeling is one of dislike to the whole thing, both to the alternative vote and to this Amendment. I say " A plague on both your Houses !" I hope the House will put something in the Bill and put it in as quickly as possible. In either case I am afraid we shall not cut a very dignified figure in another place. I feel sure that there the matter will be very seriously, considered, and the other House will put into the Bill something which, whether we approve it or not, will at all events represent a sensible and a workable scheme. The Government will take no part in this Division. We have promised to leave the House free on the matter, and it is an example which will make me rather unwilling to assent to that procedure again. I care very little whether the Amendment is carried or not. In either case I am quite sure the Government must consider the whole thing with a view to giving some guidance in another place.
    Mr. PETO: On the point of Order which has been raised by the Home Secretary.
    2154
    Can you give the House any guidance whether, if this Amendment is rejected, any other similar Amendment will be in order, or whether, if this Amendment is rejected, the Bill will necessarily have no Schedule whatever?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I must confess, not being a mathematician, that I cannot give an opinion, until I have had an explanation, whether any of these other Schedules differ sufficiently from this to enable me to rule them in order. The House decided last week against the inclusion in the Schedule of what is known as the White Paper. Whether any of the other proposals are sufficiently different from the present one I do not know. That is a difficult point.
    Mr. KING: Have you observed that most of the Amendments to this Schedule are drafted with the definite object of restoring the White Paper? Are these Amendments, therefore, in order, and will subsequent Schedules which are merely the White Paper in another form be in order?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: That does not rise at all. There are Amendments to this Schedule which do not appear in the White Paper at all.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As far as I have noticed the Amendments to the present Schedule, if it be read a second time, I do not think they are in the White Paper.
    Major CHAPPLE: The last occasion on which this was debated Mr. Speaker gave a ruling, and he said it was necessary to insert something in the nature of the proposals of the Eighth and Ninth Schedules. When the Amendment to the Clause was before the House the Amendment distinctly stated that the alternative vote shall be according to the system set up in the Eighth and Ninth Schedules, and that was passed. As the Bill stands, the alternative vote must be according to the Eighth and Ninth Schedules that are now before the House. Mr. Speaker apparently was of that opinion.
    Mr. SHERWELL: Is it not within the province of the House to deal with this particular Amendment on its merits and then move to recommit?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We cannot recommit at this stage. That can only be done after the Report stage is finished. I find that according to the Amendment

    2155
    which was passed by the House the other day the alternative vote was to be given in accordance with the system defined in the proposed Eighth and Ninth Schedules. Therefore any proposal must bear a resemblance to the system proposed by the hon. and gallant Member (Major Chapple), and the broad question before the House is whether it will or will not have some thing in the nature of the scheme proposed by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: Is there any difficulty whatever that differentiates this particular matter from other matters upon which the Government have already expressed their intention of moving to recommit? Many of us would like to know, if we vote against this and it is rejected, what will be the position. Is there anything which differentiates this particular proposal from those upon which the Government have said that they are perfectly willing to recommit? The Home Secretary seemed to suggest that there was some difficulty about this which does not apply to the others.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is open to the House, and within the power of the House, to recommit upon a particular point if it so decides.
    Sir J. LARMOR: The question before us is, which of the two plans is the least objectionable. I think there is no doubt, if it can be carried out, that something like the scheme in the Schedule under discussion would give a fairer result as regards the opinion of the electorate than the one contained in the White Paper. The Home Secretary considered that though that may be so he is afraid that the electorate would not consider it to be a practical scheme. There we come to the bedrock that they are both bad, and it is a question of which is the better. The right hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) based his criticisms on the hardship, as he thought, of asking the elector who wishes to vote for A. to give half a vote to B., but he forgot about the hardship of allowing the elector who wishes to vote for A. to give a whole vote for B., not because he likes B. but because he wishes to use it as a weapon for keeping out another candidate. To my mind the small risk that the elector will run under this scheme of giving half a vote to a candidate who is not of his first choice and enabling him to get in, is in the public interest infinitesimal compared with the
    2156
    great injustice that he will do to a third party in the constituency by being allowed to cast a whole vote for a second candidate, not because he likes that candidate, but because he likes him better than the third. The way this will work will be that an independent candidate, standing against two other candidates who are strongly supported by party organisations, will have no chance at all. He may be respected by the whole constituency; so much so that he will get second preferences of nearly the whole of the constituency, but the pressure of political parties puts him third on the list of first preferences, and he goes out, although there would be no doubt that in many cases he would be the candidate who, would best unite the suffrages of the constituency. But he is not a party man. He is third on the first preferences, but if the system which I have described were swept away he would probably command the support of the whole constituency as a fit and proper representative. It is a question as to which would be the lesser evil of the two schemes, and I am strongly of the opinion that the Schedule under discussion is the better one. It is said that it is very complicated, but the conceivable contingencies under the Schedule in the White Paper are at least as complicated as this. I believe that this Schedule, by a redrafting of paragraph (b), can be made so simple that there can be no possibility of ambiguity in the matter. I have submitted at the Table an Amendment which redrafts that paragraph, and which I understand is considered by high authorities to be perfectly straightforward. If that were put in, I believe that this Schedule would be quite as simple as the other, and certainly more just. The only object of paragraph (b) is that it goes towards minimising the objection of the right hon. Member for Cleveland that alternative votes will not be given at all. If I thought that that was a real danger I agree that there would be something to be said for (b). Personally, I think that the common sense of the electors will not operate on rigid party lines in this matter, but will carry through the thing in a reasonable way, and holding that I should rather like to see it omitted.
    Mr. PETO: The Home Secretary said just now that he was in the position of disliking the alternative vote and disliking this Schedule before the House, and, indeed, he might have said " A plague on both your Houses!" I am in complete

    2157
    agreement with the Home Secretary in his position, but I may point out why the House is now in the position in which it finds itself. The Speaker's Conference passed the alternative vote by a majority. It was one of four subjects which were passed only by a majority. It differed essentially from the other three—women's suffrage, the absent voter, and the question of Poor Law relief—in one particular. These questions were thrashed out and, except for a small dissentient minority, there was unanimity, and in all these cases there was no question of a party vote. This question of the alternative vote was carried by a very narrow majority, though rather larger than was anticipated, I think it was by 15 votes to 10. The voting was on plain party lines, and you find the decision of the Speaker's Conference exactly reflected in this House in all the troubles of the last day or two. In explaining why I shall support this Amendment, I desire to make that position quite clear. The hon. Member for Stirling, speaking in this House on the 22nd November, was most emphatic in saying that he regarded the alternative vote of second choice as of equal value to the first. He said that a man who got the second preference vote had a vote just as valuable as the first preference, and that it was now recognised that the second preference votes were of the same value when transferred from one candidate to another, because they were in the first instance given to a candidate who could not secure a majority of electors.
    That is the hon. Member's basis, not only for the alternative vote but for his Schedule. The Home Secretary spoke just now of the sober common sense of the
    British public. I do not believe that the country will ever accept this method of enabling a man who is not the first choice of the constituency to get in and beat the man who is desired by a majority of the constituency, but the hon. Member in this Schedule makes it perfectly clear that the sober common sense of the British public should understand what is the meaning of the alternative vote. It is meant to make sure that in any case where there are two parties whose political differences are not widely apart one or other of their nominees will beat that party and that candidate who secures the majority of the first choice of the constituency. Therefore, it is really a question of making sure, as for example when there are three runners in a race that the first horse will always be pulled and the second or the third will win and that those who back second or third horse will get winning money for the placed horses. The hon. Member makes this suggestion clearly in paragraph (b): It says not only are all the votes to have equal value but he says that the votes that are not recorded, where no second preference votes are recorded, then the returning officer is to consider those votes as if the unfortunate elector had cast votes for somebody whose politics he personally detests. As I want the common sense of the British public to understand the beautiful system of wire pulling in politics, as similar to pulling on the race course, I shall vote for this Amendment.
    Question put, " That the Schedule be read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 167.

    Division No. 124.]

    AYES.

    [9.41 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Broughton, Urban Hanlon

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

    Allen, Major W. J.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Butcher, John George

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Carew, C.

    Goldman, C. S.

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Cator, John

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Gretton, John

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Barnston, Capt. Harry

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne),

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

    Clive, Col. Percy Archer

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Hombre, Angus Valdemar

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Bird, Alfred

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Blair, Reginald

    Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

    Boyton, James

    Dixon, C. H.

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Horne, Edgar

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Fell, Arthur

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Nield, Herbert

    Swift, Rigby

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S.

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

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Joynson-Hicks, William

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

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Kerry, Lieut.-Col. Earl of

    Pease, Rt. Hon. H. Pike (Darlington)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    King, Joseph

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Tickler, T. G.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Touche, Sir George Alexander

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Rothschild, Major Lionel de

    Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E. G. A.

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

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

    Weston, John W.

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

    Whiteley, Herbert J.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Samuels, Arthur W.

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

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Macmaster, Donald

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Wolmer, Viscount

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

    Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

    Mitchell-Thomson, W.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Dr.

    Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

    Stewart, Gershom

    Chapple and Sir George Younger.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Pratt, J. W

    Adamson, William

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

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

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Haslam, Lewis

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

    Alden, Percy

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hewart, Sir Gordon

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.)

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arlon)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Hinds, John

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Barran, Sir R. (Leeds, N.)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Barton, Sir William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Black, Sir Arthur W.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Robinson, Sidney

    Bliss, Joseph

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Boland, John Pius

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rowlands, James

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

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

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

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Jowett, Frederick William

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

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Joyce, Michael

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Keating, Matthew

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Smallwood, Edward

    Clough, William

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Clynes, John R.

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

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

    Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sutherland, John E.

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Sutton John E.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    McGhee, Richard

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

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

    Tillett, B.

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby N.

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Tootill, Robert

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Edge, Captain William

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Wardle, George, J.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Molloy, Michael

    Watt, Henry A.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Wedgwood, Lieut.-Commander Josiah C.

    Field, William

    Morgan, George Hay

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Fleming, Sir John

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Needham, Christopher T.

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

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Glanville, H. J.

    O'Grady, James

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Outhwaite R. L.

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

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Yeo, Alfred Willliam

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

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

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Mr.

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Dundas White and Mr. Anderson

    (Hackett, John

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Mr. H. SAMUEL: Before the next Amendment is taken it will be for the convenience of the House to ask you, Sir, how the matter now stands. As I understand, the Clause in the Bill establishing the alternative vote remains, with the addition that reference is made to the eighth and ninth Schedules, which do not exist. The definition Clause in the Bill remains, defining the alternative vote as the Bill was introduced. Therefore, all that is necessary to bring the Bill into proper order when the Bill is recommitted will be to leave out the words that make reference to the eighth and ninth Schedules, which do not exist, and the Bill will then be in its original form.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The House has given two contradictory decisions. By one they accepted the principle of the Schedule proposed by the hon. Member, and now they have rejected it. I am afraid that I cannot assist the House with regard to the other Schedules which are proposed, the scheme of the hon. Gentleman having already been rejected. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras, who has a scheme which differs from the others, proposes it, it can be discussed, but if he does not I am afraid that I am unable to assist the House, and the Bill will have to go on without the eighth and ninth Schedules being in.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.

      REGISTRATION RULES.
      2. The register shall, as respects each registration unit, contain the names of those who are entitled to vote as Parliamentary electors and of those who are entitled to vote as local government electors, but shall be framed so as to show in separate divisions the names of those who are entitled to vote both as Parliamentary and local government electors, the names of those who are entitled to vote as Parliamentary electors but not as local government electors, and the names of those who are entitled to vote as local government electors but not as Parliamentary electors.
      Where a person whose name is entered as a local government elector in any registration unit is not entitled to vote at the local government elections for all the local government electoral areas which comprise that unit, the registration officer shall place a mark against his name, with a note to signify that the person against whose name the mark is placed is entitled to vote
      2162
      only for the local government elections mentioned in the note, and any such note shall be deemed to be part of the register
      The registration officer shall prepare and include in the register as a separate list for the whole registration area, or where the area includes more than one constituency, for each constituency in the area a list of those entitled to vote as absent voters (in this Act referred to as the absent voters' list).
      5. It shall be the duty of the registration officer to prepare or cause to be prepared, lists (in this Act referred to as electors lists) for each registration unit within his registration area of all persons appearing to be entitled to be registered as Parliamentary or local government electors in the spring and autumn register respectively, and to publish those lists in the form in which the register is to be framed, as respects the lists for the spring register on or before the first day of February, and as respects the lists for the autumn register on or before the first day of August.
      The registration officer shall at the same time publish a notice specifying the mode in which, and the time within which, claims and objections are to be made under these rules.
      6. The registration officer, where he does not himself perform the duties of overseers, may require the overseers of any parish which, or any part of which, forms a registration unit within his registration area to prepare the electors lists for that unit on his behalf, and it shall be the duty of the overseers to furnish lists as so required, and also at any time, if required by the registration officer, to furnish that officer with information respecting any persons resident or occupying land or premises in their parish, or the removal of any person from the parish.
      Any reasonable expenses incurred by the overseers in performing any duties required of them in pursuance of this rule (including reasonable remuneration where the duties are performed by an assistant overseer) shall be paid by the registration officer as part of his registration expenses. In this rule the expression " overseers " includes any person for the time being executing any of the duties of overseers.
      8. Any person who claims to be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary or local government elector, and whose name is not entered, or is incorrectly entered,

      2163
      on the electors' lists, may claim to be registered, or to be registered in the correct manner, by sending to the registration officer a claim in the prescribed form not later than the 15th day of February where the claim is for the spring register, and the 15th day of August where the claim is for the autumn register.
      9. The form of claim shall contain a declaration of the qualification of the claimant to be registered, including a declaration that the claimant has attained the required age, and of the character in which the claimant desires to be registered, that is to say, either as a Parliamentary elector or as a local government elector, or as a local government elector who is not entitled to vote for all local government elections, and where the claimant claims in respect of a non-residential qualification a declaration of residence, or in case such person has no settled residence an address to which communications may be sent. A note shall also be added to the form warning the claimant that any false declaration for the purpose of this provision will involve a penalty.
      Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Rule 2, to leave out the words "in separate divisions," and to insert instead thereof the words "by distinguishing marks."
      The House will remember that at the present moment the registers are drawn up so as to show by asterisks other methods by which the voters are entitled to vote. It seems to me a, much more expeditious and commonsense way than to put the voters in separate divisions. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is an easy method which I suggest, and one which will expedite the proceedings of the various people who have to vote.
      Sir G. CAVE: I suggest to the House it is undesirable to make this change. My hon. Friend proposes that there shall be separate marks. You will have against every name a mark of some kind —a star, a dagger, or some other mark. There may be five or six of them, and you will have a very ugly register which it will be very difficult for anyone to understand. I think it would be far better to keep to the scheme of the Bill and have separate divisions.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: In Rule 2, after the word " vote " [" is not entitled to, vote "], insert the words " in respect of that entry."
      At the end of Rule 2, insert the words,, " without however removing the names of those voters from any other part of the register." —[Sir G. Cave.]
      Mr. ALDEN: I beg to move, in Rule 5, after the word " officer " [" duty of the registration officer "], to insert the words " to cause a house-to-house inquiry to be made."
      We know from personal experience in the past that these lists of voters are made up very frequently from lists supplied by landlords and from owners' returns. It seems extremely probable when you take into account the large number of soldiers and sailors who are being placed on the register that there will be many omissions in this list unless a house-to-house canvass is made. I do not know, of course, what the view of the Home Secretary is, but I trust he will insert these-words, or some other words, with a view to securing a complete register, and doing justice to the soldiers and sailors, who-otherwise will run the risk in county districts of losing their votes.
      Mr. GILBERT: I beg to second the Amendment.
      I think it is very necessary that some such words as these should be put in the Schedule, because when the first register comes to be made up the local authorities in all parts of the country will have a very great deal of difficulty in obtaining labour in order to compile the register. Unless such words are put in, the registration officer will probably try and make up his register from the overseers' and landlords' lists, and particularly in large boroughs —in large urban districts where there is a dense population, such as there is in London and the surrounding con-constituencies, will render it absolutely necessary in order to obtain anything like a complete register to have a house-to-house canvass. It is because we want the registration officers to do their work thoroughly, especially in the compilation of the first register, that we ask the Home Secretary to agree to this Amendment.
      Sir G. CAVE: I agree that some words must be inserted, but I think these particular words are undesirable. At all events, in connection with the first

      2165
      register, a house-to-house inquiry will probably be necessary. It will be useful later on perhaps in the larger urban districts, but there will be many districts where, after the first register has been drawn up, it will be needless to have a house-to-house canvass, especially in the country, where people seem to know the movements of their neighbours much better than they do in town. I would suggest an Amendment in this form, that " a house-to-house or other sufficient inquiry " be made.
      10.0 P.M.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I hardly think that that would be sufficient. Would it not be better to suggest a house-to-house inquiry or such other methods as the Local Government Board may think desirable? I know of cases where overseers have declined to make a house-to-house canvass on the ground of expense, and there is no power of appeal against that. It will be better for the Local Government Board to have the power to direct a house-to-house inquiry. The overseers' position will be left exactly as it is at present, and if the local authorities should say their opinion was that it is not necessary to have a house-to-house inquiry there will be no remedy, and therefore it would be far better to leave it in the hands of the Local Government Board.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman realises the importance of putting in some words of this nature, and I am inclined to support the position taken up by my right hon. Friend who has just spoken in the interests of big industrial centres. Now that we have altered the qualifications for the electorate, I do not see how the assistant overseers can get the information they need without a house-to-house canvass. We are putting on the register persons who otherwise would not have gone on in these places because they have not the £10 qualification, but they will now be entitled to go on under the residential qualification. They are not on the rate-book, and therefore something must be done in the direction suggested by my right hon. Friend. I think it is necessary that the Local Government Board should be able, when it thinks fit, to order a house-to-house canvass.
      Mr. G. THORNE>: I regret that the Home Secretary has not seen his way to accept the terms of the Amendment. I
      2166
      have one of a similar character just below and I would very much prefer that it should be made obligatory. It is in the interests of everybody that we should have a full and complete register, and I do not see how we are going to get it except by a systematic visitation from house to house. If the Home Secretary cannot go as far as that, I would also, support the suggestion that the intermediate course should be taken, namely, that if the Local Government Board do not consider a house-to-house canvass necessary they should declare what is necessary for the purpose. I do not think it should be left to the registration officer's choice, because if it is we shall not have as complete a register as we want. If the Home Secretary cannot accept an obligatory house-to-house canvass, I hope he will accept the alternative proposition.
      Mr. GLANVILLE: I am afraid the Home Secretary does not quite appreciate the importance of this Amendment. I think that if he had the proper figures and data before him as to the enormous proportion of removals in large areas, especially in the Metropolis, he would be somewhat surprised. I had occasion some time ago to get out statistics on the subject. I found that in my Constituency 75 per cent. of the voters—90 per cent. householders—removed in each twelve months, and now that we are to bring in the whole of the adult occupants, except under the ages of twenty-one and thirty respectively, the proportion of removals, especially amongst those now regarded as lodgers, will be so great that I should think at least in every year there would be a removal to the extent of something like 100 per cent. Accepting these figures or anything approaching them, it should be obvious that there should be no option left to overseers, or town clerks, or other groups of persons to decide what is the best method of putting these people on the register. I think that while we are dealing with the registration of practically the whole of the adult population we ought not to leave this flaw, which, in my opinion, would be there if the Home Secretary did not see his way to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson). We want a house-to-house canvass in order to secure that everyone shall get a vote without having the trouble to claim it. I cannot see any reason why it should

      2167
      not be done, or why it should not be put in the Bill. I do see many serious dangers in front of us if we are to pass this through both Houses and leave it to the overseers or the local authority to do this in an unsatisfactory way. I support the suggestion of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras.
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Of course, there is a difficulty which we shall feel very acutely in the West of Scotland. There has been an enormous removal of population in connection with munition works in the whole of Glasgow, and all the towns in the West of Scotland, and I cannot see any other plan by which even a decent register can be compiled except by a house-to-house visitation. In the old days the valuation roll could be used by the assessor for compiling the register. That would be quite impossible under present conditions, and I would venture to appeal to the Home Secretary to see that this matter is very clearly and definitely settled, in whatever form seems good to him, and to consider the proposal of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) as providing some control over the local people in this matter which is not a matter of local concern, but of national concern.
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The Home Secretary has not, I think, differed very much from the opinion which has been expressed. After all, the hon. Members who have spoken mostly represent the large industrial boroughs, and if we were framing a Bill to affect only those large boroughs and not one to cover many years, I think there might be a great deal in the contention of the hon. Gentleman who has spoken. What we have to look at, however, is that there are very many places in which it may not be necessary after the first register to take a house-to-house canvass every single time, that is, ice in every year. It might be quite sufficient in many country districts to take a house-to-house canvass once in a year, and then you would have enough evidence to keep your register up. The words that the Home Secretary offers to take are to cause a house-to-house or other sufficient inquiry to be made. Allow me to remind my hon. Friends that I have constantly stated the absolute necessity for a house
      2168
      to-house canvass for the first register, because I believe it to be absolutely necessary. Allow me to remind my hon. Friends that when we were discussing Clause 11 I moved an Amendment to that Clause providing that the officer who was responsible for the register must comply with any general or special directions that might be given by the Local Government Board with respect to the arrangements made for the registration officer carrying out his duty as to registration. Already the House has put into the Bill itself a statutory order with which the officer responsible for registration will have to comply, and there is no doubt that the Local Government Board will see to it that everything is done to secure absolutely efficient registration. Certainly for the first registration I should think there is no doubt whatever that they will instruct all the registration officers to order those through whom they carry out the registration to initiate a house-to-house canvass. I think it would be quite impossible to obtain a perfect register unless you have a house-to-house canvass, but I doubt whether it is really necessary to impose this canvass on the registration officer for all country districts for all time, twice a year. I do not think that will be necessary. I think the House has seen to it that the Local Government Board has power to give general or special directions at any time to the registration officer to see that a house-to-house canvass is resorted to, which is the only means in many cases of securing that your register is complete.
      Mr. GULLANDI think the President of the Local Government Board has eased the situation rather, and I think we all feel—I do, as representing not a large but a small borough—that a house-to-house inquiry is just as necessary in those places as in the big boroughs. I think, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman has met us. We do not wish it every six months, and if he will give an assurance that for the first register there will absolutely be a house-to-house inquiry, I think the House may be willing to accept the words suggested.
      Mr. FISHER: If I am at all responsible I will undertake to give instructions that for the first register a house-to-house canvass shall be the method by which we shall seek to obtain a complete register. I beg to move the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, offered by the Home

      2169
      Secretary, namely, after the word "house " [" house inquiry "], to insert the words " or other sufficient."
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment to the proposed Amendment made: At the end, insert the word " and."
      Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
      Amendment made: In Rule 6, after the word " overseer " [" by an assistant overseer "], insert the words " or other paid officer." —[Sir G. Cave.]
      Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, after Rule 7, to insert,
      " 8. The naval and military authorities shall furnish to the registration officer, for the purpose of the registration of persons of naval or military voters and their voting as such, such information as may be prescribed after consultation with the Admiralty and Army Council, respectively.
      Nothing in this rule shall relieve the registration officer of his duties with regard to the preparation of a list of sailors and soldiers qualified to be registered as electors within his area."
      I do not know whether the Home Secretary is going to accept the first part, which is nothing whatever but a drafting Amendment placing in this position, which I submit to him is the right position, a Clause which is referred to later on. Therefore, I will not argue the first part of the Amendment. The last part I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept. It may be surplusage, but I submit it is important that it should be understood that the arrangements to be made by the Army and Navy authorities for the purpose of getting absent soldiers and sailors on to the register shall not absolve overseers from the imperative duty of ascertaining from the house-to-house canvass the names of those soldiers and sailors entitled to be on the register.
      Sir G. CAVE: The first part of this Amendment corresponds with Rule 13 of this Schedule. I am advised that Rule 13 is not in its right place now, and would come in better after Rule 16. I think, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, we might direct the printer to transfer those words after Rule 16. As regards the latter part of the Amendment, I am afraid it is sur-
      2170
      plusae. I think the matter is covered by the words which deal with the making up of the absent voters' list.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: In Rule 8, leave out the words " whose name" [" and whose name is "] and insert instead thereof the word " who."
      Leave out the word " incorrectly " [" incorrectly entered."]
      After the word " entered" insert the words " in an incorrect place or manner or with incorrect particulars."
      Leave out the words " in the correct manner " and insert instead thereof the word " correctly." —[Sir G. Cave.]
      Mr. ALDEN: I beg to move, in Rule 8,, to leave out the word " fifteenth " and to insert instead thereof the word " eighteenth."
      The object of this Amendment is to extend the time within which any claimant whose name is not entered or is incorrectly entered on the electors' list may claim to be registered. I think that the Home Secretary will see that some extension of the time, at any rate, is needed. Three days is perhaps in this case the fit time. I beg to move.
      Mr. GILBERT: I beg to second the Amendment.
      It will be in the remembrance of the House that on the Committee stage I raised this point. We had a fairly long Debate, and eventually the proposal was withdrawn because the President of the Local Government Board was, I think I may say, favourably impressed with the arguments used, and so he would favourably consider the matter between then and the Report stage. We were hoping, in view of that promise, that the Government would have put down an Amendment giving these three extra days. I do not want to repeat the arguments used in Committee, but those of us who know everything about registration know quite well that there may be an immense number of objections lodged at the last moment. We plead for the extra days in order to allow people who have simply their name wrongly put down on the registration officer's list, or spelt with a wrong letter, to meet that kind of objection. It will be, I think, within the recollection of the House that the President of the Local Government' Board said that we were anxious to enfranchise everybody. If

      2171
      this Schedule goes through in the manner in which it is drafted it will be possible, in any particular constituency, on the last day to object to everyone whose name is wrongly printed or given a wrong number in the street, and that person will have no chance of amending his claim. The three extra days will give such a person objected to an opportunity to amend his claim, and thus save a grant deal of work before the registration officer and many of the appeals which otherwise might come before the County Court. I appeal to the Ministers in charge of the Bill to grant us this concession, which, I think, will greatly facilitate, as we believe, the ,carrying out of the provisions of the Bill.
      Mr. M. HEALY: Under the existing law if a man's name is "John" and it appears on the list in error as " James," if there is no doubt that he is the person referred to, the Court, as a matter of course, amends the claim. Similarly with an error in the number of the house. The Amendment, which is designed to give relief in cases of this kind undoubtedly strikes the point, and contemplates giving the necessary time, if there is an error, to correct that error. This particular rule provides two claims: One is where the voter's name has been entirely omitted and the other where there is an error in the entry. The difficulty this Amendment strikes at is that in a large number of cases the fact that there is an error in the list will never come to the knowledge of the voter until he receives the objection, and, under the Bill, it would then be too late to lodge a claim to have the error corrected. I do not particularly care how the Government do it, but they certainly ought to do something to provide for the difficulty in question. If they do not it appears to me that, under the new state of things, those who get their franchise under the existing law will lose it when this rule comes into Force. I cannot see any possible objection to this proposed Amendment. It cannot injure anybody. Accordingly, as there is an undoubted grievance and as I think we really had a promise that something would be done, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is carried out.
      Mr. FISHER: I do not agree that a promise was given, but I did give a promise that I would carefully consider the arguments, and I was impressed at the
      2172
      time with the case made out for an alteration in the Bill. I am still impressed with the object aimed at, and I am prepared now to consider it. I think the case given to-night as to inaccuracy and misnomer will be met by Rule 36, which says:
      " No misnomer or inaccurate description of any person or place on any list
      or on the register or in any notice shall prejudice the operation of this Act or
      these rules as respects that person or place, provided that the person or place
      is so designated as to be commonly understood."
      Mr. HEALY: That does not enable the Amendment to be met? It says a man may vote in a certain name.
      Mr. FISHER: Quite so. I say that some of these cases mentioned are covered by the rules which already exist in Nos. 36 and 22. The hon. Gentleman has made out quite a good case, but we have to look at it from the point of view of having to move other Amendments in the Schedule. I think there is a good deal to be said for giving these three extra days. Those responsible for guiding the House with regard to the Bill have always shown the same spirit, and have tried to give to those who are entitled to the franchise a ready way of obtaining it. I will accept this Amendment extending the date from the 15th to the 18th of February on condition that we alter the other dates dealing with publication of the lists from the 21st of February to the 24th and alter the 21st of August to the 24th.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In Rule 8, leave out the word "fifteenth" ["fifteenth day of August "], and insert instead thereof the word " eighteenth. "—. Gilbert.]
      Mr. BOYTON: I beg to move, at the end of Rule 8, to insert the words " any person claiming to be entitled to be so registered may authorise any other person to make such claim."
      It has been said that the desire is to make the franchise as wide as possible, and the object of this Amendment is to give every facility for voters to get their names on the register.
      Colonel SANDERS: I beg to second the Amendment.
      I do not know whether the words are really necessary, or whether this is already provided for in the Bill If what is pro

      2173
      posed here is not meant by the words of the Bill, then I think my hon. Friend's Amendment ought to be put in to make the point clear.
      Sir G. CAVE: I am advised that these words are not necessary, and that this can already be done under the provisions of the Bill. Therefore I think it is undesirable to add these words.
      Mr. HEALY: May I point out that after the list of claims has been published no one can inquire whether the claims have been signed or not? The existing claim to vote is merely a claim to vote, but the claim that is to be necessary under this Act is both a claim and a declaration. The Irish Courts have held that in the case of any claim which involves a declaration it must be signed by the claimant himself. The Irish Courts have also held that that fact differentiates the lodger claim from the ordinary claim, and, inasmuch as the document is not merely a claim but is a declaration of certain facts, that creates the qualification of the claimant that makes it necessary that the claim should be signed by the claimant himself. Anyone who takes the trouble to go through the numerous decisions in registration law will find that it is now settled law that the signature of the lodger himself is not only necessary, but is part of the lodger's qualification. The decision of the Irish Court completely binds the Courts, at any rate in Ireland, to hold that under this Schedule the signature of the claimant will be absolutely necessary. It would be a great inconvenience if the claimant were compelled to sign his claim personally, and I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has called attention to what is undoubtedly a defect in the Schedule as it exists. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this very serious matter, and will see some way of yielding to the demand made by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will not steel his heart against the Amendment. I assure him that there is substance in it, and that in Ireland at any rate, the judges would be bound to hold under this Schedule that the personal signature of the claimant was absolutely necessary.
      Mr. GLYN-JONES: The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right, that unless these words are put in here the claim must be signed by the claimant; but his argument goes much further and, in my opinion, makes it impossible to accept
      2174
      the Amendment. If one looks at the Rule he will see, as the hon. and learned Member has said, that the form is not only a claim, but it goes on to say that it shall contain a declaration of the qualification of the claimant to be registered and a declaration of other things which justify his registration, and that a vote shall be added warning the claimant that any false declaration will involve a penalty. It is quite clear that the framer of this rule intends it to be a personal declaration and that if a false declaration is made the person who makes it is to be liable to a penalty. It seems to me, under those circumstances, that it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: In Rule 9, after the word " age " [" the claimant has attained the required age "], insert the words "and is a British subject." —[Sir G, Cave.]
      Mr. ALDEN: I beg to move, in Rule 9, to leave out the words " or in case such person has no settled residence an address to which communications may be sent."
      If these words remain in the Bill, it may lead to serious difficulties in the future, because a man who has no settled residence and is a roaming individual may give the address of his banker in one constituency, of his solicitor in another, of a resident in a third, and so on. It seems to me that is rather a serious objection to these words remaining in the Bill. It will be almost impossible to check these various entries. There will be no means by which you can ascertain whether a man was the man who had three different addresses in three different constituencies. The main point of the Bill is to tie down a man so that he shall say what is his residence. The residential qualification in his constituency can be given, because he must surely have some place he regards as his residence and to which he would naturally go when he returns home. It is essential in order to get a residential qualification. If the Home Secretary cannot see his way to omit these words he should find some means by which the would-be voter is compelled to give some address in order to obviate the difficulties I have mentioned.
      Mr. GILBERT: I beg to second the Amendment.
      These words open the door to faked claims. It is very desirable that a person should have a place of residence so that

      2175
      he can be checked in some way or, at any rate, seen by somebody at some time. If you leave these words in, you allow a man to give the address of his bankers, or of some firm, or of shipping agents, or some other address, and it will be very difficult to find out where the voter is. I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider these words, and so prevent a person from putting in a false claim by using any address he may think fit.
      Sir G. CAVE: Is not this rather hypercritical? We are dealing with the nonresidential qualification, a qualification which may be held by having business emises. It may be that a man who has business premises may not live there —indeed, he may not have a settled residence anywhere. He must give some address to which notice of objection and matters of that kind may be sent. There is no crime in not having a settled residence. It must be some address at which communications will reach him, so that if you send a notice of objection there it shall be deemed to have reached him, and he shall not he able to say it did not reach him at all. Surely that is common sense. It would be a great pity to strike out these words. Some business people have no settled address, because their occupation causes them to move from place to place. I do not see. why we should not retain these words.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I agree with the Home Secretary. I think you are bound to leave an opportunity for a person who has no residence, and has an occupation qualification, to give some address to which communications may be sent. That is the reason why I thought it better to try to solve this difficulty by an Amendment to the effect that it shall be an offence on the part of any claimant to give different addresses in respect of different qualifications. I am anxious to meet this difficulty all round. There are persons who will have occupation qualifications in many places, and, in order to prevent abuses, it is essential if possible to find out who these persons are, and therefore any man who has an occupation qualification ought to be obliged to identify himself by giving one address only. The right hon. Gentleman realises that anyone looking through the lists of duplicate voters, which it is important for the agents to do to prevent personation, could only discover them by finding that a man has
      2176
      given his residence. It would be comparatively easy for a man having several occupation qualifications in different counties or boroughs to give a different residence —he might have two residences or he might invent some for the purpose of fraud. I hope the Home Secretary will see the importance of the suggestion I have made that every man should give one address only.
      Sir R. ADKINS: May I support what the right hon. Gentleman has said? The Home Secretary's criticism of the present Amendment is very strong. I should be perfectly prepared to support him in voting against it provided we have an. assurance that the substance of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) is accepted. All we want is that these provisions shall be loyally and honestly carried out. A man who has several business qualifications should not have it made too easy for him to multiply his business votes by giving different addresses in respect of different claims for business premises votes, and so make it extremely difficult for his fraud to be found out. I hope that the Government will indicate now that it is prepared to accept my right hon. Friend's Amendment, in its substance at any rate. That will make it easy for a number of us to, vote against the present Amendment.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: I quite agree with the Home Secretary as to the necessity of giving a person who is claiming a nonresidential qualification some opportunity of receiving any communication in connection with it, but I also think you want to qualify the means whereby this gentleman can receive his communication, not necessarily by this Amendment but by that of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson); otherwise, seeing that you are limiting the plural vote to one business qualification only, you will have difficulties arising —you will have people trying to get votes for more than one business qualification, and we shall get back to the old state of things, the faggot vote. I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether he cannot qualify this so that the spirit and letter of the Bill may be thoroughly carried out.
      Mr. FISHER: I cannot help feeling that my hon. Friends are exaggerating the amount of fraud which it may be attempted to perpetrate. I think there will be very little fraud and very few attempts to

      2177
      obtain votes without proper qualifications. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered this, that after all the Bill gives power to anyone possessed of the qualifying property to be registered in many constituencies, but of course only to use his vote at a General Election in respect of two qualifications? It is more than possible, it is probable, that there will be many people who would be registered in different constituencies in respect of their different qualifications with a view to exercising those qualifications at a variety of by-elections. Would the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that we should make it compulsory on a man who has qualifications, say, in the North to have communications in connection with all his qualifications in Southern counties sent to the Northern address, where he may only be living for three months in the year? He would not desire all the communications in connection with a qualification for Scotland to be sent, say, to Bournemouth, where he might have a qualification in respect of a residence. It is really unfair to put a man in a penal position if he desires that the various communications connected with his various qualifications shall be sent to the appropriate addresses. To make him a criminal because he has not taken care to have all the communications in respect of his claims sent to one address is not an acceptable proposition.
      Mr. HEALY: The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman have been based on false premises. Under the new law a man will have only two kinds of votes —a vote for his residence and a business vote.
      Mr. FISHER: He may have twenty votes at twenty different by-elections provided he has qualifications.
      Mr. HEALY: Where you have property in fifty shires you can have qualifications in fifty shires and vote in fifty shires, but how many business people have businesses in fifty shires? It is quite true people may have votes at different by-elections under the new law which they could not exercise at a General Election, but the number of those cases will be comparatively few. In the case of residence, a man may have a town and a country residence, and it is quite possible that he may appear on the register in two places in respect of residence, and in the case of very wealthy
      2178
      people they may have three residences, in all of which they may be said to reside, and for which theoretically they may have a vote, but those cases are very limited, and not at all comparable to that which exists under the present law. Passing from the residential vote we have the business vote, where there are branch businesses in many towns —they are mostly in the hands of limited companies. While it is possible that one person may have a number of businesses, the number of persons who will have a large number of business votes scattered all over the country will be exceedingly small and need not be taken into consideration. I think the arguments of the right hon. hon. Gentleman are quite unfounded, and is not a valid answer to the Amendment.
      Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present —
      Mr. HEALY (resuming)Some such precaution as is pointed at in this Amendment is very necessary to prevent the improper exercise of such duplicate votes as will exist. I cannot see what object a voter would have, except a fraudulent one, in giving one address in claiming a vote in one constituency and another address in claiming a vote in another constituency. I, at any rate, would assume that he made the difference for the purpose of concealing his identity and making it possible to make two claims. Accordingly, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment or will give some protection of a corresponding character.
      Mr. PETO: May I point out that the Mover and Seconder and the hon. and learned Member quite forgot the university voters, and that such men, men with university qualifications, may well not have a settled residence?
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Rule 8, after the word " sent " ["communications may be sent "], to insert the words, " It shall be an offence on the part of any claimant to give different addresses in respect of different qualifications."
      This applies simply to those persons who have non-residential qualifications, and every such person should be compelled to state either his recognised residence, which should be the ordinary residence, about which there is no question, or else,

      2179
      when he has no residence, he must state an address to which communcations may be sent to him. I move this Amendment, because I am anxious to prevent any possibility of abuse arising under this Clause. I do not suggest for a moment that there is going to be fraud by the respectable portion of the community, but the occupation qualification under this Bill is going to be
      very small qualification. There is no limit to the occupation qualification. Therefore, it is possible that persons may get various occupation qualifications in different parts of the country, and the only way in which we can check that is to know who the individuals are who have these qualifications, and you cannot know who they are unless from the register of the names and the addresses of these individuals. It happened already in my own experience —
      It being Eleven of the clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
      Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

      NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MONEY).
      Considered in Committee.
      [Mr. LAURENCE HARDY in the Chair.]
      Adjourned Debate resumed on Question proposed [26th November], " 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.]
      Question again proposed.
      Mr. KING: I object.
      Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): I hope my hon. Friend will allow this Resolution to go through. It was carried without a Division on Friday, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his objection.
      Mr. WATT: I am sorry that I must object also. Several hon. Members desire to speak on this resolution, among them the hon. Member for Hexham, who particularly wishes to discuss the matter.
      2180
      It being after Eleven o'clock, and objection being taken to further proceedings, 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. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn.'
      Commander WEDGWOOD: When I was interrupted the night before last by the hon. Member for York, I was endeavouring to explain to the House that it was undesirable for the Home Office, under their new anti-Bolo inspiration, to raid the offices of the Home Rule India League and to seize the book to which I wrote the preface. I explained before that there is no objection, from my own point of view, to this book circulating in any country in the world, but seeing that it was limited to an edition of 1,000 copies, circulated only to Members of this House, and to Members of the House of Lords, I think the seizure by the Home Office was an act of pure obscurantism and of the most lamentable unwisdom —Prussianism. Here is a book which puts before the responsible public of this country the Indian point of view so far as the British Government of India is concerned. Surely we realise that before any assembly is capable of judging such matters as the government of India it ought to have both sides put before it. We are capable of judging whether or not the book trenches on dangerous ground. It is bad enough for the Home Office to try to decide what the people shall read, but when it comes to trying to decide what Members of this House shall read it is going beyond the limits set by any previous Government in this country. Listen for one moment to what the " New Statesman " says of this particular volume. They say:
      "This is emphatically a book to be read by the Secretary of State for India himself as well as by members of the Council and the clerks in the India Office. It ought to be pondered over by every Indian civilian."

      2181
      That is exactly the conclusion I came to after having read the book carefully: that it ought to be in the hands of every man who goes out to help govern India. They should see the other side, in order to be capable of assisting the administration. By shutting your eyes to the native point of view, by accepting the doctrine of Rudyard Kipling, you enormously handicap the administration of the country. I have been told that by writing a preface to this book I have been responsible for encouraging sedition and assassination.
      Sir G. CAVE: No!
      Commander WEDGWOOD: I am quoting.
      Sir G. CAVE: Not quoting, but misrepresenting.
      Commander WEDGWOOD: I have been told that I was responsible for a book which recommended assassination and sedition. The Home Secretary has been good enough to send me a list of passages which he regards as recommending assassination. Unfortunately, his Office has been careful to send me, not passages, but a series of pages —sometimes ten at a stretch —which he regards in that light. It is impossible for me, looking through these pages, to define exactly what he means by encouraging sedition and assassination. I want the House to understand the nature of this book. It is a passionate plea for self-government in India. Is there any Member of this House who is capable of writing a passionate plea for the independence or autonomy of any country in Europe who would not make out as strong as possible a case against the existing administration? You cannot agitate without painting in the blackest permissible colours the existing administration, and Lajpat Rai, who is incapable of advocating assassination, has undoubtedly painted in such colours the whole administration of India by the British.
      One passage to which the Home Secretary calls my attention described the method by which the British Administration was spread throughout India in the eighteenth century, but that passage was simply milk and water compared with passages which might be quoted from Edmund Burke dealing with exactly the same period. The next passage to which the right hon. Gentleman calls my attention is the description by a modern India
      2182
      of the Six Repressive Acts passed in 1809. I myself in this House, and with the sympathy of this House, denounced them, and I can honestly say that the description by Lajpat Rai of these six Acts by no means exceeds the justifiable criticism which any Liberal might pass on those Acts. Listen to what he says in the passage described by the Home Office as being tendencious in the worst degree:
      " The penal code has been amended to make the definition of sedition more comprehensive. The criminal procedure code has been amended to facilitate conviction and to accelerate trials. The Seditious Meetings Act has been enacted to make open propaganda impossible. The Press Law has been passed to muzzle the press. Spies and detectives have been employed out of number."
      Hon. Members who have read the memoirs of Lord Morley could quote from those memoirs statements about suppression of the freedom of the Press, equally violent and equally tendencious. Surely it is monstrous to say that a passage such as that, a mere statement of fact from the Liberal point of view, about suppression of the freedom of association, and freedom of the Press, should be condemned in this House, without any opportunity for defence in a
      Court of law, by the Home Secretary for this administration.
      The gravamen of the charge against this book is that in the last half it proceeds to describe sketchily, photograhically almost, the various grades of Indian reformers and Nationalists. It takes those who believe in revolution —who do not advocate assassination, but revolution; then it refers to such men as Arabinda Ghose and Savarkar, men in whom politics are blended with a kind of religious fanaticism; then it deals with the terrorists, who believe in the bomb and the dagger; then with the Constructional Nationalists, of which one Lajpat Rai is one; then with the Congress Party, the reformists of the Gokhale kind. It deals with them, and puts before the people of this country the different classes of Indian reformers, with the ideals they have, and the methods they employ. If you are once to pronounce that it is not permissible to state in print in this country the facts about the various parties in India, or in any other part of the globe, you are obstructing the best opportunities we can possibly have of governing India not only in the interest of Indians but of the British Empire itself. I wish to illustrate in one word what Mr. Gokhale himself said about Mr. Lajpat Rai, because, to my mind, Lajpat Rai is

      2183
      an enormous asset to this Empire and ought rather to be encouraged than to be reprobated as an encourager of assassination. This is what Mr. Gokhale said in a speech delivered in the Council of the Governor-General after his deportation:
      Lajpat Rai was a religious, social and educational reformer who was loved and respected by large classes of his countrymen all over the country."
      It is the misfortune of all great reformers and all agitators —such as I myself am —to be reprobated and denounced by those in authority; but at least we might ask authority to use language which is in some measure governed by the responsibility of their position, and at the same time by the moral character of those who advocate more extreme doctrines than the Government of the day is willing to recognise.
      I do not mind in the least about accusations against myself in this matter. The House knows me better, and is quite capable of assessing at its true value my charge against myself. What I am here to denounce and deplore is the attitude of the Home Office, and I suppose the attitude, one might say, of the India Office as it is bereft of the Secretary of State for India —the attitude of these two Government Departments, on which so much depends, towards a legitimate movement for self-government in India.
      I think it is unnecessary for me to say anything about the constitutional question in India. Everyone here knows that India itself is in an extremely touchy state at the present moment. You have a raid like this carried out by the Home Office, with the consent of the India Office, but in the absence of the chief of the India Office. You have this carried out regardless of the effect that it will have on public opinion in India. I say that it is a lamentable thing to be done irresponsibly by the Government of the day, which does not really recognise its responsibility towards India at present. Anyone who has any connection with India knows that it is of the greatest importance at the present time that the mission of the Secretary of State for India should meet with the warmest and most accommodating reception, not only from the Indian people, but from the Anglo-Indians of India as well. We have here this irresponsible Government throwing into the midst of this amicable association in India this stupid bombshell of the arrest and seizure of a book which was only circulated to members of the Legislature of this country. Beyond the Indian
      2184
      question altogether, surely we have here an illustration of the employment of the Defence of the Realm Act which is utterly unjustifiable at the present time. The Defence of the Realm Act is meant not to have any influence whatever upon the future government of our great Indian Empire. It is meant to have influence on the conduct of the War itself. How does the seizure of a book dealing with the future government of India affect the conduct of a war in this country? This book does not get to India. There is no fear of that. No, Sir. This is a case where authority, having got a brief control of the police of this country, so far as it affects opinion in this country, has used that authority madly in order to put down anything of which the holders of that authority for the moment disapprove.
      It is impossible to conceive that if we had a Liberal Home Secretary that we should have had this book seized under the Defence of the Realm Act. It is impossible to conceive that if we had a Liberal Home Secretary we should have had the Defence of the Realm Act extended so as to deal with a purely Indian question which has no effect whatever upon Germany or the War at all, except in so far as it is an example of Prussianism in our midst in this country. The book in question may be an example of all that the Home Secretary said. It may be that the book is a pernicious book, but everyone here who has had any education in British history and in British traditions knows that to strangle a book because some people in authority think it is bad is neither good politics nor good ethics. The advertisement which this book has got from this prosecution is far greater than it would get from any number of reviews or the illimitable expenditure of somebody's money. I believe this book was published at the expense of Lady Delaware. She was not prosecuted;: nobody will be prosecuted. But it is not merely that this prosecution involves an advertisement for a book which the Home Office believed to be seditious, but that this prosecution is a return to the days of the anti-Jacobin legislation of this country. It is a return to the days of Lord Eldon and Lord Erskine. I, for one, as an Englishman who venerates the traditions of this country, deplore the action of the Home Secretary, and trust that before long he will see fit to put a

      2185
      stop to this last burst of anti-Boloism, and substitute the traditions of England for the traditions of Prussia.
      Sir G. CAVE: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has, in the course of his speech, made some statements which I desire at once to deal with. I want at the beginning to endeavour to remove any misconception on one subject. As to the suggestion that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had encouraged, or would encourage sedition, or —a still more absurd hypothesis —assassination —I personally disclaim any such charge against the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Secondly, the action which has been taken has nothing whatever to do with the new Regulation to which he has referred. The seizure was made in the ordinary course of the application of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, issued now for a good many months. Thirdly, no one has suggested that we desire to stop a statement of facts, or a statement of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has called the native point of view. He knows, and everybody in the House knows, that the action was 'not taken with any such motive. This book was brought to my notice by the India Office, who know something of India —perhaps more than my hon. and gallant Friend knows. They told me 'that this book was prohibited in India and that its importation into this country is prohibited, and for good reasons. I was told that it had been published in this country in a small edition. True, the edition was a small one, and I believe had already been mainly distributed; but if we had allowed even a small edition to pass without action, it would have been very difficult for us to take any action in regard to a second and larger edition which, I have no doubt, would very soon have been put into circulation.
      I read the book carefully, and I came to the conclusion that the India Office were quite justified in the view that they had taken of the book. We may differ about the meaning of words, but no one, I think, who has read this book carefully through can doubt that it is intended to promote sedition and to encourage viler crimes. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that, apart from the preface he wrote —I think, unfortunately —for the book, he knew nothing whatever of the author of
      2186
      the book. I know a great deal more about the author of this book than he appears to do. The man was deported from India in 1897, and, I think, deported for good reason. During the War he has been partly in Japan and partly in the United States. He has had close relations with men who are known to the Government, and we have the best of reasons for believing that he has taken money obtained from Germany. I believe that this book was written during the War and for the purpose of helping Germany in the War, and of making trouble in our great Dependency of India. I know that a work written by this man has, during the War, been translated into German and published in Leipsig for reasons which we all quite well understand. This man, over whom my hon. and gallant Friend seeks to throw his protection, is, I believe, an agent of the enemy. In the light of that, or even without that knowledge, I should like any fair-minded, independent Member of this House to read this book, as I have had to read it, and say whether we are not right in holding that it is written for the purpose of encouraging sedition, and, in fact, condones murder, not once, but time after time. Anyone who remembers the recent history of India, the attempt upon the life of Lord Hardinge, resulting in the death of several persons, and the assassinations that have occurred in recent years in India at one time or another will see that to allow this book to be published would be to run a serious risk, and would be a serious dereliction of duty. I do not want to read much of this book to the House. It is very undesirable to follow the example of my hon. and gallant Friend and give it further advertisement, but just take one or two passages:
      " We have the two movements, one representing force and the other peaceable agitation, side by side as has been the case in the history of similar movements in other countries.. One movement represents the more virile section of the population who believe in force, violence, and terrorism —"
      Mr. PRINGLE: Ulster.
      Sir G. CAVE continuing):
      "the other depends upon appeals to reason, justice, and conscience."
      Then the author describes various matters, including his own transportation and the attempt upon the life of Lord Hardinge which resulted in the death of a certain number of people, and in particular the author praises a man to

      2187
      whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, Har Dreyal. The hon. and gallant Member represented this man as one who believed in constitutional government.
      Commander WEDGWOOD: Not constitutional —revolutionary.
      Sir G. CAVE: See what the author himself says about this man:
      "They are to organise rebellion for raising the standard of revolt for carrying on a guerilla war. For
      2188
      the purpose of this rebellion or war they may do, and will do, anything that is necessary to be done. Otherwise they would neither murder nor loot."
      To pass encomiums on a man who for his own purposes would indulge in murder and loot —
      It being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER, adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.