HL Deb 29 January 1918 vol 28 cc1-151

Bill further considered on Report.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON)

My Lords, I desire to make the Motion which stands first on the Paper in my name, asking your Lordships to agree to the suspension for this afternoon of Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX. I make this Motion to meet the convenience of your Lordships' House, and in accordance with what I believe to be the general desire. I assume that your Lordships are anxious to proceed without any further delay with the final stages of the Representation of the People Bill in order to enable your proposals with regard to that measure to go with as little delay as may be before another place. The suspension of Standing Order No. XXI, is required to enable this Bill to take priority of the other Bills that stand before it on the Order Paper—in order, in fact, to enable you to resume without a break the discussion on which you were engaged when you adjourned yesterday evening; and the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX is required in order to enable you, after you have completed the Report stage, to take the Third Reading of the Bill this afternoon. I hope there will be no objection to either of these suggestions, which, as I repeat, are designed to meet the convenience of the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting with reference to the Representation of the People Bill, and that the Order for the receiving of the Report of Amendments to that Bill have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

As no other of your Lordships has risen to address the House, I would crave your Lordships' indulgence while I say a few words with reference to the Motion made by the Leader of the House. May I say at once that so far as Standing Order XXI is concerned—that is, the Standing Order by the suspension of which we are enabled to take the Representation of the People Bill first—I have no criticism to make. But when we come to Standing Order XXXIX, which deals with the Third Reading, I should like with the indulgence of the House to say one or two words. The noble Earl moved the suspension of this Standing Order — which practically abolishes the Third Reading stage, which is perfectly useless if the Standing Order is suspended—as a sort of matter of course, as if no one could doubt that it was a right thing for your Lordships, upon the most important Bill which has reached us perhaps for many years, to suspend the Standing Order under which the Third Reading stage is taken on a separate day. That may be the wish of your Lordships, but I am quite certain it ought not to be moved as a matter of course. It is a very strong step to take, and a step which ought to be taken with very great reluctance.

The Third Reading stage in your Lordships' House is quite a different thing from the Third Reading in the House of Commons. The Third Reading in the House of Commons is merely a last opportunity which that House possesses of stating its opinion as to the general principle of the Bill—as to whether it ought to go through at all. But, in your Lordships' House, the Third Reading is an opportunity for the further amendment of the Bill. It is a very important moment, because many things are done in a complicated Bill in the course of the Committee stage and the Report stage which have to be carefully considered in the last stage of the Bill. That is all the more necessary when the Report stage on the Bill has been rather hurried, which has been the case in the Report stage of the present Bill.

There is really no hurry at all. I heard my noble friend the Leader of the House, when he put down the Report stage, state to your Lordships that there was some urgent necessity for our getting through this Bill very quickly because of the financial business of the year, and he alleged that the new session of Parliament could not begin later than February 5 without seriously interfering with the financial business of the year.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON indicated dissent.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is what I understood my noble friend to say.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

February 12.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Was that so?

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON nodded assent.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Well, there is a good deal of time if the new session is not going to begin before February 12. In my experience Parliament has very often met later than February 12, and there is nothing special in the circumstances of this year. The rules which govern financial business in the House of Commons are the same every year, and there is no special difficulty as far as that is concerned. I suspect that my noble friend has got all this at second-hand from the Whips' Room in the House of Commons, and I have learnt by many years of experience to distrust all information on business which comes from that quarter. The Whips of the House of Commons will almost sell their immortal souls in order to save twenty-four hours of the time of the House of Commons, and I have known very serious public loss result from that feeling on the part of the Whips of the other House. I recommend my noble friend not to take his information from that quarter. Therefore, there really is no very great hurry.

We have approached this subject upon its merits. Now what are the merits? My noble friend the Leader of the House has not been able to attend to the Report stage of the Bill, as some of us have. He is quite right; he is far better employed; he has to look after far more important business than the Report stage of this Bill. But there have been a considerable number of points which have been raised in the course of the debate which may require to be reconsidered. I do not say they are important, but all sorts of little matters were raised. For example, the noble and learned Lord sitting near me (Lord Buckmaster) did not much like the drafting of an Amendment for which I was responsible which had the word "cognate" in it. He commented on that very severely. There was an Amendment which was suggested by my noble friend Lord Burnham. He suggested that there ought to be some provision made in the case of joint occupiers where the number of joint occupiers is larger than the multiple of ten, which alone gives the franchise, and it was pointed out, and practically admitted by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, that an injustice is done. The noble Viscount admitted it quite freely. Well, I do not think it would be difficult to find a method of meeting this, but that ought to be considered on the Third Reading. I am not at all sure that the Rules clause, which I was instrumental in asking your Lordships to pass last night, is quite perfect in its drafting. There is a possibility that a question may arise on that.

Then there is the case of Orkney and Shetland. The history of the Orkney and Shetland clause is extremely instructive. My noble friend the Leader of the House insisted, against our respectful protest, upon putting down the Report stage on Monday, because, he said, there would be ample time for us to prepare our Amendments and to give notice of them. What was our amazement in the small hours of this morning when we heard the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill (Lord Peel) move an Amendment in manuscript, a Government Amendment—a new clause, of which no notice whatever has been given. So that after insisting that we should be prepared, the Government themselves were not prepared with all their Amendments. I do not know exactly what the Orkney and Shetland Amendment enacted. I was much too sleepy last night to gather what it was; and (I say it very respectfully) I think most of your Lordships were in the same condition. The only person who was thoroughly awake was the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. In fact, that has been the case all through our proceedings.

The case of Orkney and Shetland is a very interesting one, because the Government had evidently forgotten those islands. They had made provision for England and for Scotland in the Bill; they have failed to make provision for Ireland; but Orkney and Shetland had been forgotten altogether; and now at the last moment Orkney and Shetland have been, discovered, and an Amendment to deal with them has been introduced. But the Government ought to have gone further; and that is the difficulty. That is the relevancy of my present observations with regard to the Third Reading stage.

What about the vote of the soldiers and sailors in Orkney and Shetland? I wonder whether the Government have thought of this matter. I moved an Amendment to lengthen the time for which the polls should be open in order to give an opportunity for the votes of the soldiers and sailors to be counted. I pointed out that the time was very short; that there was, in fact, only just time, if everything worked right in the present time schedule, for the ballot papers to be sent to the furthest part of the line in France and to be received back in time for them to be counted within the limit allowed. What is to happen to the poor unfortunate soldiers and sailors who come from Orkney and Shetland? I do not think that I shall be exaggerating if I say that, in the present condition of things, a return post from Shetland, at any rate, to London, would be a matter of from four to six days. If you add four to six days to the schedule of time which the Government have proposed, it is clear that the soldiers and sailors coming from Shetland may be done out of their votes. The Government have not thought of that. As I say, they had forgotten Orkney and Shetland. I do not blame them for forgetting things. I wonder how they remember all the things they do think of, considering the enormous pressure on them. But that is why, in a Bill of great importance, you must not suppress the Third Reading stage, which is for making good those holes which the other stages of the Bill do not cover.

I could multiply this a great deal if I had time. There is the clause about Ireland which we are going to discuss directly. I have hopes that your Lordships will agree to strike Ireland out of the Bill. But supposing you do not; then we shall want to consider the situation which will arise through not striking Ireland out of the Bill. That can be done only on the Third Reading. The same applies to my noble friend Lord Selborne's Schedule. I have every hope that this Schedule will pass as it stands, but it may not. It will then be necessary to re-consider that on the Third Reading. So that there appears to be abundant reason why on a Bill of this first-class importance we should not deprive the House of Lords, and Parliament, of the opportunity of a last revision of its work which the Third Reading, under the rules of the House of Lords, provides. I trust that my noble friend will reflect upon these considerations, and not ask us to do without our Third Reading stage.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, in ordinary circumstances I should feel a great deal of sympathy with the proposition which has been made by my noble friend behind me—namely, that it is not reasonable to expect your Lordships to deal quite so rapidly with this Bill, and, in particular, to take to-day the Third Reading stage, which is often extremely valuable for polishing up a Bill into its final form by Amendments which may not have occurred to members of the House during the progress of the Bill. But the reason why I am not able to support the noble Marquess on this occasion is this. The Bill has been practically turned inside out by the action of your Lordships' House, and the whole position regarding it remains in suspense. It remains in suspense until we know what the action of the other House will be towards a Bill which will go down to them in an entirely new figure. Until we know what attitude the House of Commons will take about the renewed, or rejuvenated Bill (or however it may be regarded), I do not think that much further discussion here is of great value.

The time when, I think, we may ask noble Lords opposite to give us full opportunity for discussion is when the House of Commons return the Bill to us with their Amendments—whatever form they may take. I should greatly resent then any marked curtailing of our opportunities of discussion. But at this moment we are, as it seems to me, living in so misty an atmosphere regarding the Bill that I cannot feel that, at this stage, any great length and elaboration of discussion is of much permanent value. Therefore at the present moment I am disposed to support His Majesty's Government in getting the Bill down to the other House as soon as possible, however much I may find myself on some future occasion differing from them if they take as rigid a view about our opportunities of discussion as they are taking at this moment.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, the argument to which we have just listened seems to me more ingenious than convincing. The noble Earl who leads the House told us that he made this Motion from a desire to meet the convenience of your Lordships. Could any arrangement be less convenient to this House than that which is proposed by His Majesty's Government, who are, in effect, suggesting that we should dispense with one stage in the consideration of this Bill?

I will not dwell upon the importance of the Bill itself. It is, by universal admission, one of the most momentous Bills which has ever come before the Parliament of this country. It was under alteration at a late hour last night; it is going to be under alteration again this evening; and, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury has pointed out, some of the questions with which we have still to deal are questions certainly of considerable importance. Surely what is necessary is that we should send this Bill down to the House of Commons in a form which will show that it has received proper consideration at our hands. That seems to me more important than the course suggested by the noble Earl who leads the House, who thinks that all that matters is to get the Bill to the House of Commons, and that we should reserve what we have to say for the moment when the Bill comes back to us again.

I have heard nothing in this conversation to show me that the urgency is so great as some people would have us believe. Can it really be suggested that the interposition of another day can make any great difference? Is not what is really important that we should do our work properly, and if the noble Earl who leads the House merely wishes to study the convenience of the House and show it the respect which I know he will never fail to show it, surely the proper course is not to run the Report and Third Reading together in one evening, but to give us an interval of time and to take the Third Reading as a separate stage of the Bill. I do not know whether, after the appeal made to him, my noble friend Lord Salisbury will press his objection, but I feel bound to say that it seems to me to he an entirely reasonable one.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

My Lords, I ought, perhaps, to say a word or two in reply to the observations made by noble Lords. I am placed in a somewhat difficult position. When I spoke of the convenience of your Lordships I was using that language with the utmost sincerity, and was alluding not merely to the proceedings of this evening but of the next week or ten days. I think my noble friend Lord Salisbury did not quite correctly interpret what I said upon the previous occasion. What I said then, so far as I recollect—and Hansard will show whether my recollection is correct—is that the Government had hoped to be able to adjourn Parliament on February 5—no, rather that they had hoped to commence the new session on that date. I said that that hope had had to be abandoned in consequence of the time spent, and properly spent, on the concluding stages of this measure in this House; that they night be driven to commence the new session on February 12; and that they would, if compelled to do that, be confronted with great difficulties, mainly arising out of the financial position. That information was given to me, it is true, by the Whips, but I do not therefore assume that it was necessarily tainted, as the noble Marquess's experience in bygone days, when he was often in the Whips' room, seems to have led him to think.

The question of time in the House of Commons is rather an important one, for this reason. If you pass the Bill through its remaining stages to-day, the Bill, with the Amendments, will then have to be reprinted. I assume that it would be in the possession of the House of Commons tomorrow evening or on Thursday. I assume again that they would proceed at once with the discussion of the Bill as altered. That discussion cannot be a hurried one. It must take one or two days. I do not know whether the House of Commons would be willing to sit on Friday as well as Thursday to consider your Lordships' Amendments. In any case the Bill could not leave the House of Commons and come back to your Lordships' House until the early part of next week. You would then have to consider the reasons which the House of Commons had stated for disagreeing with your Amendments, if they did so, and then would ensue another discussion in this House, followed by proceedings which it is not necessary for me to anticipate now, but which may take a certain amount of time. I must honestly confess that I thought that those who take such a keen interest in this Bill, and who have been so busy in remodellin it, would have been the first, in their own interests, to wish to see it leave this House as soon as possible and get down to another place. Therefore I am inclined, on the grounds which I previously stated, to persist in my Motion.

But there then conies this point. I do not argue that the Third Reading in this House is the same thing as the Third Reading in the House of Commons. It is not. If it were I might have pointed out that the Third Reading in another place only occupied about twenty minutes, and that that time was consumed for the most part in compliments to those who were responsible for the measure. The Third Reading in this House is a different thing. But am I to believe that between the Report stage and the Third Reading, if it be taken to day or to-morrow, your Lordships really desire another interval in order to consider what further Amendments or changes you may wish to put in on the Third Reading? Surely not. I listened to the illustrations given by the noble Marquess, and he played with the case of Orkney and Shetland. I do not suppose that those two remote portions of the British Islands have over before played so large a part in the discussion of procedure in this House. But does any one propose to move Amendments about Orkney and Shetland after the Report stage? No. The two days allowed to those parts of the United Kingdom have been allowed ever since the Act of 1872.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There was no soldiers' and sailors' vote in those days.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

Does the noble Marquess mean to tell us that on that or any other point the House of Lords wants a further interval? I did not gather from his speech that that was the case. Therefore on this occasion I must say that I think, in the interests of the Bill, and still more of the changes which your Lordships have introduced into it and of the reception which you desire that they shall meet with in another place, you will be well advised if you consent to take the Third Reading as well as the Report stage to-night.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I do not wish to continue the discussion, but I want to answer one question. The position in winch I am placed is this. After the late discussion on Thursday last an Amendment which I had moved was rejected, and suggestions were made for another Amendment. I communicated at once with Scotland by Friday's post and got the answer only yesterday. It was not in time to give notice of an Amendment for the Report stage, and I had to give it in for the Third Reading. I do not say that the matter is of first-class importance, but if the Third Reading is taken to-night it will not be possible to insert that Amendment, because under the Standing Order you cannot put in an Amendment on the Third Reading without having given notice.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My noble friend who leads the House made it quite plain that he only wants to do the reasonable thing, and he asked us to be reasonable. I am sure he will believe me when I say that it is our wish to be reasonable. He has also taken in his survey, not the immediate question of the moment, that the Third Reading shall be taken, but the subsequent proceedings which may take place on this Bill between the two Houses. I think it makes it much easier to discuss this thing in a reasonable way that we should have that within our consideration. He asks us to take the Third Reading to-night, and he admits that that does mean cutting out that stage of the Bill. He has given us his reasons for what he asks—namely, that the Bill may go to the House of Commons and come back to us in plenty of time for the further proceedings which may take place. Let us consider whether we cannot really meet his view by asking him to adopt our suggestion. Supposing he is content with the Report stage tonight, and takes the Third Reading tomorrow; that just gives us time to look through the Bill again and bring forward any Amendments there may be. I agree that they are not likely to be of first-rate importance, but there may be several of minor importance. Assume for the moment that the Bill is read a third time to-morrow, and goes to the House of Commons tomorrow. The Bill will have been reprinted in the meantime, and therefore will be quite ready for the House of Commons. It is only necessary to put on a different cover and it is ready for the House of Commons, and they can take it on Thursday.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

Not if you amend it on the Third Reading.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

In no case that I can imagine would an Amendment be a large one. I should have thought that such Amendments as there were could have been inserted on Thursday night. I

should not have imagined that any Amendment likely to be moved on Third Reading would interpose the technical difficulty of reprinting the Bill on Wednesday night. But assuming that that is so, the Commons could take the Bill on Thursday. Whether they would take one day or two days over it I do not know. At the latest they would have disposed of it by Friday, and there would be the whole of next week for any subsequent proceedings between the two Houses. If we take the Report to-day and the Third Reading tomorrow, and the House of Commons take the Bill on Thursday and Friday, it can come back to us again for Monday. Surely such an arrangement as that would afford ample time for the consideration which my noble friend is quite right in saying is required.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

My noble friend desires to take the opinion of your Lordships on this question. I do not propose to say anything in support, though I feel very strongly indeed. If a proposal of this kind had to be made it was really necessary to give notice of it beforehand. I could take up further time by instancing a case which is coming on. In regard to that, the Government may find it impossible to give a pledge, but if they cannot give a pledge it may be necessary to move something on Third Reading. I desire to give your Lordships an opportunity to decide the question, and therefore I move to leave out from the Motion the words "and XXXIX." The effect of carrying that would be that the Third Reading could not be taken to-night.

Amendment moved— To leave out "and XXXIX."—(Viscouni Midleton.)

On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS.
Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.) Chilston, V. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.) Devonport, V. Leith of Fyvie, L.
Harcourt, V. Muir Mackenzie, L.
Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.) Peel, V. Newton, L.
Pontypridd, L.
Crewe, M. Blyth, L. Queenborough, L.
Lincolnshire, M. Buckmaster, L. Ranksborough, L.
Carnock, L. Revelstoke, L.
Chesterfield, E. Colebrooke, L. Southwark, L.
Clarendon, E. Elphinstone, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Eldon, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Howe, E Harris, L. Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Lucan, E. Hattherton, L. Sudeley, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. Hothfield, L. Suffield, L.
Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Hylton, L. [Teller.] Treowen, L.
Kenyon, L Wolverton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Lansdowne, M. Russell, E. Burnham, L.
Salisbury M. Selborne, E. Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)
Verulam, E. Courtney of Penwith, L.
Abingdon, E. Kenny, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Beauchamp, E. Allendale, V.
Camperdown, E. Chaplin, V. Kinnaird, L.
Denbigh, E. Falkland, V. Lambourne, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbury) Falmouth, V. Oran more and Browne, L.
Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Ave bury, L. Redesdale, L.
Fortescue, E. Balfour, L. Saltersford, L. (E Courtown.)
Grey, E. [Teller.] Barrymore, L. Somerleyton, L.
Jersey, E. Beresford of Metemmeh, L. Stuart of Wortley, L.
Loreburn, E. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) [Teller.] Sydenham, L.
Minto, E. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Morton, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Original Motion agreed to.

Clause 43:

LORD BERESFORD moved to amend Clause 43 so that it would read "This Act shall not apply to Ireland." The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, in any remarks I make in moving this Amendment to leave Ireland out of the Bill, I shall endeavour to be very careful to say nothing that would add to the difficulties of my country at the present moment. But I want to argue this logically and to point out that what we have suffered in Ireland, and what von have suffered in England for many years—difficulties in regard to legislation and questions of defence, which have not been for the good of the country—have been mainly due to the over representation of Ireland.

I must be a little retrospective in order to prove my point. The Union was carried into effect in January, 1801, when the population of Ireland was 5,299,000, and the population of England, Scotland, and Wales 10,500,000. The population of England, Scotland, and Wales is now 40,834,000, and of Ireland 4,381,957; according to the census of 1911. In the agreement or contract which was called the Union in 1801, Ireland was to have 100 Members, and the contract was worded "and for ever after to be united in one Kingdom." The argument may be used against me as to our breaking the contract now, but I want to point out that it has been broken several times—in 1832, when Ireland was given five extra Members; in 1867 when Ireland had 103 representatives instead of 105; in 1884 the same; and that number remained the same until to-day, when it was proposed to add two more representatives by the recent Speaker's Conference. The contract was broken again by the disestablishment of the Irish Church in 1869. It may be said that the numbers are very few, but the principle remains that the contract was broken, whether the number of Members affected was few or not.

Now we are going to give, it is suggested, two more Members to Ireland, which will make the number 105 again, and to give these Members to a country which will return, as we have seen by facts recently, Members who will support an Irish Republic; Members who hate England as has been proved by the rebellion. And this in spite of the fact that Ireland has been reduced in population from 1801 by 1,000,000, and England, Scotland, and Wales increased by more than 30,000,000 since that date. I want to know why this was done? I want to know the object of it. What is the reason this Bill was introduced with Ireland included?

Ireland has been treated entirely different from England all through this war. There is no Military Service Act there. I do not challenge the Government's position as to not having conscription in Ireland, but if the Government did not apply conscription to Ireland owing to the state of the country, it strengthens my argument against the over representation in the House of Commons, which would be increased by this Bill. There is very little of the Defence of the Realm Act in Ireland, and no food restrictions, while several Bills have been passed in which the words were inserted "this Bill does not apply to Ireland." I ask again, why should this Bill be applied to Ireland? We are told it is expedient we should apply conscription to Ireland. Under the present circumstances that perhaps is true, but my own idea is that if, after the rebellion, conscription had been passed, you would have found very little difficulty, and you would have got a large number of the finest fighting race in the world to join the Army. Perhaps under present circumstances it may be impossible, or may be attended with very great difficulties. We must also remember that Ireland is in receipt of large sums from England, and pays nothing towards the upkeep of the Forces at the present time. As far as the men who have gone into the war are concerned, England has subscribed 80 per cent., Scotland 5 per cent., Wales 4 per cent., and Ireland a little over 2 per cent. The rest of the percentage is made up by the Dominions and India. We are told by the Prime Minister that it is treason to the State, to the country, to democracy, and to freedom, if we do not get more men to carry on the war. I do not know why we do not put conscription in force in Ireland now, although I acknowledge that it would be very difficult.

I have no objection to an increase of the franchise. If you increase the franchise in this country, naturally you must increase it in Ireland. What I object to is adding two more Members to the representation of Ireland, which has been over represented for some considerable time by, I think it is, forty Members. We know perfectly well that Ireland has governed this country for thirty years in the House of Commons. There are two facts I want to bring before your Lordships' House. Why is this Bill being brought forward? You have already Home Rule on the Statute Book, and you have the Convention sitting. The Convention, I suppose, will settle something; we all hope so. But if it does not, you have still Home Rule on the Statute Book. Then why has this Bill been applied to Ireland? I cannot conceive any reason for it, and I want some logical reply to my question. As you have left Ireland out of everything else which has had to do with the war, you should have left her out of this Bill, and therefore she should have, as far as Members are concerned, the same proportion that is given to England, Scotland, and to Wales. The Bill will give one representative for every 41,000 voters in Ireland, and one representative for every 71,000 in England, Scotland, and Wales. You are going back to the old difficulty of over representation, and I cannot conceive why this Bill has been brought forward with Ireland in it. This question of over representation has several times jeopardized the Empire, and the people of Great Britain apparently wish, if they support this Bill, to continue to jeopardise the Empire.

The position of Ireland is very different at this moment from what it was a few years ago. You must remember that the English people—I am sorry to say it—are getting very irritated with my countrymen. They know that numbers of them have not helped this country in any way but have helped the enemy, and that they have rebelled and murdered a large number of our soldiers. But the position does not stop there. The Dominions that are always sympathetic to Home Rule have discovered that when Home Rule is put forward in Ireland by two-thirds of the population it is not what the Dominions mean—Home Rule within the Empire—but Home Rule without the Empire. Again, the great American nation have always been very sympathetic to Home Rule, something on the lines of their own Home Rule with regard to their States; but they have discovered that Ireland as a whole is more in sympathy with our enemies the Germans than they are with the great American Republic who are now our Allies. Therefore the position with regard to Ireland is very different from what it was, so far as sympathy goes between the English, the Dominions, and the people of the United States.

The Sinn Feiners, we know, want separation and independence, and they are keeping up a violent agitation to get an Irish Republic. There is an Irish Member in the House of Commons who said only the other day that the vast bulk of the Irish people are pro-German. We know that the majority of them refuse to take part in the war. We know that there has been a very large sum of German money spent in Ireland, and we know they have intrigued with our enemies. One of the reasons why the English public are getting irritated with Ireland, which they have not been before for over 100 years, is that Irishmen are coming over here and taking the places of those who are fighting for us at the Front. We know, too, that men cannot go about in uniform in Ireland when on leave, and only lately a man was murdered because he would not give up the rifle of his son who was on leave.

My Lords, I hope I shall get a logical reply from the Government. Why have they put Ireland into the Bill when they have got Home Rule on the Statute Book and are waiting for the Report of the Convention? When they know that Ireland has been over-represented for many years they are going to add two to the number of Irish Members, and I maintain are going to put our Empire in considerable danger. Noble Lords know very well that, when this war is over, on the Imperial Parliament that is returned the destinies of our race depend one way or the other; and if we are going to have this over-representation of Ireland, more particularly with the condition which Ireland is in now, with two-thirds of it opposed to and wishing to defeat England in this war, I say that Ireland with this over-representation will be in a position to control the destinies of our nation, and that is bound to end in disaster.

The Irish question will remain whether we have Home Rule or not. We are bound to protect our harbours on the West Coast of Ireland. We never can have Home Rule which means separation. All of us hope, particularly those of us of the Protestant faith, that some sort of arrangement will be made between our faith and the Catholic faith, because do not disguise the question about Ireland. The main question about Ireland is the religious question, and if you had a war in Ireland, if a rebellion had broken out in Ulster before the war, it would have resolved itself into a religious question. The most powerful latent fact in this country is Protestantism. If that is aroused, as it would have been by such a war, it would not have been a civil war but a war of fanaticism and religion, and thousands of Protestants would have gone over to Ireland on the Orange side. I am glad that has not happened, and I hope sincerely that something will occur to bring those two nations, for they really are two nations, together. But you are not going to bring them together if you are going to put a premium on disaffection by improving and strengthening the over-representation of Ireland as you have done in this Bill.

I do not think the English understand my country. I am certain they do not. They do not understand how to rule it, and never have understood how to rule it. They hate made it a Party programme, and have promised this and that on both sides; and, to put it in schoolboy language, they have sold the Irish again and again. They do not understand that the Irish want fair play and a strong Government and good management. In November, 1914, I went to the War Office and said, "If you will allow me to go to Ireland and let me recruit in my own way, I will get you 100,000 Irishmen." They said, "What do you mean by your way?" I said, "You must give me representatives of the Irish regiments, the best you can. You must give me a band, and you must let them use their colours. The Orange can have the Orange flag, and the Green can have the Green flag. I will call them regimental colours, and I am certain I shall get you the men." "Oh," they said, "we cannot have that at all. There is only the Union Jack." I said, "It is playing to the sentiment of the race, but I am certain I could manage them. They know me and I know them." The War Office said, "No, we cannot allow that at all." Besides which, I was told, "We do not like these English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Regiments. We like the British Army and the Union Jack." I said, "If you take it that way I cannot do you any good." Three times I went and tried to carry out my plan, and I was refused. The only mistake I made, perhaps, was that I ought to have gone to the Cabinet instead of to the War Office. I could have got the men then, I am certain. I could not get them now.

I might tell you another way of managing Irishmen. I commanded a great fleet I gave the men all the leave I could, but when they were with the fleet I worked my men's souls out at drill. The Englishmen and the Southern people could always get away about three or four days a month; that is, from Portsmouth, Plymouth, Chatham, and Portland. When I got to Ireland I had a lot of Irishmen in the fleet, and I said, "I must give these lads four days' leave." So I gave the signal, "I am going to give you four days' leave, but unfortunately for you and me the leave will be up on St. Patrick's Day." I said, "I am an Irishman myself, and I know the difficulties of St. Patrick's Day, but I rely on your sense of honour to come back." I sent 766 men away on the Friday, and four days afterwards, at eight o'clock in the evening, 766 men came back. I do not say they were all sober, but they all came back. That was trusting their honour; appealing to them.

I say Englishmen never will understand Irishmen. They never have, and certainly will not while they give them overrepresentation, while they are afraid of applying conscription, and afraid of them as they have shown themselves all through this war. That is not the way to treat an Irishman. He laughs at you. Any Irishman will tell you, "Englishmen give us conscription! I tell you they dare not do it." That is what they have told me. I said, "If only I had it to do, you would soon see whether I would do it or not." I hope I shall get some logical answer from the Government to the remarks I have made. Why have they put Ireland into this Bill when they have Home Rule on the Statute Book and the Conference is sitting, which we all hope will report something to bring the different classes sects, and sentiments together in my country?

Amendment moved—

Page 35, line 31, after ("shall") insert ("not") and leave out from ("Ireland") to the end of the clause.—(Lord Beresford.)

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

My Lords, I find it very difficult to deny the logic of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Beresford. Nobody who has watched the representation of Ireland for the last thirty or forty years can fail to recognise the great anomaly which exists in the retention of the number of Members fixed at the Union. I think, however, that my noble friend has rather answered his own speech. While at one moment he points to this anomaly and asks why steps have not been taken to amend it in the Bill, at another he admits that an extension of the franchise in Ireland must take place after an extension of the franchise has taken place in this country. The latter is the only operation which is found in the present Bill. He went on to say that, as there was a Home Rule Act on the Statute Book, and as there was also a great hope, as he expressed it, that if the Convention now sitting came to any agreement some form of settlement would take place, under neither of those contingencies, as he pointed out, would the inclusion of 103 Irish Members in the House of Commons be necessary.

What I understand to be the position in the Bill is this. No additional Members are given to Ireland. The two additional Members will be included in the measure now before another place dealing with redistribution, and are not included in the Bill which your Lordships are now discussing Therefore there is no question of an addition of Members. The only question that we have to decide is whether we should take the opportunity of this extension of the franchise and redistribution of British seats to redress at the same time this great anomaly of the excessive number of Irish Members. Look at it from the point of view which my noble friend puts, that this anomaly must be redressed if the Home Rule Act is put into operation or if any Convention agreement should take place. The question is so serious that I think I should be justified in breaking the self-denying ordinance to which members of the Convention have all been parties and say that whatever contingency should result—if the Convention should come to an agreement or scheme—there has been no question raised in any quarter in the last six months but that there would be a large decrease of Members representing Ireland in the Imperial Parliament.

I think, therefore, that my noble friend need be under no apprehension that there would be any attempt on the part of Ireland, in establishing a new Constitution, to ask for the same representation as they have at present. The question comes down to this. Is this a desirable and opportune, if it is a necessary, moment to reduce this representation? I understand that in another place a good deal of delicacy and difficulty was felt in, as it were, dragging this question forward, especially under the circumstances that some of the most prominent members of the Nationalist Party and of the Ulster Unionists were at that moment engaged in the Convention. Although I was unable to be present last week owing to the business proceeding in Dublin, I am aware that a noble Lord raised the same question here concerning the absence of those who were engaged in the Convention. I thought, therefore, that perhaps I ought to rise as soon as my noble friend had spoken to say how very great was the difficulty those of us who are engaged in the Convention would be in in giving a vote on this subject at the present moment.

I think that every one who has served on that Convention has come to one conclusion. A closer link has been established between different classes—I was almost going to say all sections—of Irishmen who have been engaged there than has ever existed before in the memory of man, and such conditions are, of course, the ones Which are most favourable to a settlement. It is nut for me here to trouble your Lordships with any prophecies as to what may be the result of the very critical negotiations which are at present under discussion, but I think that I must say that I should view with great regret anything which was likely to disturb the harmony of those proceedings at the present moment. I am not, of course, saying that that need be binding on other Members of your Lordships' House, but I have conferred with my colleagues—my noble friend Lord Dunraven and may noble friend Lord Oranmore and others, who either are present or would have been present if they could have been—and they are unanimously of opinion that it would not be becoming of them, and would be undesirable, if they were to take any part in this Division, if Division there be.

I would also appeal to my noble friend to consider whether, if he brings this question to an issue at all, it would not be well to defer it at all events till the Redistribution Bill, in which the question of increasing the number of Irish representatives will be raised, comes before your Lordships. I would put it to him whether at this moment it would not be perhaps better to allow the question to slumber, haying in view the further opportunity which will shortly be presented of dealing with it. I do so fully recognise the force of some of the considerations which my noble friend Lord Beresford has brought forward that I would ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill whether he could not give the House this assurance—that if, contrary to the hopes of many of us, no fresh arrangement of the Irish Constitution is made, and if it should be found in a few months' time that this Franchise. Bill is coming into operation and that a General Election may be expected, the Government will see that, if there is to be no question of Home Rule, there will also be no question of the return of so largely excessive a number of Irish representatives to the next Imperial Parliament. I only put that because I do not think that it would be right, because many-of us in the existing circumstances deprecate the raising of this very difficult question at the present moment, that there should therefore exist for another generation a disproportion of representation which might be, as my noble friend has said, a great danger to British policy. His Majesty's Government in view of the very considerate attitude which those who are opposed to them on this matter in Parliament have adopted, should give a pledge that at all events this over representation shall not for all time be perpetuated, if this opportunity of reducing it is not taken by my noble friend.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

I should like to say one word in support of the view put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton. I think there is no one who has listened to the speech of my noble friend Lord Beresford who cannot feel the weight of the arguments which he adduced in favour of his Amendment. He told us, what we all knew, that Ireland has been over-represented in the past. He also pointed out that the Treaty of Union has been treated as a "scrap of paper"; but, besides that, he recalled to the recollection of your Lordships that the proportions of the population of Ireland and of this country, when the scheme as to the number of Members which Ireland was to have was adopted, was a very different ratio from what it bears at the present day.

I imagine that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will shortly advise your Lordships to reject this Amendment, should it be pressed to a Division, on the ground of expediency—a ground which has actuated not only this Government but preceding Governments with reference to Ireland since the beginning of the war. I do not appeal to you on the grounds of expediency, but I appeal on another ground, one which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beresford—on the ground of sentiment. I know that sentiment is a very weak point to urge against facts, but it is one which plays a great part in Ireland—a part which is hardly realised by the more prosaic people of this country. For over six months a Convention has been sitting in Dublin, a Convention which was formed with the object, as stated by the Prime Minister, of enabling Irishmen of all parties to hammer out for themselves a Constitution for Ireland within the Empire. I know that the work we have had to do has been work of great interest; it has been a time of great stress and of great responsibilities. Mighty issues we have had to decide. We have had to consider the future of Ireland, the interests of this country, the interests of the Empire, yes, even the future issues of the war. We have had moments of depression; we have had times of elation. At present the whole question stands in suspense, in view of the negotiations which are to take place.

I venture to ask your Lordships if this is a moment to render the issue more difficult by taking the strong measure of excluding Ireland from the benefits of the extended franchise which are granted under the present Bill. In the past, the Nationalists have often said that there were two great enemies of Ireland—the Irish landlords and your Lordships' House. The Irish landlords are well represented in the Irish Convention, and of those landlords no fewer than eight are members of this House. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that I do not think we are among the least popular members of the assembly. A spirit has been engendered in the Convention, which we have done our best to foster, which has put us on terms of friendship with our fellow-countrymen that have never existed in the past. I should like to feel that the good feeling which exists so strongly there found an echo in your Lordships' House.

At the present juncture I am perfectly certain that the knowledge that the House of Lords, in spite of the very strong reasons which they had to refuse the extension of the franchise to Ireland at the present time, took into consideration this fact, would be of the greatest possible assistance, not only to us personally who are serving on ttc Convention, but to every member of the nation in their endeavour to settle this question. If the Convention results in a settlement, the difficulty will not arise. If it fails, I agree with my noble friend Lord Midleton that the question must come up once snore for revision. I earnestly hope that the Convention will succeed, and it will be pleasant, in that case, if this proposal is not pressed to a Division at the present time, to think that your Lordships refrained from doing so in the hope that you might do your share to help in the settlement of this most important matter to the nation.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I dare say my noble friend opposite who introduced this Amendment will forgive me if I do not travel quite so widely as he did in some of the observations which he addressed to your Lordships, and if I confine myself rather more closely to the nature of the Amendment which he moved. On that point my noble friend Lord Midleton has really given a sufficient answer. Because what is the effect of the Amendment? It is that as regards registration and questions of franchise, Ireland should be omitted altogether from this Bill. What would he the effect of that? You would have one franchise in this country and another franchise in Ireland. Is that really a possible proposition? After all, under almost any circumstances that you can think of you would want presumably to have the same franchise. I do not know what might happen as a result of the Convention, but it is perfectly clear, say under the Home Rule Act, now lying on the Statute Book, that if this Act were put into force, it would be impossible to have two franchises, one for this country—

LORD BERESFORD

I never said so.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I know the noble Lord did not, but I am pointing out the effect of his Amendment, and if this Amendment were carried that would be the effect. I am quite aware that the noble Lord skilfully did not dwell upon that rather unfortunate result of his Amendment, but I am bound to do so. Therefore I cannot conceive that in any circumstances your Lordships would support the Amendment which would have this effect on the franchise in this country and in Ireland.

The major part of my noble friend's speech was really addressed to a different point, and that was the question of the numbers of the representatives of Ireland. That point, as the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, has already pointed out, is really hardly relevant to this particular Amendment, because there is nothing in this Bill which has to do with the question of redistribution in Ireland. That matter is relegated to a totally different Bill, which Bill, under the arrangement arrived at in another place, is to become law at the same time as this measure. It has not yet come before your Lordship's House, and when it does come, then I submit would be the time for your Lordships to raise this question of the number of representatives from Ireland.

The noble Lord also raised the question as to why this matter has been dealt with at all. I think he knows perfectly well that it is very difficult, in fact almost impossible, to introduce great changes in the franchise without also furring seine redistribution of seats. The force of that was felt in another place, and the Bill which is going to be brought in—I apologise for dealing with it on another Bill, but I am rather forced to do so by the course of the debate—that Bill does recognise the particular position, and therefore there is to be redistribution of seats in Ireland as the result of this franchise Bill. What I understand my noble friend wants to do is entirely to alter the Bill when it comes here, and largely to reduce the representation of Ireland. I think my noble friend knows perfectly well that there were obvious practical objections to that course. First of all, this redistribution on the basis of the existing numbers—or a possible very small increase—was agreed between both sections of opinion in Ireland. I asked the noble Lord what would happen to a measure which proposed at this stage largely to reduce the representation in Ireland when (as the noble Viscount said) some of the most prominent members of the Irish Party were not present in Parliament but were over at the Convention.

Moreover, I do not like to consider at all the alternative of any failure of the Convention; but if no changes were to result from the Convention there is the Home Rule Act already on the Statute Book, which, as the noble Viscount knows, has been suspended only from six months to six months since the beginning of the war. What an absurd position it would be, therefore, if you were trying to legislate permanently for a number of seats in Ireland while at the same time you have on the Statute Book a provision saying what, in certain events, would be the number for the representation in Ireland. It is obvious that this Bill (and, I suppose, the Bill which is shortly coming up to your Lordships' House) must be temporary measures. Does the noble Lord want to put into the melting pot, as it were, the whole of these difficult and controversial questions about Ireland for the sake of measures which must be purely temporary? I hardly think that your Lordships will give time for a matter to be discussed which must have a very limited application only.

The noble Viscount addressed a question to me, and he stated that he, and those who acted with him, did not propose, if this Amendment were pressed to a Division, to take any part in that Division. I think the noble Viscount's question was, Would the Government give a pledge that, if the Convention fails and a General Election were likely to take place, they would reduce the representation of Ireland? I find some difficulty in understanding exactly what that pledge would mean; because, as I have said before, supposing (and I do not like to make the supposition) nothing were to result from the Convention at present sitting, you have the Home Rule Act already on the Statute Book, suspended only from six months to six months; and under that Act the representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament is reduced to the number of forty-two. Therefore, to some extent, that question may be said to be answered. I do not know what other proposition the noble Viscount was contemplating when he made that statement.

Moreover, is it wise to ask the Government; at this stage, when the Convention is sitting, what they are going to do if the Convention fails? We have heard a great deal, if I may say so, about "atmosphere" in Ireland. Surely it would not contribute to a satisfactory "atmosphere," either in this country or in Ireland, that the Government should begin to speculate publicly what they are going to do if the Convention is not successful? Besides, "successful" is a somewhat vague term. I suppose there may be some results of the Convention which some noble Lords would consider successful, but which others would consider unsuccessful. I am put, therefore, so far as that is concerned, in the greatest difficulty to know precisely what the noble Viscount means. Anything that comes from the noble Viscount about Ireland is, of course, spoken with great weight and experience and knowledge, and I should take note of it and give it the best consideration possible.

But I will ask the House really to follow the advice which the noble Viscount himself has given to your Lordships—namely, that, if your Lordships wish to discuss this question, you should discuss it when the discussion can be more vital; that is to say, when the Bill which deals with redistribution in Ireland comes up to this House, and not discuss it upon this present Bill which deals only with franchise and registration as applied to Ireland. I trust, therefore, that in these circumstances my noble and gallant friend will not press his Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is clear that, with all the courtesy which the noble Viscount, as usual, put into his speech, he is not going to give my noble friend Lord Midleton any pledge. He cannot do so; and I did not imagine for a moment that he could. I hope that your Lordships will realise how greatly those of us who are interested in this question have been anxious to consider the very delicate and difficult situation which prevails in Ireland at this moment. Nobody could have listened to my noble friend Lord Midleton, or to my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Oranmore and Browne), without feeling great sympathy with them in the plea which they put forward. We understand how nobly and patriotically they, and others, have been working in Ireland during the last few months. Whatever view any individual amongst us has as to what he hopes may result from the Convention, at any rate we bear witness to their patriotic endeavours to find a solution.

My noble and gallant friend Lord Beresford, acting in that spirit, has put off this discussion until the very last moment. The natural time to have raised it would have been on the Committee stage; but it was represented to my noble and gallant friend, and to others, that it would be a great mistake, if it could possibly be avoided, to raise the question while the Convention was sitting. But this is the last moment. No other moment is open to us. We have done the best we can; and we must, now that we are driven to the last moment, consider this question not merely as an Irish question. It is not an Irish question only, it is an Imperial question. It is not a question as to the susceptibilities of Ireland—which we are very ready to study. There are the susceptibilities of Scotland and of England to be considered as well. The question is, What is to be the position of the Parliament which governs the Empire? And upon that point, when we come to the last moment, we have to take our stand.

My noble friend Lord Midleton indicated that perhaps the better way of dealing with this question would be to wait for the Irish Redistribution Bill which will reach us in a few days from the other House. I think that my noble friend has not thoroughly thought out in what a hopeless position we shall be placed if we leave the reduction of the franchise in Ireland, enacted in this Bill, until we come to deal with the Redistribution Bill. We know what that Redistribution Bill is going to be. It is not supposed to be regular to refer to a Bill which is not before the House; but the noble Viscount (Lord Peel) very truly said that it was a very difficult thing to avoid. It is, of course; because Ireland has been treated in a totally different way in this Bill from England and Scotland. England and Scotland have been treated in a reasonable, logical, rational manner—namely, that there can be no franchise without redistribution; and the two subjects are in the same Bill. We are dealing with the whole subject together. Your Lordships can go through, and are going through the Bill, and amending it as you please, it being open to you to accept or reject it as a whole.

But the case of Ireland is different. If we allow the franchise to be lowered in Ireland, and then part with this Bill, what position shall we be in when we come to deal with redistribution? We can accept the Redistribution Bill, no doubt, but supposing we amend the Redistribution Bill. Supposing we say that instead of having two extra Members, which is what is going to be proposed in the Irish Redistribution Bill, there are to be thirty less, which I believe will be fair. [A Noble Lord: Forty.] I believe I have understated it, and it should be forty less. If the House of Commons did not agree to that, the Redistribution Bill would drop. The franchise would still be lowered, so that Parliament would be left in this absurd position, that the franchise in Ireland would be lowered and there would be no Redistribution Bill at all. That is an impossible position. It does not leave you in the position of being free agents in the matter. Once you part with the franchise you are not really free agents to deal with redistribution. If a moment is to be taken at all, now is the only moment in which you can deal with this subject.

The noble Viscount opposite said that, after all, this was a very temporary matter; that either you are going to have Home Rule according to the Convention or Home Rule according to the Home Rule Act on the Statute Book. I do not wish to misrepresent him, and I am sure he will admit that that was the effect of his argument—namely, that those were the only alternatives, and that under both these different forms of Home Rule there is to be a large reduction of Irish representation in the Imperial Parliament, and therefore the whole question was merely an academic one. Does my noble friend really believe that that is the alternative? Does he not know quite well that if the Convention is going to fail—and I am not saying that for a moment—by everybody's consent the existing Act of Home Rule is an impossibility. There is not a Nationalist in Ireland who does not admit that the Home Rule Act, for which your Lordships suffered so much in past days at the hands of the Liberal Party, is a dead letter and not worth the paper on which it is printed. Therefore the alternative is not between Home Rule as the Convention may produce it and the Home Rule Act as upon the Statute Book, but it is, of course, the old dilemma of Home Rule or the Union.

Let us take the alternative. Supposing it is Home Rule? Supposing the patriotic endeavours of Lord Midleton and Lord Oranmore and others are successful, and that they produce an agreement which is acceptable in Ireland? Why then should we bother to pass an Irish Franchise Act and Redistribution Act? It would be perfectly useless under Home Rule. It would be a futility. But supposing it is the other alternative, and that we are to go on under the Union? Then what we are asked to resolve is that—I was going to say "for ever," but that in Parliament is an absurd phrase—for at least a generation we are to continue the over-representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament. What justification have we for doing that? Why should we go on with the overrepresentation of Ireland? What argument is there in its favour?

I had expected that our old friend the Act of Union would be trotted out, and go round the course, but I noticed that my noble friend (Viscount Peel) had nothing to say of the Act of Union in respect of this question. If he had addressed an argument to your Lordships I think I should have convinced him and the House in a moment that there is no obligation upon this country in consequence of the Act of Union. The Act of Union has been broken again and again since it was passed, but the most notable occasion on which the spirit of the Act of Union was broken, and the whole argument which can be deduced from it was destroyed, was in the year 1893, because the argument, as your Lordships know, from the Act of Union, was this— that it was a treaty which cannot be varied except by the consent of both parties, namely, Great Britain and Ireland. What happened in 1893? But for your Lordships' House the Home Rule Act of that year would have been carried in the teeth of a majority of English and Scottish opinion. It was carried by the Irish vote, and by the Irish vote alone, in the House of Commons. Therefore, but for your Lordships' House the Act of Union would have been not only amended but destroyed by the act alone of one Party to the treaty—namely, by the Irish Members alone. The whole argument from that moment disappeared. I could say more upon that head, but I will not trouble your Lordships, because the argument has not really been advanced.

What reason, apart from the Act of Union, is there why we should allow Ireland forty too many representatives? I want to address myself to this topic with moderation, but is there anything in the conduct of Ireland in the last few years which would convince any man that she was specially entitled to over-representation in the Imperial Parliament? Is it credible that in the present condition of things in Ireland we should tie round the neck of this country, for a generation, the overrepresentation of Ireland by 40 per cent.? I do not want to speak too strongly, but a very large part of the Irish people are not friends of this country and are not the friend of the Empire. It is notorious. Why should we always pretend in this country? Why cannot we ever speak out and speak the truth? We know it is so. Why should these gentlemen who sympathise with the Germans rather than with Englishmen be given 40 per cent. more representation than they are entitled to in the Imperial Parliament, which is responsible for the government of this Empire? Of course, if it were merely a temporary matter, and a matter for a year or two, perhaps it would not be worth argument. As I have shown, unless we have Home Rule we must continue the settlement which is now come to for at least a generation. In those circumstances I ask why should the Irish representation be 40 per cent. more than she is entitled to?

The action of your Lordships, if my noble friend induces you to throw this out, will be not to do any injustice to Ireland but to sustain the principal question. I quite agree with my noble friend opposite that we cannot have as a permanency an arrangement under which the franchise in Ireland should be higher than in this country. If the franchise is lower, the Redistribution Bill must follow and it means a settlement for a whole generation. If, on the other hand, Ireland is cut out of the Bill and the question disappears for the moment, it will only be a postponement and I hope a short postponement. In all these circumstances I cannot doubt that your Lordships would be well advised to follow the suggestion of my noble friend, and if he goes to a Division he will receive my humble support in the Lobby.

THE EARL OF MEATH

My Lords, as an Irishman and as one who is not connected with the Convention, I do not feel that I am necessarily bound by what the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, said to your Lordships. Have the Nationalists expressed any wish that Ireland should be included in this Bill? Have the Unionists expressed any wish that Ireland should be included? Have the Sinn Feiners shown any desire that it should be so? You know, my Lords, none of them have said so as a body. Who has said it? I am not aware that any one has said it. Are we quite certain, even supposing the Convention does come to an agreement, that Ireland will endorse that agreement? I am not at all sure of it. I hope the Convention may come to an agreement and that Ireland may endorse it, but I think there is absolute ignorance at this moment in regard to what the masses of Irish people really do desire. What harm should we do by leaving Ireland out from this Bill? It does not mean in the smallest degree that we wish to limit the number of its representatives. It does not mean that we desire either to increase or to diminish its representation. It does not mean that we want to do this or that in regard to the distribution of seats. It only means, so far as I understand it, that we believe that at this juncture it is far better to leave Ireland alone and having nothing whatever to say about it in this particular Bill. If the Home Rule Act comes into force, the representation of Ireland, as has already been stated would be reduced to forty-two. Therefore it cannot be said, if this House leaves Ireland out of the Bill, that it means that the representation of Ireland is going to be diminished by it. Forty-two is the number which has been settled by Parliament when the Home Rule Act comes into operation. The noble and gallant Lord who has moved this Amendment is a typical Irishman, if he will allow me to say so, and I believe he would never for one moment have suggested any Amendment which he thought was not for the good of his country and of his country-people, and for one, hope that he will press this Amendment. I hope that will be done in the most friendly spirit to all parties in Ireland, in order that there shall not be any friction whatever, and that we shall not find ourselves later on in those great difficulties which have already been pointed out most forcibly to the house by Lord Salisbury and others.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, my noble and gallant friend behind me moved his Amendment in a speech of great moderation, indicating all through, as the noble Earl who has just sat down said, his affection for the country of which he is one of the ornaments. I am not quite so sure that all the speeches that have been made have indicated the same devotion to Ireland and the cause and interests of Ireland as that which fell from my noble friend. There is no doubt—I think it cannot be disputed—that originally, as has been stated by the noble Earl, there was considerable colour for the suggestion not to include Ireland in this Bill. It would have been quite possible to carry the measure through Parliament with no mention of Ireland in it, on the ground that the Irish question, as we all know, is under consideration elsewhere by a body for the success of whose deliberations we all most cordially hope. That course, however, was not taken, and there is no object now in discussing why it was not taken. But, since it was not taken, it is one thing not to have included Ireland in the Bill, and quite another for your Lordships to strike Ireland out of. the Bill. I cannot help feeling somewhat surprised that the two appeals which have been addressed to the House by the noble Viscount on this Bench and by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches have not received at any rate some response from those who came to the House desiring to support the Amendment of my noble and gallant friend.

What I think we really have to consider is, what would be the effect on public opinion in Ireland of the acceptance by your Lordships' House of my noble and gallant friend's Amendment? In my judgment it can only be thoroughly bad in the reception which it would gain from people of all parties. It would, I think, be wholly misunderstood. Your Lordships' House, rightly or wrongly, is supposed not to be over-friendly to the cause of the majority in Ireland. As we all know, the various Land Bills and the various Government Bills have all been warmly opposed with complete conviction by this House. The consequence is that your. Lordships' House has the name among the majority of Irishmen of being thoroughly hostile to Irish Nationalism in all its forms, whether moderate or extreme, and not too friendly to Ireland generally. I am certain that any such action on the part of your Lordships' House would he thoroughly misunderstood and might be even calamitous. I sincerely trust, therefore, whatever logic may point to or whatever your Lordships may consider would be the most reasonable course, that your Lordships Will refrain in this case from taking the action which my noble and gallant friend desires that you should take.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The next Amendment is merely drafting.

Amendment moved—

Page 39, line 16, after ("division") insert ("appointment").—(Viscount Peel.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

The next is also a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 40, line 15, at end insert as a separate subsection: (14) The following proviso shall be substituted for the proviso at the end of subsection (2) of section eight: 'Nothing in this provision shall prevent a person voting at an election to fill a casual vacancy in a borough council in any ward for which he is registered.'"—(Viscount Peel.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am sure I shall not be wrong if I say that the Amendment which I am about to move after Clause 14 is one of really far-reaching importance. It is intended to help in a matter which was raised in Committee, and on a point which was made by the noble Earl who leads the House, that the action then taken by the House would lead to great difficulty and delay. That is the real point and object of this Amendment. In passing I may say that the difficulty in which this House is placed cannot, I think, be fairly laid to the charge of those who are in favour of the principle of proportional representation. We did our best to prepare for, and our very best to avoid, the difficulty in which this House, and perhaps Parliament as a whole, finds itself to-day. So long ago as June 19 last year the noble Lord, Lord Stuart of Wortley, asked whether the House might not be-allowed to consider the Instructions which were issued on the authority of the Government to the Boundary Commissioners. On July 4 a Motion was made to that effect, and on July 17, to which date it was adjourned, an important discussion took place. On that occasion we were assured, on the authority of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that his refusal to agree to the Motion then made was not intended to mean for a moment that your Lordships' House would not have a perfectly free hand to introduce proportional representation into the Bill in whatever form you pleased, either in its complete shape or in an abreviated form.

As usual, this House is found faced with the difficulty attending the question of time. The fact of the matter is we are never allowed to have a Bill of any real importance in time to do very much with it. When we want to make Amendments the answer which is given to us is that there is no time. I agree that if the Amendment we introduced the other day in Committee did bring with it a real risk and danger of delay it would be a very powerful argument against it. But that is not the case, and the truth of it is easily illustrated by what happened last week. The noble Earl who leads the House summed up the arguments for and against proportional representation in a speech of great ability. But look at the case which he made out for his own action. He said himself, quite frankly, that he would like to see the experiment tried; that he had great sympathy with many of the arguments used on its behalf, and he added that it would admit to tile House of Commons desirable Members. No doubt he stated the arguments against the Amendment at the same time, but he added this pregnant sentence, that if the proposal then before the House had been confined to the limits of that of the Speaker's Conference he would have voted for it. There is therefore no question of principle dividing his opinions and ours on this matter. It is the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, voted for the proposal then before the House; and I understand that Mr. Arthur Balfour—no mean authority—voted in favour of it when the question was before the other House of Parliament. We have not to meet, on this occasion, any question of merits. There only remains the argument of delay, and I submit that this Amendment which I am moving now affords an efficient answer to that contention.

Part of the difficulty in which we find ourselves—I do not want, to attribute any fault to the Government in regard to it—arises from the fact that on this matter the Government, as a Government, though wholly responsible for the Bill, have not got actually a mind of their own. They found the Bill on the Report of the Speaker's Conference; yet they do not carry out the Report of the Speaker's Conference in all its essential details. I am not arguing upon the merits of proportional representation. I regard that as settled for this House by the decision in Committee. But I do say this, that the arguments which were brought forward on its behalf, and which have convinced prominent Peers like those I have mentioned, are in themselves forcible and earnest, and they proceed from strong conviction on the part of those who have used them. I venture to say, under these circumstances, that the opponents of this principle and this system must produce something better against it than the argument of delay.

But I agree that the chief question for us to-night is how we can minimise, to the best of our ability, the disadvantages of the position in which we find ourselves placed by the facts and circumstances of which I have given a brief narrative. I contend that the scheme put before the House in this Amendment will avoid delay. In the first place, if it is adopted, and if the registration authorities will get to work just as if the Bill had remained as it was when it came from the other House, there would be no difference in the right of any individual to vote, no difference between men or women, between age or qualification, or anything of that sort. They will all have the franchise just as if the Amendment had not been passed. As to the Schedules that we propose in order to give effect to the principle of proportional representation, I may say, in advance, that we are not obstinate in adherence to the particular scheme outlined, and the Amendment provides ample machinery for the modification of the Schedules in any way that may be found most convenient to local interests, or, I will go so far as to say, to the opinions of the other House of Parliament. The Instructions which we propose to insert to the Boundary Commissioners will have the authority of Parliament when they are passed. If Parliament approves of the Instructions which I suggest in this Amendment, the Boundary Commission will act on them and then Parliament will finally have to review.

Very briefly, let me go through those Instructions. The first refers to the question of areas and groupings. The second refers to the population for each additional Member, and to that a proviso is attached that where it is desirable to form single-Member constituencies, such a constituency may have a population of 50,000. The third of the Instructions refers to the boundaries, laying down the principle, with which I think everybody will agree, that so far as possible the Parliamentary and administrative areas should coincide. The fourth is purely machinery, and I think will have general approval; and the same may be said of the fifth and sixth Instructions.

I think it right to call the attention of the House to the fact that since the notice was first given, two important alterations have been made. One of these is attached to Instruction 8, and that, I think, will have general approval. The words in the proviso are that the Commissioners may depart from the strict application of these Instructions in any case where it would result in the formation of constituencies inconvenient in size or character, or when the narrowness or margin between the figure representing the estimated population of any area and the figure required for any of the purposes of these Instructions seem to them to justify such a departure. Now, my Lords, in addition to that subsection (4)—not Instruction (4), but subsection (4)—of the Clause has been considerably modified. In its original form it gave either House of Parliament power to present an Address adverse to the report of the Boundary Commission. It will be seen in this form that it is limited to the House of Commons, and I think, having regard to all the circumstances in which we are placed, this will probably be regarded as an advantage awl it help.

But I call the attention of the House to this, that the essential point is that registration can and will proceed just as if this change in the Bill had not been made. No man or woman will be denied the vote. The only question will be in what company and in what area they shall exercise that vote. I hold strongly the disadvantage and injustice of single-Member constituencies as we know them, with all the Party organisation brought to a high pitch of perfection, during the last thirty or forty years. Lord Curzon the other day said the arrangement of 1885 had generally justified itself. I altogether deny that that is so. I am not going at length over old arguments and old figures, but I want your Lordships who are not as familiar with Scotland as I am to see from these figures which I will give you whether those of us who belong to the Unionist Party in Scotland have had anything like justice for the last thirty years. There were two Elections in 1910. In the first of them there were 659,000 votes polled, of which 394,000 belonged to the Liberal Party and 265,000 to the Unionist Party. In other words, there were only 129,000 more Liberal votes than Unionist votes, but the Liberals got sixty-one Members against eleven Unionist Members. One-fifth of 659,000 is 131,000 votes, and as the Liberals polled three-fifths and the Unionists two-fifths, the division of Members ought to have been forty-four and twenty-eight instead of sixty-one and eleven. In the second of those Elections in 1910 the Unionist Party improved its position so far as the number of votes is concerned and there was a less gross number between the two Parties, but the representation was not changed. I say that this is a conspicuous instance of the injustice and unfairness and impropriety of single-Member constituencies.

My Lords, in my humble judgment the one-Member constituency system and the Party organisation have done, are doing much, and will do more if they are continued, to ruin the really representative character of the House of Commons. I say that, as they have acted in the past, they give a most unfair result, and they unduly and improperly increase the power of the accidental majority for the time. In my humble opinion, proportional representation is the main hope for the due influence of minorities in the future, and, if I may venture to say so, I think the mistake that some of the opponents of some of these Amendments make is to draw their arguments too much from the past. We are adding to the electorate some millions of men and 6,000,00 of women. Many think that a new era is opening and that we shall not return to the two-Party system. I think very probably we shall not; but in any case, whether we do so or not, this system of giving what is really one value to one vote guarantees the representation of all important sections of the community, whether they be a majority or a minority. Given this system if properly applied, every one can give an effective vote. In other words, as I have said a moment ago, it really carries with it "out vote one value."

It array be said that the scheme which will be moved by another noble Lord in one of the Schedules is too wide an application of the principle, but I know well that if it had been put in a more modified form there would have been arguments against others that were left out and it would have been said to be unfair. My Lords, our proposal is, as you have accepted the principle, remit to skilled people how best to apply it, and then let the House of Commons finally decide the result. I believe if you do this you will get a better result than you could get in any other way. I agree that no elected chamber can be always wholly and absolutely representative upon every point, but I am certain of this, that in this way you will get a better result because it will enable the exact value of each vote to be recorded.

As I said a moment ago, there are those who think we are on the verge of great changes and that when the war is over its effects will not pass; away. I do not know whether your Lordships noticed or read the most eloquent speech made by General Hunter-Weston, fresh from the trenches, in the other House. One passage in that speech struck me and made a great impression upon my mind. General Hunter-Weston said— The great majority out there have given up all voluntarily at the call of duty and have been fighting with thy greatest devotion, gallantry and self-sacrifice. It is those qualities, that self-sacrifice, devotion and resolution which, applied hereafter, will have the effect, as I believe, in making these Islands better and brighter places than ever they have been before. We all echo that hope. I am one of those who hope, and may even say I believe, that the troubles and trials and sacrifices which we have passed through during these last few years will teach us all to look on the things of others much more than we have done in the past on the things of our own. I believe and hope that we are leading up to a position of matters when classes will understand each other better, when there will be less chance of difficulty and disagreement between employer and workman, between one class and another. But if you are going to attain that object each class must feel that they have justice.

Even if it is common ground that there may be difficult and troublous questions for us to settle—questions that will require careful treatment and sympathetic handling—then I say let us take care that every class and every shade of opinion may be made to feel that it is duly and fairly represented. Parliament is often described as the Great Council of the Nation. Let us, therefore, have the advantage of all the intellect and all the thought that we can get from every different interest. If we do not get that then we have no right to call our Parliament truly representative, and the more people feel that they are not having due representation and having their opinions put forward by those whom they can trust the more friction and difficulty will be produced. Let us have every class, every interest, every opinion represented in its due strength, and not magnified one at the expense of the other.

Amendment moved— After Clause 44, insert as a new clause:

"Temporary provision as to revision of constituencies and registration.

"(1) As soon as practicable after the passing of this Act the Local Government Board shall appoint Boundary Commissioners to revise the distribution of constituencies set out in the Schedule to this Act so far as respects England and Wales, and the Secretary for Scotland shall appoint Boundary Commissioners to revise the distribution of constituencies set out in that Schedule so far as respects Scotland.

"(2) The Commissioners shall have regard to the following instructions:

  1. "1. The areas already delimited by the boundary commissioners shall be grouped so as to form constituencies in accordance with these instructions.
    2. 40
  2. "2. A member shall be given for a population of 70,000 and an additional member for any remainder which is not less than 50,000. Provided that where it is considered desirable to form single member constituencies in accordance with instruction number 8, such a constituency may be formed in an area with a population of 50,000.
  3. "3. The boundaries of parliamentary constituencies shall, as far as is practicable, coincide with the boundaries of administrative areas.
  4. "4. Cities and towns or counties which would be entitled on a basis of population to return three or inure members shall be single constituencies: Provided that a constituency entitled to return inure than five members shall be divided into two or more constituencies each returning not less than three or more than five members.
  5. "5. Where there are contiguous towns or counties which, if formed into a single constituency, would be entitled to return not less than three nor more than five members, such towns or counties may be united into a single constituency.
  6. "6. In exceptional circumstances, if there is an expression of local feeling to that effect or if, in the opinion of the boundary commissioners, it is considered desirable, towns or counties returning six members may remain undivided.
  7. "7. Towns returning less than three members may be grouped with the adjoining county divisions.
  8. "8. The instructions should be interpreted in the sense that proportional representation should apply to as large an area as possible, provided that the Commissioners may depart from the strict application of these instructions in any case where it would result in the formation of constituencies inconvenient in size or character, or when the narrowness or margin between the figure representing the estimated population of any area and the figure required for any of the purposes of these instructions seem to them to justify such a departure.
Provided also that it be an instruction to the boundary commissioners to have regard to electorate rather than population where it appears that the proportion of electorate to population is abnormal.

"(3) The Commissioners shall present their report to Parliament as soon as practicable, showing the areas which are to be constituencies and the number of members to be returned for each constituency.

"(4) The report of the Commissioners so presented to Parliament shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.

"Provided that if within the next twenty-one clays on which the Commons House of Parliament has sat after the report is so presented that House presents an address to His Majesty praying that any modifications should be made in the report, the report shall have effect as if enacted in this Act with those modifications.

"(5) The registration of electors under this Act shall be proceeded with on the passing thereof as if the constituencies were those contained in the Fifth Schedule to the Bill for this Act as passed by the House of Commons, and His Majesty may, by order in Council, make such provisions as appear necessary or expedient to adapt the provisions of this Act as to registration to the rearrangement of constituencies effected under this section, and to make any registration work done before the re-arrangement takes effect available under any new conditions resulting from the re-arrangement."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Lords, may I say just one word upon this? As your Lordships are quite well aware, the Government on this question of proportional representation have taken a neutral attitude, or, as the noble Lord has expressed it, "they have no mind on the subject." Therefore, with reward to the Amendment which my noble friend has introduced to your Lordships with so much force, I have to say that it will not lie opposed by the Government. But I must state quite clearly and definitely that they can take no responsibility for it whatever. The noble Lord has stated the effect of his Amendment and it is this. This Bill is to become law this Session, but the question of the determination of the constituencies is left over to a subsequent session. Your Lordships will have to consider whether the House of Commons, which after all is a human institution, will be very prone to pass these immense changes that are made in the Act, and yet refrain front satisfying themselves before that happens as to what are the particular constituencies and what is the system under which they will represent their constituencies in a subsequent session. The Government does nor oppose the Amendment.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

My Lords, I do not know whether this would be a convenient opportunity for me to express a hope that a small Amendment may be made in this Amendment. I see in paragraph 6 of the instructions (in that part of the Amendment which proposes the instructions to Boundary Commissioners) that a limit is placed upon their discretion by saying that they cannot apply a certain process to any constituency which returns more than six Members. Perhaps your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I am concerned about the status of the great constituency which introduced me to public life, and which, under the scheme of the Redistribution Commissioners, would return seven Members to Parliament. I make no secret of the fact that that great constituency, so far as I can make out, has up to the present time received with a good I deal of disfavour the proposals for establishing proportional representation. The scheme as originally introduced into the House of Commons would have divided the constituency into two blocks, one returning four Members and the other returning three Members. I have no hesitation in advising your Lordships that if anything would reconcile that community to what it conceives to be the disadvantages of proportional representation it would be to enable it to be polled as a constituency returning seven Members as a whole. I may be allowed to remind your Lordships that I am, perhaps, the only man alive in either House of Parliament who has sat for an undivided borough, and afterwards for a part of the same constituency, under the Act of 1885. Therefore it is part of my actual political recollection to recall the effect produced upon local sentiment, local politics and otherwise, by the introduction of the single-Member system. I can say without hesitation that I do not think that it was a change for the better. I refer to a desire, possibly, to return to what I may call the great days, when political arguments were addressed to the population of a city as a whole, and, when meetings were on a great scale, and, I am bound to say arguments were conceived upon a more spacious groundwork, and the appeal was made in a larger way. I suppose that it is impossible to say that there should be no limit to numbers in this paragraph, and, if it is open to me, I should like to move at this stage an Amendment to the Amendment which should have the effect of saying at all events in place of six that there should be seven Members.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, I listened with great interest to what fell from the noble Lord behind me, for more reasons than one, but I confess that I should be grateful if one of those who are specially responsible for the introduction of the system of proportional representation into this House would enlighten us upon a point in reference to which I made some observations at an earlier stage. It was to this effect. I had always understood that the great merit of the system of proportional representation—that is to say, of returning certain persons who, though eminent, did not possess the particular qualities which fitted them to light single-Member seats in constituencies returning two or three Members—was that such men would, under the system, obtain a chance of such support in a large constituency as would cause them to be returned, and I had always understood that constituencies of from five to seven Members, or even more, formed the ideal which those who favoured proportional representation had in their minds.

In the present proposal there is a very singular departure from what I had always supposed to be the principle. I received this morning a letter from the most veteran of all opponents of proportional representation, Lord Eversley, who has been active, as your Lordships know, in writing to the Press, and I venture to quote a few words from his letter which have a bearing on the question raised by my noble friend. Lord Eversley says— The scheme is an extremely bad one even from the point of view of those favourable to the principle, for it must be admitted that the system can only be applied with advantage to five-Member constituencies. Of these there will be only twenty-five in England, while there will be forty-two four-Member districts and fifty three-Member districts. I cannot but think that some discussion should take place in the House of Lords to-morrow specially on the subject of four-Member constituencies. It is inconceivable to me that Parliament could adopt such constituencies with the single transferable vote if it had time to consider the details of the scheme. In such constituencies the result of a contest between two main Parties must, save in the rarest- cases, be an equality of representation and the constituencies would give no verdict. The minority would be elevated to a position of equality with the majority. I suppose with the accompanying effect of leaving the choice of the Member, and placing the disposition of the votes, very largely, and even to a greater extent than at present, in the hands of the Party agent. Those are the arguments which, as your Lordships know, have been used against the application of proportional representation to small constituencies. I confess that I should be very grateful if one of the noble Lords who has been specially responsible for the introduction of the system of proportional representation would give us some explanation as to why the system of larger constituencies has been abandoned altogether, and why five is to be the upper limit.

LORD PARMOOR

Perhaps I might say one or two words in answer to the speech of the noble Marquess. The House has already adopted the principle in the frame- work of the Bill itself that the constituencies should be not less than three and not more than five Members. I do not propose to re-open that discussion. It is a very old discussion, and Lord Eversley has expressed his opposition to the scheme of proportional representation throughout. But that matter has been discussed and is in the Bill at the present time. So far as concerns the Amendment proposed by Lord Stuart of Wortley I think that "seven" might well be introduced in place of "six" in order to meet the matter to which he has referred, namely, the case of Sheffield, because the provision in the Instruction is not that there should be any departure from the general principle of constituencies with not less than three nor more than five Members, but in any exceptional circumstances—and I believe that Sheffield and Leeds are the only two cases which come within these exceptional circumstances—there should be liberty allowed to the Redistribution Commissioners in considering how the principle can be best applied.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I should like to supplement that in answer to the noble Marquess, because I think that although the question cannot be re-opened it is a perfectly fair question, which requires a fair answer. In the first place, the numbers three to five were recommended by the Speaker's Conference, and all of us have in some degree or another adopted the Report of that Conference as a guide to our actions, whether in connection with proportional representation or some other principle embodied in, or which might be embodied in, this Bill. Therefore, I think there is good reason for taking the numbers three to five. Now, I quite admit that on ideal principles it would be much better to have the larger constituencies, but if you were to lay down a hard and fast rule that there was to be no constituency under five, we will say none of four or three, the result would be that you would cut out of independent Parliamentary existence any number of time-honoured counties and boroughs, which otherwise would have their continuous and independent existence. I think that is quite a good enough reason. Nobody denies that proportional representation does work and produce its effect in three-Member constituencies. All that is said, and said truly, is that the principle has fuller and more perfect play in a five-Member or seven-Member constituency.

Now I turn to Lord Everley's criticism of the four-Member constituency, and Lord Harcourt made the same criticism. That would have been a rather hard criticism to meet at any other parliamentary moment than the present. But there is not the slightest difficulty in that criticism now. As between two Parties there is not the opportunity for the play of the proportional principle in a four-Member constituency, but we have definitely passed the era of two Parties. We know on authority that the Labour Party are going to put forward candidates in from 300 to 500 seats. Therefore over the whole area of the United Kingdom you may say it is not a contest between two Parties in the future but between three Parties. Therefore the four-Member constituency works just as well as the three-Member constituency and I would say to my noble friend behind me that I am not going to oppose his Amendment.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

I now move, in the last line of paragraph 6, to substitute for the word "six" the word "seven."

Amendment moved to the proposed new clause— Subsection (2), paragraph (6), leave out ("six") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The line of least resistance I suppose is to accept the Amendment, and by that means to give the Boundary Commissioners in the future a still wider discretion than they have now. I am quite prepared to agree to the substitution of the word "seven" for "six."

First Schedule:

LORD BURNHAM

I have on the Paper an Amendment which is, I understand, a necessary Amendment on practical grounds, and I think the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill does not object.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 33, leave out from ("for") to ("area" ) in line 35, and insert ("each polling district in the registration ").—(Lord Burnham.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not think I gave my assent to my noble friend. In fact I was going to put before him this consideration, that, as he knows, there is an Absent Voters' List for each constituency, and I understand that his difficulty is that it may not necessarily follow that the presiding officer in each polling place has the list of absent voters applied to that polling station. (LORD BURNHAM: Yes.] His suggestion is that that should be laid down in the Bill. The difficulty is t hat these absent voters are upon the ordinary Register, and, supposing that they come back they might come to the polling district and claim to vote. How then is the presiding officer to know that they are absent voters and entitled as such to vote? There are two ways of doing this, and possibly more, and I was going to suggest to my noble friend to leave the alternatives to the wisdom and decision of the returning officer. He can either, as 111V noble friend suggests, have a separate list of absent voters for each polling district, or he could simply have a special mark on the lists for the polling district. I am inclined to think that that possibly might be an easier way of doing it. Of course, it is quite possible that when the list of absent voters for the constituency is drawn up there might be a list showing each separate polling district, and I suppose that, what my noble friend wishes would probably be met. But I would suggest to him that he should leave the decision in this case to the convenience of the returning officer, and not insist upon putting in one method of doing it.

LORD BURNHAM

By the permission of the House I would say that those who have technical experience think that the returning officers would prefer to have a uniform Rule—this is in no sense a Party matter—rather than that matters should be left to their discretion. Otherwise there will be no great confusion in regard to the list of absent voters to which my noble friend has alluded. I hope, therefore, that he will tot object to putting this in. It is not a matter upon which anybody would stand out if further objections

VISCOUNT PEEL

I have stated to my are raised.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I have stated to my noble friend my only objection—namely, that it might be better to leave it open.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Does the noble Lord desire to move?

LORD BURNHAM

Yes.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

The two Amendments standing in my name are consequential.

Amendments moved— Page 43, line 1, leave out ("parliamentary" and insert ("municipal") Page 43, lines and 6 and 7, leave out ("situated in a parliamentary county") and insert ("not situated in a municipal borough").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD BURNHAM

The next Amendment standing in my name is one of machinery also, and it is inserted in the interests of easy registration. The notice of objection will come, of course, under subsection (13). It has been pointed out to me—and I think it will be obvious to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill—that it is very desirable that those persons whose names appear on the list, and to whom objection is taken, should have ample notice so far as it can be done without interfering with the making up of the Register. I am informed that this subsection, as I move it, does not give more than adequate notice. The whole object of the Bill is to enable those who are entitled to the vote to come on the Register with as little delay, and as easily, as possible. The converse is also true, that they should not be objected to or struck out without just cause. If they must have notice, I think it would be very much better that they should have it in this form. I therefore beg to move the new Rule as it stands on the Paper.

Amendment moved—

Page 45, line 11, at end insert as new rule: (14.)—It shall be the duty of the registration officer to publish a list of the names of persons to whose registration notice of objection has been given not later than the twenty-first day of February in the ease of the spring register and not later than the twenty-first day of August in the case of the autumn register."—(Lord Burnham.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My noble friend seems to think that I have an enthusiasm for Amendments which he puts down on the Paper; but I think he will agree that this is not one of very supreme importance. I understand that the Amendment does this. The notices of objections to persons on the lists must be published by a certain date—before February 15; and the notice of objections to claimants must be given before a later date—March 7. The officer has to publish these on one list afterwards; but I think my noble friend wants two lists. He desires that as soon as one list is complete it should be published, and then the second list should be published subsequently I suppose I am not far wrong in saying that this is moved in the interests of election agents.

LORD BURNHAM

To facilitate the work of registration by them.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It is a very small matter indeed, and it is really one for the House to decide.

LORD BURNHAM

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Line 13, after ("persons") insert ("included in the list of claimants").—(Lord Burnham.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not intend to trouble your Lordships with another speech on my Amendment. It is not in exactly the same form as it appeared in Committee, but I intend to move it in the same form as in Committee, because, on reconsideration, I do not think that it would he easy to work with the Board of Trade inserted. I shall therefore ask leave to leave out the words "and the Board of Trade" in the two places where those words occur. The Amendment will then be in exactly the same form as when your Lordships considered the Bill in Committee.

I would briefly remind the House that upon the previous occasion I had the great honour of receiving support front many different quarters of the House. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne supported me, as did also the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. I hope the noble Viscount (Lord Peel) will forgive me for saying that he gave no answer in reply, although he was very courteous, on the merits of the question. But he did what was extremely kind of him; he asked me to call at the Local Government Board to have an interview with the representative of that Department. I believe the noble Viscount thought that I should be entirely satisfied by that interview. I am willing to admit that the vigour which the Local Government Board is showing is a very salutary vigour; but the Local Government Board is not the only Department of the Government. I will not say that this particular Amendment was not pointed at the Local Government Board, because that is rather an invidious way of putting it; but it contemplated throwing an obligation on the Admiralty, the Army Council, the Air Force, and the Local Government Board, although the Local Government Board is properly included in the Amendment.

I do not feel, I am afraid, any real confidence that these Departments are certain carry out the intention of Parliament, unless an obligation is laid upon them. This Amendment lays an obligation upon them. As I said in Committee, it is not an attempt to make a complete Rule. That would not be possible in the circumstances. It does, however, clear away a large number of the ambiguities in the Government's proposal, and there is no ambiguity left as between one military authority and another. The obligation is thrown upon the supreme authority, and so there can be no mistake, and the proper lines are indicated by which these great military authorities should be brought into touch with the registration officers.

The proper lines are also indicated by which the electors are to be identified, so that the Local Government Board may know to whom to refer when communicating kith the registration officers. Without repeating what I said on the previous occasion, I will only say this, that I am not convinced by the noble Viscount, because he did not advance any argument at all, and so I could not be convinced. All he said was that he did not wish to accept the Amendment. Therefore I venture to urge upon him that it does not conflict with the policy of the Government, and I think it will make quite clear to the authorities that Parliament does not intend to be trifled with in providing soldiers' votes.

Amendment moved—

Page 45, line 36, at end insert as a new rule: 17. The Admiralty, the Army Council, and the Air Council, either directly or through officers a appointed by them, shall in the prescribed manner furnish to the registration officers in the several constituencies such information as to the names and addresses of Naval and Military voters and such other particulars as may be necessary for the purpose of their registration and of their voting as such, and it shall be the duty of the Local Government Board to render any assistance that may be required by the Admiralty, the Army Council, and the Air Council in conveying such information to the registration officers. Provided that the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council shall not be required to supply any particulars which in their declared opinion would interfere with the proper conduct of the war."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I thought I had on a previous occasion advanced some reasons against the acceptance of the Amendment, but it appears that I was so unsuccessful that the noble Marquess regarded my observations rather as an expression of courtesy than as an argument. I will, therefore, try just to say one word upon this point which may, I will not say have the effect, but may have more appearance to the mind of the noble Marquess, of being an argument. First of al], I think he has had an opportunity of satisfying himself how much has been done already by the Local Government Board to make these arrangements, and I hope he will be satisfied with his investigations. The noble Marquess wishes to put this duty definitely upon the Local Government Board of rendering any assistance that may be required.

First of all, on that point, I would say that it is really wholly unnecessary to put any such specific duty in respect of this Bill upon the Local Government Board, because the Local Government Board are doing it already, and doing it really as part of their regular and ordinary duty. Why, then, are you going to assert in this particular Amendment that it must do what it is already doing? Surely it is superfluous. The second objection is of rather a different kind. The noble Marquess in his Amendment suggests that the Army Council, the Admiralty, and the Air Council shall furnish "such other particulars as may be necessary for the purpose of registration." In the first place, who is to judge of what may be necessary? There is nobody here to judge as to what particulars are to be necessary, and apparently the only way of testing that is to go to a Court of Law. Is it really suggested that in an administrative matter of this kind you are going to bring in the Courts of Law?

Moreover, the words are "as may be necessary," and that is a very limited form of words, and I want to draw attention to the rules the Government have drafted. I submit to your Lordships that the effect of the Amendment of the noble Marquess is to limit rather than to enlarge the amount of information that may be given. Under Rule 18 it says that— The naval, military and air force authorities and the Board of Trade shall furnish to the registration officer … such information as may be prescribed after consultation with the Admiralty, Army Council, Air Council and Board of Trade respectively. Now, that will he prescribed by Order in Council, and therefore we are not limiting the information to what is absolutely necessary—that narrow word necessary—but any information that may be considered useful or valuable may be prescribed by Order in Council. Therefore I appeal to my noble friend opposite, and to the noble Marquess who supported him on the last occasion, whether it would not be better to leave the more elastic words which are now in the Bill and not impose a limited duty while the Local Government Board has already a general duty in virtue of its general functions.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am afraid that my noble friend, Lord Peel, is either rather unfortunate in his endeavours to bring conviction to us, or we are more unfortunate still in being unable to receive that conviction which we ought to assimilate; but his arguments certainly did not carry conviction to my mind. In the first place, he laid great stress upon the extreme superfluity of putting upon the Local Government Board a duty which they are already performing. I have in my mind clause after clause of Bill after Bill which this Government has placed before us and which we have passed in the past year, instituting new offices, and in all those Bills are clauses that the President of the Local Government Board shall give all the assistance in his power to the Home Secretary, that the Home Secretary shall never fail to give advice to the Secretary for War, and that the Admiralty shall consult the Minister for Labour. I am not saying that that is an exact reproduction of exact clauses of exact Bills, but we have over and over again had instructions in Bills that one officer shall assist another. Such clauses used not to be inserted in the old form of drafting, and therefore there is superabundant precedent in the legislation of the Government, of which my noble friend is an ornament, for putting this duty upon the Local Government Board. Then his second argument was "Surely you are not going to appeal to the Courts of Law for an interpretaton of these words 'as may be necessary'" and he said "you cannot interpret them except in a Court of Law." How does he interpret his own rule?

VISCOUNT PEEL

The Amendment says such particulars as may be necessary," not "such as may be prescribed."

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Yes, but the words of the Government's proposal are" Shall furnish … such information as may be prescribed." Prescribed by whom?

VISCOUNT PEEL

By Order in Council.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Why not by Order in Council in this case?

VISCOUNT PEEL

You do not say it in the Amendment?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Nor do you either in your Rule.

VISCOUNT PEEL

If you turn to the definition clause you will see that it is so.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

The Rule does not say that the matter shall be prescribed by Order in Council, nor does my noble friend say so in his Amendment, but by the interpretation under the Act these things will all be done by Order in Council, just as much under the Amendment as under the provisions of the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill. I want to draw his attention to the fact that he has not really touched the main argument of my noble friend which moves us and has moved us in this matter all through. We do not trust the Army Council or the Admiralty without a specific declaration from Parliament. From beginning to end of this question the Army Council and the Admiralty have taken what seemed to us an untenable position about sailors and soldiers voting. They have said repeatedly that the thing is not possible. Well, they have been overruled, and we have seen Dominion soldiers and sailors voting again and again. Knowing what the temperament of the War Office and the Admiralty is on this subject we think there should be a quite specific direction in the Act of Parliament placing the duty upon these Departments to supply the necessary information to the Local Government Board.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

As the noble Viscount opposite mentioned my name, I desire to say—

VISCOUNT PEEL

I was referring to Lord Lansdowne.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I beg pardon. My noble friend behind alluded to me, however, and therefore I ought to say that I am not convinced by the argument of the noble Viscount opposite that his form of words ought to be preferred. I do not say that the difference between the

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 3, leave out Rule 18.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD SOMERLEYTON

The Amendment I have to move deals with the consideration of objections before the registration officer, and I trust that the noble Viscount, who is conducting the Bill so ably, will see his way to accept it. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the objection shall be considered in a public Court, conveniently situated, and not in what may be called a modern "star chamber" which, may possibly be the two things is gigantic; but, for the reasons which have been mentioned by the noble Earl who has just sat down, it appears to me to be useful to put a closer form of instruction into the Bill in the terms which the noble Marquess suggests. Therefore I desire to support it.

On Question, whether the proposed new Rule shall be here inserted—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS.
Crewe, M. Chaplin, V. Dinevor, L.
Salisbury, M. [Teller.] Chilston, V. Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Falkland, V. Faringdon, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Harcourt, V. Harris, L.
Hatherton, L.
Balfour, L. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Grey, E. [Teller.] Beresford of Metemmeh, L. Knaresborough, L.
Minto, E. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Lamington, L.
Morton, E. Burnham, L. Parmoor, L.
Sandwich, E. Charnwood, L. Sandys, L.
Selborne, E. Cheylesmore, L. Somerleyton, L.
Verulam, E. Courtney of Penwith, L. Stuart of Wortley, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.) Lucan, E. Kenyon, L.
Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.) Lytton, E. Muir Mackenzie, L.
Newton, L.
Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.) Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Ranksborough, L.
Peel, V. Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Albemarle, E. Colebrooke, L. Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Camperdown, E. Elphinstone, L. Suffield, L.
Chesterfield, E. Hylton, L. [Teller.] Treowen, L.
Eldon, E. Joicey, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

registration officer's own office, miles away from the residence of the person who is objected to. In the other House of Parliament I believe it was moved that in urban districts evening sittings should be held, but that I am not proposing to move now. I trust that these words will meet with the approval of the noble Viscount, and that he will be able to accept them. It is very important that the place where objections are to be considered shall be convenient and easily accessible to the persons concerned.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 14, at end insert ("and such place shall be convenient and accessible to the persons concerned").—(Lord Somerleyton.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I quite understand the benevolent intention of the noble Lord in bringing forward this Amendment, but I submit that really it is not necessary, because what he wishes to put specifically into the Bill is really a part of the duties of the registration officer. Therefore it would be a great pity to give specific directions on one class of his duties. I may point out that under Section 13, subsection (1), the registration officer has to comply with any general or special directions which may be given by the Local Government Board, and if there is any complaint that he does not suit the convenience of the public he is given a special order to do so. I do not think, therefore, that these words are necessary because the words in the Bill are much wider.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

The Amendment, which I beg to move, aims at the same object as an Amendment which was moved by my noble friend Lord Gainford in Committee on the Bill, though it is in different words. The Amendment was dropped by Lord Gainford only because there was no quorum present in the House, and, if he had divided on it, it would have suspended the discussion on the Bill for that evening. That is the only reason why he did not divide, and he has asked me to put it in better words in order to meet some objection which was taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, and to move it again. Those who are acquainted with registration know the great importance of the reading by the revising barrister of the corrections he makes. It is quite possible, where there are two John Jones, one of whom is dead and ought to be struck out, for the revising barrister to strike out the wrong one. When he reads the list over and the agents are there, the matter is put right immediately. On the last occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Peel said that this could always be met by the notice of elimination, which would be sent to the person struck out, but that is not the case with dead men. If you strike out, as dead, a living man, the living man would not get a notification from the revising barrister, now the registration officer, that he had been struck out. I hope the noble Viscount will find it possible to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 47, line 30, at end, insert: 26. The registration officer when revising the lists, and after deciding upon the validity of any claim or objection, or after making any alteration in the lists, shall read out audibly, in the presence of all interested parties then present, the names expunged and inserted by him, and all corrections and alterations made by him and shall at the same time, write his initials against the said names, or the said corrections or alterations, and shall sign his name to every page of the several lists so revised."—(Viscount Harcourt.)

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

I want to point out to the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, that the word "and" in line 4 of his Amendment should be "or". The name cannot be expunged and inserted.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

It is quite correct. You have to read out the expunged names and also the inserted names.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The noble Viscount is moving the same Amendment that was moved by Lord Gainford in Committee.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

I have altered the wording.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Yes, perhaps slightly, and I will point out what it is. The noble Viscount said that Lord Gainford did not wish to divide the House because there was not a sufficient number of your Lordships present. Again I was under a misconception. I thought that I had convinced him it was unnecessary, and that he withdrew it on that ground. The noble Viscount has made only one main change in his Amendment, and that is, he has left out the words "open court." In substance, therefore, the Amendment is the same. As I pointed out on the Committee stage, this Amendment, almost verbatim, is drawn from a provision applying to the revising barrister's courts and, therefore, it appeared to me that the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, was under a misconception—possibly also the noble Viscount—that you can compare a registration officer, when he is carrying, out his administrative duties, with a revising barrister. The two things are totally different, and it would be a great pity to carry an Amendment which would tend to confuse them. The registrar will be sitting and dealing with the different cases coming before him. He will decide whether the man is to be on the Register or not. It is not a revising barrister's court; he does not read the list, because there is no list. The noble Viscount cited the case of a dead man being expunged. They are only struck out after notice has been sent by the registrar of births, deaths, and marriages.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

My instance was that of a clerical error—a living man having the pen put through his name, when it ought to have been the next man on the list—two men of the same name.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Clerical errors, of course, can be rectified when the list is published. What I want to point out is that there is no list which can be read in open court. There is no open court, and no list and, if the Amendment was put in, it would be absolutely inoperative.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 36, at end insert ("by who in inspection thereof shall be given under the same conditions that govern the register").—(Lord Somerleyton.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I readily accept that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 34, after ("any") insert ("bank holiday or").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

This is a Scottish drafting Amendment,

Amendment moved—

Page 51, after line 4, insert as a new paragraph: For the reference to section twenty-four of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, there shall be substituted a reference to section twenty-nine of the Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890."—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The following Amendment is merely drafting; it is an Irish Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 44, leave out ("13") and insert ("14"),—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

This Amendment is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 16, after the second ("the") insert ("registration").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I should like to move these two new subsections together—they are merely drafting—but omitting in (8), in the third line, from "and" to the end. These words are rendered unnecessary by other Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 52, line 34, at end insert as new subsections: (8) Rule 2 of this schedule shall be construed as if the words "or otherwise to distinguish," were inserted after the words "in separate divisions". For the direction to the registration officer in Rule 22 of this schedule to secure that no person is registered as a local government elector in respect of more than one qualification in the areas and for the purposes therein specified, there shall be substituted a direction to secure that no person is registered as a local government elector in respect of more than one qualification in the same district, electoral division, or ward."—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Second Schedule:

VISCOUNT PEEL

The two Amendments On the Second Schedule are merely drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 52, line 39, leave out ("14 and 61") and insert ("and 14") Page 53, line 8, leave out lines 8 to 11 inclusive.—(Viscount Peel.)]

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Third. Schedule:

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

I do not know whether I shall be more fortunate in conjuring acceptance of this Amendment out of the noble Viscount. It seems to me important that we should know how the proxy papers are to be issued to the voters who are entitled to them. The method proposed by the Amendment is only for the present war and twelve months afterwards. I and some of my friends feel it would be much better that the proxies should be issued by the naval and military authorities, and not leave the voter to the activities of the Party agents, to be snowed under, possibly, by the receipt of proxy papers.

Amendment moved—

Page 54, line 23, at end insert: 5. In the case of an election occurring during the present war or within twelve months thereafter the following regulations shall be observed with respect to naval and military voters: A naval or military voter who is serving or who is about to serve afloat or in an area in which the Order in Council referred to in section twenty-two, subsection (4) (a) of this Act, entitles him to vote by proxy, shall receive a proxy paper through the naval or military authorities. The proxy paper of a naval and military voter shall be signed by the applicant in the presence of, and the signature shall be witnessed by such officer as the Order in Council shall define, and shall then be forwarded by the voter to his proxy, who shall send it to the registration officer for the area in respect of which the voter is registered as an elector, and if the proxy paper appears to the registration officer to be in order he shall register and stamp it and return it to the proxy. Provided that nothing in this rule shall prevent the issue of a proxy paper to a sailor or soldier on his personal application by the registration officer for the area in which such sailor or soldier is registered."—(Viscount Harcourt.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think I am right in saving that this Amendment has already been moved in Committee. I think it was moved by Lord Gainford, for whom the noble Viscount is again taking up the cudgels. I am afraid I must give him something of the same answer, and that is to urge him not to insist on putting in one particular way of having this proxy system carried out when experience may show better ways. For instance, under his scheme it states that the Paper should be forwarded by the voter to his proxy and then it should go from the proxy to the registration officer and back from the registration officer to the proxy. Under the arrangements now being made I understand the system will be that the proxy paper should go straight to the registration officer, be stamped by him, and then go straight back to the proxy, thus saying one post. I only give this as an illustration of the little changes that may be made, changes that could not be carried out if the rather rigid form of the noble Viscount's Amendment were adhered to. I therefore will ask him in the interest of flexibility not to press this Amendment upon the House.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

I withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Fourth Schedule:

LORD PARMOOR

I think the series of three Amendments in my name to the Fourth Schedule may be regarded really as consequential Amendments on the adoption of the principle of proportional representation. The object of them is this. In the single-Member constituency, if it is a county, 7d. for each elector is the amount to be expended, and 5d. in the case of boroughs. The effect of the Amendment would be to leave those two figures as they are now, as regards single-Member constituencies and two-Member constituencies. As regards constituencies which will be grouped for the purposes of proportional representation, in the case of a county or a division of a county 7d. is reduced to 4d., and in the case of a borough or a group of boroughs so created from 5d. to 3d. One of the objections raised to proportional representation has been the expense, and I am sure the reduction proposed here would leave ample to conduct the elections.

Amendments moved—

Page 56, line 16, after ("constituency") insert ("or a division of a county returning one member")

Page 56, line 18, after ("constituency") insert ("returning one or two members, or a division of a borough returning one member")

Page 56, line 19, at end insert ("In the case of an election for a county, or a division of a county, returning three or more members, to fourpence for each elector on the register. In the case of an election for a borough, or a group of boroughs, or a division of a borough, returning three or more members, to threepence for each elector on the register").—(Lord Parmoor)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Fifth Schedule:

VISCOUNT PEEL

MY two Amendments to the Fifth Schedule are merely drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 61, line 12, after ("a") insert ("bank or") Page 67, line 41, after ("a") insert ("bank or").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Sixth Schedule:

VISCOUNT PEEL

This is merely a Scottish drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 72, line 18, after ("thirty-nine") insert ("sixty-eight").—(Viscount Peel.)]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL GREY

My Amendment to the Sixth Schedule is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 72, line 21, leave out paragraph 5.—(Earl Grey.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I was going to say a word, but I do not wish to contest it if it is considered a drafting Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I want to say a word about this, because I understand that the effect of the striking out of this paragraph 5 would be to leave the local government constituencies as they are at present. That is to say, that the number of members would be what it is now with no reference to the increased number given to London by the Bill. Naturally it would not be agreeable to the London County Council that the principle which has held good since its creators that of there being two County Council members for each Parliamentary Member—should be abandaned. That is to say, the Bill as it now stands, giving three more Parliamentary Members to London, would have given six additional members to the London County Council. This, however, is in one sense a minor matter.

What is important, and appears to be a more serious departure from the law as it stands, is that for the first time the principle of the identity of areas for the Parliamentary and municipal representtion may, and in some cases will, be altered, with the possible result that it may be necessary to have an altogether separate Register for the municipal elections in London. That is a serious matter both from the point of view of convenience and the point of view of expense. It is, of course, true that if proportional representation is finally adopted for Parliamentary purposes the London County Council is placed in the position of having to choose between two things. Either it has to adopt a similar system itself, or it has to agree to take up a different plan for the Parliamentary representation and the municipal. I do not know that it would regard with great enthusiasm being driven to either of these alternatives, though it cannot, of course, be supposed that a great political change like this can be held up because it is inconvenient even to the largest municipal body in England. It must, however, be clearly understood that it must be considered open to Parliament, after consulting the London County Council, to see whether in future some entirely different method of representation may not have to be adopted.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It is very suitable that the noble Marquess, as the present Chairman of the London County Council, should have made these observations rather than myself. I only wish to say that I entirely endorse them, and I would point out that, as a result of this Amendment, the County Council, at any rate at present, will have to go on with the same number of members, and with being elected for the old Parliamentary constituencies. I certainly think that if this Bill becomes an Act in this form something will have to be done in order to put that matter right.

LORD PARMOOR

May I say one word on this matter. I think that when the Bill was in the House of Commons the President of the Local Government Board suggested, as one solution of this difficulty, that the matter might be left to the County Council itself, having regard to the magnitude and importance of such an area as that of the London County Council. In my view that would be a solution which would meet all difficulties.

LORD BURNHAM

I think that these dangers and difficulties are to some extent conjured up, because the Amendment adopted by your Lordships' House does not in any case interfere with the integrity of London boroughs, which remain integral wholes for purposes of registration and election, though in certain eases they have been united for proportional representation. I do not believe that under these circumstances the dangers will arise, though I look forward to a time when, for purposes of local government in these great areas, and most of all in the administrative county of London, the same system will be adopted as has already been adopted in this Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The next Amendment is a Scottish drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 72, line 35, leave out ("twelve and thirteen") and insert ("and thirteen and (so far as necessary) section twelve").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Page 72, after line 22 insert: The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (46 and 47 Vict. c. 51): In section sixty-eight in the definition of 'revising barrister,' for the word sheriff' shall be substituted the words' registration officer.' after line 36 insert: The Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890 (53 and 54 Vict. c.55):— In section twenty-nine the words 'registration officer' shall be substituted for 'revising authority,' and at the end of subsection (1) of the said section the following words shall be added, 'and shall make out a list (which may be referred to as the corrupt and illegal practices list) containing the name and description of every person whose name has been so omitted, and shall state in that list the offence of which each such person has been convicted or found guilty.'"—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

My Lords, before going to page 73, may I call the attention of the noble Viscount to paragraph 7 at the bottom of page 72 and ask him whether these Orders that are made by the Local Government Board come within any of the provisions for control of Orders which have the effect of Acts of Parliament. He will see that this paragraph says: "The Local Government Board may by Order make such further adaptations in the provisions of any Act," and "any Order so made shall operate as if enacted in this Act." I do not know whether it comes within the provisions that have been debated already in this House or whether by any possibility it has been overlooked.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think the answer is that it does not come within any provisions already debated.

Amendment moved— Page 73, leave out lines 18 to 22.—(Earl Grey.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Seventh Schedule.

Amendment moved— Page 74, leave out the Seventh Schedule.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Eighth Schedule:

Amendment moved— Page 76, line 15, third column, after ("thirty-five") insert ("section thirty-six, so far as relating to town clerks or deputy town clerks being entitled to vote").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The next are drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved— Page 78, line 10, leave out "D. Page 78, line 31, third column, at end insert ("and (except as respects Scotland and Ireland) from 'Where the sheriff' to the end of the section").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The next Amendments are purely drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 79, line 18, third column, after ("eleven") insert ("twelve").

Page 80, lines 3 to 5, third column, leave out ("except as to the disqualification for the receipt of union or parochial relief or other alms").

Lines 10 and 11, third column, leave out ("(except subsection (4))").

Line 31, third column, leave out from ("burgesses") to ("and") in line 33.

Page 81, lines 33 and 34, third column, leave out ("relates to parliamentary electors") and insert ("unrepealed").

Page 82, after line 29, insert:

"53 & 54 Vict. c. 55. The Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890. In section one the definition of "revising authority"; subsection (3) of section seventeen and subsections (7) and (8) of section twenty nine."
—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Ninth Schedule:

LORD BURNHAM

I am in some difficulty as to the next Amendment because, of course, it is in the Ninth Schedule which deals with the redistribution of seats, and to a certain extent it is a vanishing quantity, but, at the same time, I hardly like to leave what appears to be rather an aimless re-shuffling of the areas.

VISCOUNT PEEL

May I interrupt the noble Lord. There are certain amendments as to altering existing constituencies and their names, which are on the Paper in the names of various noble Lords. As I understand that Lord Parmoor is going to move a totally new Schedule, it really does not seem necessary to go through the discussion of these names now.

THE MARQUESS of CREWE

But this is not a question of names; it is a question of boundaries.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It is a question of boundaries, I agree, but it is a question of the particular borough council and the division of certain constituencies, and that would all be swept away by the Schedule of the noble Lord.

LORD BURNHAM

I understand that. But suppose that this original Schedule is re-inserted. I only want to guard myself against that eventuality.

Leave out the Ninth Schedule and insert as a new Schedule:—

"NINTH SCHEDULE.
"REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS.
"1. The names, contents, and boundaries of each constituency shall be as specified in this schedule.
"2. The areas mentioned in the second and last columns of this schedule shall be taken to be those areas as constituted on the first day of October 1917. Provided that any misnomer or inaccurate description of any of those areas in these columns shall not in any way prevent or abridge the operation of this Act with respect to the subject of the description if it is so designated as to be commonly understood.
"3. The wards mentioned in this schedule are, in relation to any municipal borough, wards of the municipal borough, and, in relation to any urban district, wards of the urban district.
"4. The expression "burgh." when used in this schedule, means a burgh as bounded for police purposes on the first day of October nineteen hundred and seventeen.
"5. If any doubt arises as to the constituency in which any parish, townland, ward, or other place, whether larger or smaller than a parish, townland, or ward, is intended by this schedule to be included, that doubt shall be determined by the Local Government Board, or in Scotland, by the Secretary for Scotland.
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES.
(1) LONDON.
Name of Constituency. Contents of Constituency. Total Number of Members for Constituency.
Battersea Metropolitan borough of Battersea Two
Bermondsey and Southwark Metropolitan boroughs of Bermondsey and Southwark Five
Bethnal Green and Shoreditch Metropolitan boroughs of Bethnal Green and Shoreditch Three
Camberwell Metropolitan borough of Camberwell Four
Chelsea and Kensington Metropolitan boroughs of Chelsea and Kensington Three
City of London City of London Two
Deptford and Lewisham Metropolitan boroughs of Deptford and Lewisham Three
Finsbury and Holborn Metropolitan boroughs of Finsbury and Holborn Two
Fulham and Hammersmith Metropolitan boroughs of Fulham and Hammiersmith Four
Greenwich and Woolwich Metropolitan boroughs of Greenwich and Woolwich Three
Hackney and Stoke Newington Metropolitan boroughs of Hackney and Stoke Newington four
Hampstead andSt. Pancras Metropolitan boroughs of Hampstead and St. Pancras. Four
Islington Metropolitan borough of Islington Four
Lambeth Metropolitan borough of Lambeth Four
Paddington and St. Marylebone. MetropolitanboroughsofPaddingtonandSt. Marylebone. Three
Tower Hamlets Metropolitan boroughs of Poplar and Stepney Five
Wandsworth Metropolitan borough of Wamlsworth Five
Westminster Metropolitan borough of Westminster Two
THE MARQUESS OE CREWE

If my noble friend is going to move this, he should do it after the adjournment, because there is something to be said about it.

THE EARL OE SELBORNE

Surely my noble friend, Lord Peel, is in error. Assuming that for a moment Lord Parmoor accepts this, no Amendment to the Schedule previously struck out would be effective. And if another place puts the Schedule back, it would not be affected.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

But it would be open to the noble Lord to move.

Amendment not moved.

LORD PARMOOR had on the Paper the following Amendment—

(2) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.
City and Town Constituencies.
Name of Constituency. Contents of Constituency. Total Number of Members for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Divisions.
Birkenhead and Wallasey The county boroughs of Birkenhead and Wallasey Three — — —
Birmingham The county borough of Birmingham Twelve North Birmingham. (Hands-worth, Erdington, Aston, Duddeston) Four The Handsworth, Sandwell, Soho, Erdington North, Erdington South, Washwood Heath, Aston, St. Mary, Duddleston, Nechells Wards and Lozells Ward (except those parts which lie between the southern and south-eastern boundaries thereof and the line next hereinafter described), and the parts of the All Saints Ward which lies to the north of the said line.
The line above referred to commences at the south-west corner of Lozella Ward in the middle of Hunter Road, continues south along the middle of that road, the middle of Farm Street, Burbury Street, Gordon Street, Berners Street, Clifford Street, Guildford Street, Paddington Street, Porchester Street, Summer Lane, Asylum Road, High Street, Phillips Street, Aston Road North, White-house Street, Chester Street and Avenue Road to the middle of the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal, thence in a north-easterly direction along the middle of the Canal to the point where the middle of the Canal intersects the boundary of Aston Ward.
West Birmingham. (Lady-wood, Edgbaston, King's Norton, West Birmingham) Four Ladywood, Rotton Park, Edgbas-ton, Harborne, Market Hall, North -field, Selly Oak, St Pauls, the part of King's Norton Ward which is not included in the Division of East Birmingham and the parts of the All Saints Ward and of Lozell's Ward, which are not included in the Division of North Birmingham.
East Birmingham. (Deritend, Moseley, Spark-brook. Yardley) Four St. Bartholomews, St. Martins, Deritend, Acock's Green, Sparkhill, Balsall Heath, Sparkbrook, Moseley, King's Heath, Saltley, Smallheath, Yardley, and the part of King's Norton Ward which lies to the north of Bell's Lane and to the east and southeast of the middle of Monyhull Hall Road and Brandwood Road.
Bradford The county borough of Bradford Four — — —
Bristol The county borough of Bristol Five — — —
(2) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
City and Town Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency. Contents of Constituency. Total Number of Members for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Divisions.
Dewsbury, Batley and Wakefield County boroughs of Dewsbury and Wakefield and the municipal boroughs of Batley, Morley and Ossett Three — — —
Kingston-upon-Hull The county borough of Kingston-upon-Hall Four — — —
Leeds The county borough of Leeds Six North (Central, North, North East) Three Central, Mill Hill, South, West, Brunswick, Headingley, North West, North, Roundhay, Seacroft, Shadwell and Crossgates Wards, and the part of North East Ward which its not included in the South Division.
South (South East and West) Three Holbeck, West Hunslet, East, Hunslet, East Armley, Wortley, New Wortley, Bramley and the part of North East Ward which lies to the west of Accommodation Road from the ward boundary in Burmantofts Street to the ward boundary in York Road.
Leicester The county borough of Leicester Three — — —
Liverpool The county borough of Liverpool Eleven North East (Walton, West Derby, Fairfield) Three Fazakerley, Walton, Warbreck, Anfield, Breckfield, West, Derby, Fairfield and Old Swan Wards, and the part of Kensington Ward which is not included in the West Division.
South (Wavertree, West Toxteth, East Toxteth) Three Allerton Childwall and Little Woolton, Garston, Much Woolton, Wavertree, Wavertree West, Brunswick", Dingle, Prince's Park, Aigburgh, Granby, Sefton Park East and Sefton Park West Ward.
West (Scotland, Kirk-dale, Exchange, Edge Hill, Everton) Five North Scotland, Sandhills, South Scotland, Kirkdale, St. Domingo, Abercromby, Castle Street, Exchange, Great George, St. Anne's, St. Peter's, Vauxhall, Edge Hill, Low Hill, Everton and Netherfield Wards, and the part of the Kensington Ward which lies to the south and west of a line drawn from the western boundary of the ward along the middle of the road called Kensington to its junction with Holt Road, thence in a southerly direction along the middle of Holt Road to its junction with Edge Lane, and thence in an easterly direction along the middle of Edge Lane to the eastern boundary of the ward.
(2) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—Continued.
City and Town Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Manchester County borough of Manchester Ten North-East (Blackley, Platting, Clayton, Ardwick, Gorton) Five Blackley Crumpsall. Moston, Collyhurst. Harpurhey and Miles Platting Wards, and the part of the St. Michael's Ward which is not included in the South-West Division. Beswick, Bradford, Newton Heath. Ardwick, New Cross, St. Mark's. Gorton North, Gorton South and Openshaw Wards.
South-West (Exchange, Hulme, Moss Side, Rusholme, Withington Five Cheetham, Collegiate Church, Exchange, Oxford, St. Ann's, St. Clement's and St. John's Wards, and the part of St. Michael's Ward which lies to the north-west of a line drawn along the middle of Rochdale Road. Medlock Street, Moss Side West and St. George's Wards. All Saints, Moss Side East and St. Luke's Wards. Levenshulme, Longsight and Rusholme Wards. Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Didsbury and Withington Wards.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne County borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne Four — — —
Nottingham County borough of Nottingham Four — — —
Plymouth County borough of Plymouth Three — — —
Portsmouth County borough of Portsmouth Three — — —
The Potteries County borough of Stoke-on-Trent, municipal borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme and urban districts of Audley and Wolstanton United Four — — —
Salford County borough of Salford Three — — —
Sheffield County borough of Sheffield Seven East (Attercliffe, Brightside Park) Three Attercliffe, Darnall, Brightside. Burngreave, Heeley and Park Wards.
West (Central, Ecclesall, Hallam, Hills-borough) Four St. Peter's, St. Phillip's. Bromhall, Ecclesall, Sharrow, Crokesmoor, Hallam, Hillsborough, Neepsend and Walkley Wards
(2) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
City and Town Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency. Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Southampton County borough of Southampton Two — — —
South Stafford boroughs County borough of Dudley and the civil parish of Dudley Castle Hill, county borough of Smetliwick, county borouch of Walsall, municipal borough of Wednesbury, and urban districts of Darlaston and Tipton, county borough of West Bromwich Five — — —
West Ham The county borough of West Ham Four — — —
Wolverhampton The county borough of Wolverhampton, and urban districts of Bilston, Coseley, Heath Town or Wednesfield Heath, Sedgley, Short Heath, Wednesfield and Willen-hall Three — — —
York The county borough of York (with York Castle) One — — —
(3) WALES INCLUDING MONMOUTHSHIRE
City and Town Constituencies
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Cardiff County borough of Cardiff and urban district of Penarth Three — — —
The Merthyr boroughs County borough of Merthyr Tydfil and urban districts of Aberdare and Mountain Ash and the urban district of Rhondda. Four — — —
Newport County borough of Newport One — — —
(4) SCOTLAND.
City and Town Constituencies.
Dumbarton Burghs Burghs of Dumbarton and Clyde-bank One — — —
Edinburgh County of the City of Edinburgh and burgh of Mussel-burgh Five — — —
Glasgow County of the City of Glasgow Fifteen East (Central, Spring-burn, Camlachie, Bridgeton, Shettleston. Five That portion of the city which lies to the north of the centre line of the River Clyde and to the east of a line commencing at a point on the municipal boundary at the centre line of the North British Railway (Edinburgh and Glasgow line), about 327 yards north of the centre of Hawthorn Street, where the said North British Railway Intersects that street, thence south-eastward and southward along the centre of the said North British Railway to the centre line of Fountainwell Road, thence south-eastward along the centre line of Fountainwell Road to the centre line of Springburn Road, and thence southward along the centre line of Springburn Road to a point at the intersection of Spring-burn Road and Parliamentary Road, thence south-westward along the centre line of Parliamentary Road to the centre line of Buchanan Street, thence northward along the centre line of Buchanan Street to the centre line of Coweaddens, thence north.
(4) SCOTLAND—continued.
City and Town Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Glasgow East—could. westward along the centre line of Coweaddens and New City Road to the centre line of Scott Street, and thence southward along the centre line of Scott Street, Pitt Street and McAlpine Street to the centre line of the River Clyde.
West, (Partick, Hill-head, Maryhill, St. Rollox, Kelvin-grove) Five That portion of the city which is not contained within the East and South Divisions.
South, (Govan, Tradeston, Gorbals, Pollock, Cathcart) Five That portion of the city which lies to the south of the centre line of the River Clyde.
Leith The Burgh of Leith One — — —
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDINO LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.
Country Constituencies.
Bedford The administrative county of Bedford Three — — —
Berks The administrative county of Berks and the county borough of Reading Four — — —
Bucks The administrative county of Bucks Three — — —
Cambridge and Huntingdon The administrative counties of Cambridge, Huntingdon, and the Isle of Ely Four — — —
Chester The administrative county of Chester and the county boroughs of Chester and Stockport Kleven East Macclesfield, Stalybridge, Stockport, and Hyde). Four The rural district of Disley, the part of the rural district of Congleton which consists of the civil parishes of Hulme Walfield and Newbold Astbury, the part of the rural district of Macclesfield which is not included in the Knutsford Division, the municipal, boroughs of Congleton and Macclesfield, and the urban districts of Bredbury and Romiley, Buglawton, Compstall, Marple, and Yeardsleycum-Whaley
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
County Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Chester—contd. East—contd. The rural district of Tintwistle, the municipal boroughs of Dukinfiekl, Hyde, and Stalybridge, and the urban districts of Hollingworth and Mottram in Longdendale, and the county borough of Stockport.
Mid (Altrincham, Crewe, Knutsford, Northwich) Four The part of the rural district of Bucklow which is not included in the Knutsford Division, and the urban districts of Altrincham, Ashton-upon-Mersey, Bowdon, Cheadle and Gatley, Hale, Haudforth, Lymm, and Sale.
The part of the rural district of Congleton which consists of the civil parishes of Arclid, Betchton, Church Lawton, Hassall. Moreton-cum-Alcumlow, Odd Rode, Smallwood, and Wheelock, the part of the rural district of Nantwich which consists of the civil parishes of Barthomley, Basford, Church Coppenhall, Chorlton, Crewe, Haslington, Hough, Rope, Shavington - cum - Gresty, Stapeley, Weston, Willaston, Wistaston, and Wybunbury, the municipal borough of Crewe, and the urban districts of Alsager and Nantwich.
The part of the rural district of Bucklow which consists of the civil parishes of Aston-by-Budworth, Bexton, Marthall - cum - Warford, Mere, Mobberley, Ollerton, Peover Inferior, Peover Superior, Pickmere, Plumley, Styal, Tabley Inferior, Tabley Superior, Tatton, and Toft; the part of the rural district of Congleton which is not included in the Crewe, Macclesfield, and Northwich Divisions ; the part of the rural district of Macclesfield which consists of the civil parishes of Adlington, Butley, Capesthorne, Chelford, Chorley, Fallibroome, Great Warford, Lower Withington, Marton, Mottram St. Andrew, Nether Alderley, Newton, Old Withington, Over Alderley, Poynton-with-Worth, Prestbury, Siddington, Snelson, Tytherington, Upton, and Woodford ; the part of the rural district of North-wich which consists of the civil parishes of Allostock, Byley, Lach Dennis, Lostock Gralam, Nether Peover, Rudheath, Sproston, and Whatcroft, the part of the rural district of Runcorn which consists of the civil parishes of Acton Grange, Antrobus, Appleton, Crowley, Daresbury Grappenhall, Hatton, Higher Whitley Keckwick, Latchford Without, Lower Whitley, Moore, Newton by Daresbury, Preston on the Hill, Seven Oaks Stockton Heath, Stretton, Thelwall, Walton Inferior, and Walton Superior
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
County Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Chester—contd. Mid.—contd. and the urban districts of Alderley Edge, Bollington, Hazel Grove and Bramhall, Knutsford, and Wilmslow.
The part of the rural district of Congleton which consists of the civil parishes of Bradwall, Elton, Moston, and Tetton, the part of the rural district of Northwich which is not included in the Eddisbury and Knutsford Divisions, the part of the rural district of Runcorn which is not included in the Eddisbury and Knutsford Divisions, and the urban districts of Middlewich, Northwich, Runcorn, Sandbach, and Winsford.
West (Chester, Eddisbury, Wirral) Three The rural district of Chester, the county borough of Chester, and the urban district of Hoole.
The rural districts of Malpas and Tarvin, the part of the rural district of Nantwich which is not included in the Crewe Division, the part of the rural district of Northwich which consists of the civil parishes of Crowton, Cuddington, Darnhall, Delamere, Eddisbury, Little Budworth, Marlon, Oakmere, and Wimbolsley, the art of the rural district of Runcorn which consists of the civil parishes of Alvanley. Frodsham, Frodsham Lordship, Helsby, Kingsley, Kings-wood, Manley, Newton-by-Frodsham, and Norley, and the urban district of Tarporley.
The rural district of Wirral, and the urban districts of Bromborough, Ellesmere Port and Whitby, Higher Bebington, Hoylake and West Kirby, Lower Bebington, and Neston and Parkgate.
Cornwall The administrative county of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Five — — —
Cumberland The administrative county of Cumberland and the county borough of Carlisle Five — — —
Derby The administrative county of Derby and the county borough of Derby Ten North (Chesterfield, Clay Cross, High Peak, North-Eastern, Western) Five The part of the rural district of Chesterfield which consists of the civil parishes of Barlow, Brimington, Calow, Hasland, Sutton-cum-Duckmanton, Tapton, Temple Normanton; and Wingerworth, the municipal borough of Chesterfield, and the urban districts of Brampton and
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Derby—contd. North—contd. Walton and Whitlington and New-bold.
The rural district of Blackwell, the part of the rural district of Chesterfield which is not included in the North Eastern and Chesterfield Divisions, and the urban district of Clay Cross.
The rural district of Chapel-en-le-Frith (except the two detached parts of the civil parish of Derwent which are bounded on the west by the civil parish of Hathersage), the rural districts of Glossop Dale and Hayfield, the portion of the rural district of Bakewell which consists of the two detached parts of the civil parish of Outseats which are bounded on three sides by the civil parish of Derwent the municipal boroughs of Buxton and Glossop, and the urban district of New Mills.
The rural districts of Clown and Norton, the part of the rural district of Chesterfield which consists of the civil parishes of Brighton, Coal Aston, Dronfield Woodhouse, Eckington, Holmesfield, Killamarsh, Staveley, and Unstone, and the urban districts of Bolsover and Dronfield.
The rural districts of Ashbourne and Sudbury, the rural district of Bakewell (except the two detached parts of the civil parish of Outseats which are bounded on three sides by the civil parish of Derwent), the part of the rural district of Repton which consists of the civil parishes of Barton Blount, Church Broughton, Foston and Scropton, Hatton, Hilton, Hoon, Marston-on-Dove, Osleston and Thurvaston, and Sutton-on-the-Hill, the part of the rural district of Chapel en-le-Frith which consists of the two detached parts of the civil parish of Derwent bounded on the west by the civil parish of Hathersage, and the urban districts of Ashbourne, Bake-well, Baslow and Bubnell, Bonsall, Matlock, Matlock Bath and Scarthin Nick, North Darley, South Darley, and Wirksworth.
South (Belper, Derby City, Ilkeston, Southern). Five The rural district of Belper, the part of the rural district of Repton which is not included in the Southern and Western Divisions, and the urban districts of Alfreton, Belper, and Heage, and the county borough of Derby.
The rural district which consists of the civil parishes of Codnor Park and Shipley, the municipal borough of Ilkeston, and the urban districts of Heanor and Ripley.
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Derby—contd. South—contd. The rural districts of Hartshorn and Seals and Shardlow, the part of the rural district of Repton which consists of the civil parishes of Caldwell, Castle Gresley, Catton, Cotton in the Elms, Drakelow, Linton, Lullington, Rosliston, and Walton-upon-Trent, and the urban districts of Alvaston and Boulton, Long Eaton, and Swadlincote District.
Devon The administrative county of Devon and the county borough of Exeter, and including Exeter Castle Yard and Devon County Prison and Constabulary Barracks. Eight North (Barnstaple Exeter, Honiton, South Molton, Tiverton). Five The rural districts of Barnstaple and Bideford (including Lundy Island), the municipal boroughs of Barnstaple and Bideford, and the urban districts of Ilfracombe, Lynton, and Northam, and the county borough of Exeter, including Exeter Castle Yard, and Devon County Prison and Constabulary Barracks and the rural districts of Axminster and Honiton, the part of the rural district of St. Thomas which consists of the civil parishes of Aylesbeare, Bicton, Clyst Honiton, Clyst St. George, Clyst St. Mary, Colaton Raleigh, East Budleigh, Farringdon, Lympstone, Newton Poppleford, Otterton, Rockbeare, Sowton, and Woodbury, the municipal borough of Honiton, and the urban districts of Axminster, Budleigh Salterton, Ex-mouth, Ottery St. Mary, Seaton, and Sidmouth.
The rural districts of Crediton, Okehampton, South Molton, and Torrington, the municipal boroughs of Great Torrington, Okehampton and South Molton, and the urban district of Crediton.
The rural districts of Culmstock and Tiverton, the park of the rural district of Newton Abbot which consists of the civil parish of West Dawlish, the part of the rural district of St. Thomas which is not included in the Honiton Division, the municipal borough of Tiverton, and the urban districts of Bampton and Dawlish.
South (Tavistock, Torquay, Totnes). Three The rural districts of Broadwood-widger, Plympton St. Mary, and Tavistock, the part of the rural district of Holsworthy which is within the administrative county of Devon, and the urban districts of Holsworthy, Ivybridge, and Tavistock.
The part of the rural district of Newton Abbot which consists of the civil parishes of Cockington and Stokeinteignhead, the part of the rural district, of Totnes which consists of the civil parishes of Churston Ferrers, Kingswear, Marldon, and Stoke Gabriel, the municipal boroughs
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Devon—could. South—contd. of Dartmouth and Torquay, and the urban districts of Brixham and Paignton.
The rural district of Kingsbridge, the part of the rural district of Newton Abbot which is not included in the Tiverton and Torquay Divisions, the part of the rural district of Totnes which is not included in the Torquay Division, the municipal borough of Totnes, and the urban districts of Ashburton, Buckfast-leigh, Kingsbridge, Newton Abbot, Salcombe, and Teignmouth.
Dorset The administrative county of Dorset. Four — — —
Durham The administrative county of Durham and the county boroughs of Darlington, Gateshead, South Shields, Smulerland, and West Hartlepool. Eighteen Mid. (Barnard Castle, Bishop Auckland, Durham, Seaham, and Spennymoor.) Five The rural districts of Barnard Castle and Weardale, the part of the rural district of Auckland which consists of the civil parishes of Hamsterley and South Bedburn, the part of the rural district of Lanchester which is not included in the Consett and Spennymoor Divisions and the urban districts of Barnard Castle and Stanhope.
The part of the rural district of Auckland which is not included in the Barnard Castle and Spennymoor Divisions, and the urban districts of Bishop Auckland and Shildon.
The rural district of Durham (except the civil parish of Brancepeth), the part of the rural district of Houghton-le-Spring which consists of the civil parishes of East Rainton, Great Eppleton, Little Eppleton, Moor House, Moorsley, and West Rainton, the municipal borough of Durham, and the urban district of Hetton.
The rural district of Easington, and the urban district of Seaham Harbour.
The part of the rural district of Auckland which consists of the civil parishes of Helmington Row, Hunwick and Helmington, and North Bedburn, the part of the rural district of Durham which consists of the civil parish of Brancepeth, the part of the rural district of Lanchester which consists of the civil parish of Hedleyhope, and the urban districts of Brandon and Byshottles, Crook, Spennymoor, Tow Law, and Willington.
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Durham—contd. North-East (Houghton-le-Spring, Jarrow, South Shields, and Sunder land). Five The rural districts of South Shields and Sunderland, the part of the rural district of Houghton-le-Spring which is not included in the Durham Division, and the urban district of Houghton-le-Spring.
The Municipal borough of Jarrow, and the urban districts of Felling and Hebburn, and the county borough of South Shields, and the county borough of Sunderland, and the urban district of Southwick on Wear.
North-West (Blaydon, Chester-le-Street, Consett, and Gates-head). Four The urban districts of Blaydon, Ryton, Tanfield, and Whickham.
The rural district of Chester-le-Street, and the urban district of Chester-le-Street.
The part of the rural district of Lanchester which consists of the civil parishes of Craghead, Ebchester, Healeyfield, Knitsley, and Medomsley, and the urban districts of Annfield Plain, Benfieldside, Consett, Leadgate, and Stanley, and the county borough of Gateshead.
South-East (Darlington, Hartle-pool, Sedgefield, and Stock-ton-on-Tees). Four The county boroughs of Darlington and West Hartlepool and the municipal borough of Hartlepool.
The rural districts of Darlington, Hartlepool, Sedgefield and Stockton, and the municipal boroughs of Stockton-on-Tees and Thornaby-on-Tees.
Essex The administrative county of Essex and the county boroughs of East Hamand South-end-on-Sea. Sixteen North (Colchester, Harwich, Maldon, Saffron Walden). Four The rural district of Lexden and Winstree (except the detached part of the civil parish of Inworth which is wholly surrounded by the civil parishes of Great Braxted and Kelvedon), and the municipal borough of Colchester.
The rural district of Tendring, the municipal borough of Harwich, and the urban districts of Brightlingsea, Clacton. Frinton-on-Sea, Walton-on-the-Naze, and Wivenhoe.
The rural district of Braintree (with the detached part of the civil parish of Inworth which is wholly surrounded by the civil parishes of Great Braxted and Kelvedon), the rural district of Maldon, the municipal borough of Maldon, and the urban districts, of Braintree, Burnham-on-Crouch, and Witham.
The rural districts of Belchamp, Bumpstead, Dunmow, Halstead, Saffron Walden, and Stansted, the municipal borough of Saffron Walden, and the urban district of Halstead.
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Essex—contd. South (East Ham, Ilford, Romford). Four The county borough of East Ham, the urban district of Ilford, the rural district of Romford, and the urban districts of Barking Town and Romford.
South-East (Chelmsford, South-Eastern, Southend-on-Sca). Three The rural districts of Chelmsford and Ongar, the part of the rural district of Billericay which consists of the civil parishes of Hutton, In-grave, Mountnessing, Shenfield, and South Weald, the muncipal borough of Chelmsford, and the urban district of Brentwood.
The rural districts of Orsett and Rochford, the part of the rural district of Billericay which is not in cluded in the Chelmsford Division, and the urban districts of Grays Thurrock, Shoeburyness, and Tilbury, and the county borough of Southend-on-Sea.
West (Epping, Leyton, Walthamstow). Five The rural district of Epping, and the urban districts of Buckhurst Hill, Chingford, Epping, Loughton, Waltham Holy Cross, Wanstead, and Woodford, and the urban districts of Leyton and Walthamstow.
Gloucester The administrative county of Gloucester and the county borough of Gloucester. Six East (Cirencester and Tewkesbury, Cheltenham, Stroud). Three The rural districts of Campden, Cirencester, Marston Sicca, North-leach, and Pebworth, the part of each of the rural districts of Faringdon, Stow-on-the-Wold, Tetbury, Tewkesbury, and Winchcomb which is within the administrative county of Gloucester, the part of the rural district of Cheltenham which consists of the civil parishes of Prestbury, Swindon, and Uckington, the municipal borough of Tewkesbury, and the urban districts of Cirencester, Stow-on-the-Wold, and Tetbury.
The municipal borough of Cheltenham and urban district of Charlton Kings.
The rural districts of Dursley Stroud, and Wheatenhurst, the part of the rural district of Cheltenham which is not included in the Cirencester and Tewkesbury Division, the part of the rural district of Gloucester which is not included in the Forest of Dean Division, and the urban districts of Nailsworth and Stroud.
West (Forest of Dean, Gloucester Thornbury). Three The rural districts of East Dean and united parishes, Lydney, Newent, and West Dean, the part of the rural district of Gloucester which consists of the civil parishes of Ashleworth, Highnam Over and Linton, Lassington, and Maisemore, and the urban
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Gloucester—contd. West—contd. districts of Awre, Coleford, Newnham, and Westbury-on-Severn.
The county borough of Gloucester.
The rural districts of Chipping Sodbury, Thornbury, and Warmley, and the urban district of Kingswood.
Hants The administrative county of Southampton (exclusive of the parts thereof comprised in the parliamentary borough of Southampton) and the county borough of Bournemouth. Seven East (Aldershot Fareham, Petersfield) Three The rural district of Hartley Wintney, and the urban districts of Alder-shot, Farnborough, and Fleet.
The rural districts of Fareham and Havant, and the urban districts of Fareham, Cosport and Alverstoke, Havant, and Warblington.
The rural districts of Alresford, Alton, Catherington, Droxford, and Petersfield, and the urban districts of Alton and Petersfield.
West (Basing-stoke, Bournemouth, New Forest. Winchester) Four The rural districts of Andover, Basingstoke, Kingsclere, Stockbridge, and Whitchurch, and the municipal borough of Andover and Basing-stoke.
The county borough of Bourne mouth.
The rural districts of Christchurch, Fordingbridge, Lymington, New Forest, Ringwood, and Romsey, and the municipal boroughs of Christ-church, Lymington, and Romsey.
The rural districts of Hursley and Winchester, the rural district of South Stoncham (except the civil parish of Bitterne), the municipal borough of Winchester, and the urban district of Kastleigh and Bishopstoke.
Hereford The administrative county of Hereford. Two Hereford One The rural districts of Dore, Ross, and Whitchurch, the part of each of the rural districts of Hereford and Ledbury which is not included in the Leominster Division, the municipal borough of Hereford, and the urban districts of Ledbury and Ross.
Leominster One The rural districts of Bredwardine, Bromyard, Kington, Leominster, Weobley, and Wigmore, the part of the rural district of Hereford which consists of the civil parishes of Bartestree, Breinton, Burghill, Credenhill, Dinmore, Holmer, Kenchester, Lugwardine, Marden, Moreton-on-Lugg, Pipe and Lyde, Preston Wynne, Stretton, Sugwas, Sutton, Wellington, Westhide, Weston Beggard, and Withington, the part of the rural district of Ledbury which consists of the civil parishes of Ashperton, Bosbury, Canon Frome, Castle Frome, Coddington, Colwall, Egleton, Mathon Rural, Munsley, Pixley, Stretton, Grandison, Tarrington, and Yarkhill, the municipal borough of Leominster, and the urban districts of Bromyard and Kington.
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Hertford The administrative county of Hertford. Five — — —
Isle of Wight The administrative county of the Isle of Wight. One — — —
Kent The administrative county of Kent and the county borough of Canterbury. Fifteen East (Canterbury, Dover, Hythe, Isle of Thanet) Four The rural districts of Bridge and Elham, the rural district of Blean (with the detached parts of the civil parishes of Dunkirk and Hernehill, which are wholly surrounded by that rural district), the county borough of Canterbury, and the urban districts of Home Bay and Whitstable.
The rural districts of Dover and Eastry, the municipal boroughs of Deal and Dover, and the urban district of Walmer.
The municipal boroughs of Hythe and Folkestone, the urban district of Cheriton, and so much of the urban district of Sandgate as is not comprised in the municipal borough of Folkestone.
The rural district of the Isle of Thanet, the municipal boroughs of Margate, Ramsgate, and Sandwich, and the urban district of Broadstairs and St. Peters.
North (Faversham Gravesend Rochester) Four The rural districts of Milton and Sheppey, the rural district of Faversham (except the detached parts of the civil parishes of Dunkirk and Hernehill which are wholly surrounded by the rural district of Blean), the municipal boroughs of Faversham and Queenborough, and the urban districts of Milton Regis, Sheerness, and Sittingbourne.
The rural districts of Hoo and Strood, the municipal borough of Gravesend, and the urban district of Northfleet.
The municipal boroughs of Chatham, Gillingham, and Rochester.
North-West (Bromley, Chislehurst, Dartford, and Seven-oaks) Four The municipal borough of Bromley and urban districts of Beekenham and Penge.
The rural district of Bromley, the part of the rural district of Dartford which is not included in the Dartford Division, and the urban districts of Chislehurst and Foots Cray.
The part of the rural district of Dartford which consists of the civil parishes of Crayford, Stone, and
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Kent—contd. North West—cont. Swanscombe, and the urban districts of Bexley, Dartford, and Erith.
The rural districts of Malling and Sevenoaks, and the urban districts of Sevenoaks and Wrotham.
South. (Ashford, Maidstone, Tunbridge) Three The rural districts of Cranbrook, East Ashford, Romney Marsh, Tenterden, and West Ashford, the municipal boroughs of Lydd, New Romney, and Tenterden, and the urban district of Ashford.
The rural districts of Holling-bourne and Maidstone, and the municipal borough of Maidstone.
The rural district of Tonbridge, the municipal borough of Tunbridge Wells, and the urban districts of Southborough and Tonbridge.
Lancaster The administrative county of Lancaster, the county boroughs of Barrow-in-Furness, Blackburn, Blackpool, Bolton, Bootle, Burnley, Bury, Oldham, Preston, Rochdale, St. Helen's Southport, Warrington and Wigan. Forty-two. East, (Bury, Heywood and Radcliffe, Middleton and Prestwich, Rochdale, Royton.) Five The county borough of Bury and the urban district of Tottington; and
The part of the rural district of Bury which is not included in the Farnworth Division, the municipal borough of Heywood, and the urban districts of Radcliffe, Ramsbottom, and Whitefield.
The municipal borough of Middleton, and the urban districts of Chadderton and Prestwich.
The county borough of Rochdale; and
The urban districts of Crompton, Littleborough, Milnrow, Norden, Royton, Wardle, and Whitworth.
North, (Barrow, Lancaster, Lonsdale.) Three The county borough of Barrow-in-Furness.
The rural district of Garstang, the part of the rural district of Lancaster which is not included in the Lonsdale Division, the municipal boroughs of Lancaster and Morecambe, and the urban districts of Heysham and Preesall.
The rural districts of Lunesdale and Ulverston, the detached part of the rural district of Lancaster which is situated north of the municipal boroughs of Lancaster and Morecambe, and the urban districts of Carnforth, Dalton-in-Furness, Grange, and Ulverston.
Blackburn or North Central. (Accrington, Blackburn, Darwen, Rossendale). Five The municipal borough of Accrington, and the urban districts of Church, Clayton-le-moors, Oswaldtwistle and Rishton; and
The county borough of Blackburn; and
The rural district of Blackburn, the municipal borough of Darwen, and the urban district of Turton.
The municipal boroughs of Bacup, Haslingden and Rawtenstall.
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Lancaster—contd. North-East. (Burnley, Clithcroe, Nelson and Colne.) Three The county borough of Burnley; and
The rural district of Burnley (except the detached part of the civil parish of Foulridge which is included in the parliamentary borough of Nelson and Colne), the rural district of Clitheroe, the municipal borough of Clitheroe, and the urban districts of Great Harwood and Padiham.
The municipal boroughs of Colne and Nelson, the urban districts of Barrowford, Brierfield and Trawden, and the detached part of the civil parish of Foulridge which is bounded on the north, west, and south by the municipal borough of Colne.
North West. (Blackpool, Chorley, Fylde, Preston.) Five The county borough of Blackpool, the urban districts of Bispham with Norbreck, Lytham and St. Anne's-on-the-Sea, and the part of the civil parish of Carleton which in pursuance of the Blackpool Improvement Act, 1917, becomes part of the county borough of Blackpool on 1st April, 1918.
The rural district of Chorley, the part of the rural district of Wigan which consists of the civil parishes of Haigh, Parbold. Worthington, and Wrightington, the municipal borough of Chorley, and the urban districts of Adlington, Croston, Leyland, and Withnell.
The rural district of Fylde (except the part of the civil parish of Carle(on which is included in the parliamentary borough of Blackpool), the rural district of Preston, and the urban districts of Fleetwood, Kirkham, Longridge, Poulton-le-Fylde, Thornton, and Walton-le-Dale.
The county borough of Preston and the urban district of Fulwood.
South. (Eccles, Farn-worth, Stretford.) Three The municipal borough of Eccles and the urban district of Swinton and Pendlebury.
The part of the rural district of Barton-upon-Irwell which consists of the civil parish of Clifton, the part of the rural district of Bury which consists of the civil parishes of Ainsworth and Outwood, and the urban districts of Farnworth, Kearsley, Little Hulton, Little Lever, and Worsley.
The rural district of Barton-upon-Irwell (except the civil parish of Clifton), the part of the rural distrit of Leigh which consists of the civil parish of Astley, and this urban districts of Irlam, Stretford, and Urmston.
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Lancaster—contd. Bolton, South Central, (Bolton, Leigh, Westhoughton, Wigan.) Five The county borough of Bolton; and the municipal borough of Leigh, and the urban districts of Atherton and Tyldesley-with-Shakerley.
The urban districts of Aspull, Blackrod, Hindley, Horwich, and Westhoughton; and
The county borough of Wigan.
South East, (Ashton-under-Lyme, Mossley, Oldham.) Four The municipal borough of Ashton-under-Lyme and urban district of Hurst.
The rural district of Limehurst, the municipal borough of Mossley, and the urban districts of Audenshaw, Denton, Droylsden, Failsworth, and Lees; and
The county borough of Oldham.
South West, (Ince, Newton, St. Helens.) Five The part of the rural district of Wigan which consists of the civil parish of Shevington, and the urban districts of Abram, Ashton-in-Maker-field, Billinge, Ince-in-Makerfield, Orrell, and Standish-with-Langtree.
(Warrington Widnes.) The rural district of Warrington, the rural district of Leigh (except the civil parish of Astley), and the urban districts of Golborne, Haydock, and Newton-in-Makerfield.
The county borough of St. Helens; and
The county borough of Warrington; and
The rural district of Winston, the municipal borough of Widnes, and the urban districts of Hayton-with-Roby and Prescot.
West, Bootle, (Ormskirk, Southport, Waterloo.) Four The county borough of Bootle; and
The rural districts of Sefton and West Lancashire, the part of the rural district of Wigan which consists of the civil parish of Dalton, and the urban districts of Formby, Lathom-with-Burscough, Ormskirk, Rainford, Skelmersdale, and Upholand; and
The county; borough of South-port.
The urban districts of Great Crosby, Litherland, Little Crosby, and Water-loo-with-Seaford.
Leicester The administrative county of Leicester. Four — — —
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Lincoln and Rutland. The administrative county of the Parts of Lindsey and the county boroughs of Grims by and Lincoln. The administrative county of the Parts of Holland. The administrative county of the Parts of Kesteven, and the administrative county of Rutland. Nine North-East. (Grimsby, Horncastle, (Louth) Three The county borough of Grimsby and the urban district of Cleethorpes; and
The rural districts of Horncastle, Sibsey, and Spilsby, and the urban districts of Alford, Horncastle, Skegness, and Woodhall Spa.
The rural districts of Caistor, Grimsby, and Louth, the municipal borough of Louth, and the urban districts of Mablethorpe and Market Basen.
North-West. (Brigg, Gainsboroug Lincoln) Three
The rural district of Glanford Brigg, and the urban districts of Barton-upon-Humber, Brigg, Broughton, Brumby and Frodingham, Roxby cum-Risby, Scunthorpe, and Winterton.
The rural districts of Gainsborough, Isle of Axholme, and Welton, and the urban districts of Crowle and Gainsborough; and
The county borough of Lincoln and the urban district of Bracebridge.
South. (Grantham, Holland with Boston, Rutland, and Stamford) Three The rural districts of Branston, Claypole, and Sleaford, the part of the rural district of Grantham which consists of the civil parishes of Ancaster, Barrowby, Belton, Carlton Scroop, Great Gonerby, Harrowby Without, Heydour, Honington, Hough - on - the - Hill, Londonthorpe, Manthorpe, Normanton. Welby, and the detached part of the civil parish of Spittlegate Without which is wholly surrounded by the municipal borough of Grantham, the municipal borough of Grantham, and the urban districts of Ruskinston and Sleaford.
The administrative county of the Parts of Holand.
The whole, of the administrative county of Rutland, the rural districts of Bourne and Uffington, the part of the rural district of Grantham which is not included in the Grantham Division, the municipal borough of Stamford, and the urban district of Bourne.
Middlesex The administrative county of Middlesex. Seventeen East, Edmonton, Enfield, Tottenham. Four The urban districts of Tottenham, Edmonton, and Enfield, and the rural district of South Mimms.
North, Finchley, Hornsey, Wood Green. Three The urban districts of Finchley, Friern Barnet, Southgate, and Wood Green, and the municipal borough of Hornsey.
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Middlesex—contd. North-West. Harrow, Hendon, Willesden. Four The urban districts of Willesden Greenford, Hanwell, Harrow-on-the-Bill, Wealdstone, Wembley, Hendon, and Kingsbury, and the rural district of Hendon.
South-West. Acton, Brentford, Ealing. Three The urban districts of Acton, Brentford and Chiswick, and the municipal borough of Ealing.
West. Spelthorne, Twickenham, Ux-bridge. Three The rural district of Staines; and the urban district of Feltham, Hampton, Hampton Wick, Staines, Sunbury-on-Thames, and Teddington.
The urban districts of Heston and Isleworth and Twickenham.
The rural district of Uxbridge, and the urban districts of Hayes, Ruislip-Northwood, Southhall, Norwood, Uxbridge, and Yiewsley.
Norfolk The administrative county of Norfolk and the county boroughs of Great Yarmouth and Norwich. Eight East. Eastern, Great Yarmouth Norwich, Southern. Five The rural districts of East and West Flegg, Loddon and Clavering, St. Faith's. Smallburgh, and Blofield (including the area, wholly surrounded by the county borough of Norwich, in which stand the shire hall, county police station and other county buildings), and the urban district of North Walsham.
The county borough of Great Yarmouth, and the county borough of Norwich, and the rural districts of Depwade Forehoe, Henstead, and Wayland, the part of the rural district of Thetford which is not included in the South-Western Division, and the urban district of Diss.
West (King's Lynn Northern, Southwestern). Three The rural districts of Docking, Free-bridge Lynn, King's Lynn, and Marsh-land (except the civil parishes of Outwell and Upwell), the part of the rural district of Downham which consists of the civil parishes of Wiggenhall St. Germans, Wiggenhall St. Mary the Virgin, Wiggenhall St. Mary Magdalen, and Wiggenhall St. Peter, the municipal borough of King's Lynn, and the urban districts of New Hunstanton and Walsoken.
The rural districts of Aylsham, Erpingham and Walsingham, and the urban districts of Cromer, Sheringham, and Wells.
The rural districts of Mitford and Launditch and Swaffham, the part of the rural district of Downham which is not included in the King's Lynn Division, the part of the rural district of Marshland which consists of the civil parishes of Outwell and Upwell.
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Norfolk—contd. West—contd. the part of the rural district of Thetford which consists of the civil parishes of Cranwich, Feltwell, Feltwell Anchor, Hockwold-cum-Wilton, Lynford, Methwold, Mundford, North-wold, Santon, Weeting with Bromhill, and West Tofts, the municipal borough of Thetford, and the urban districts of Downham Market, East Dereham, and Swaffham.
Northampton with the Soke of Peterborough. The administrative counties of Northampton and the Soke of Peterborough and the county borough of Northampton. Five — — —
Northumberland. The administrative county of Northumberland and the county borough of Tynemouth. Six Berwick-upon-Tweed One The rural districts of Alnwick Belford, Glendale, Norham and Island-shires, and Rothbury, with the Farne Islands, the municipal borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and the urban districts of Alnwick, Amble, and Rothbury.
South East (Morpeth, Tynemouth, Wallsend, Wansbeck). Four The municipal borough of Morpeth, the urban districts of Ashington, Bedlingtonshire and Blyth, and the civil parishes of Hepscott, Morpeth, Castle, Newminster and Tranwell, the county borough of Tynemouth, the municipal borough of Wallsend, and the urban districts of Gosforth, Longbenton and Weetslades, the part of tile rural district of Castle Ward which is not included in the Hexham Division, the rural district of Morpeth (except the civil parishes of Hepscott, Morpeth Castle, Newminster, and Tranwell), the urban districts of Cramlington, Earsdon, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, New-burn, Seaton Delaval, Seghill, and Whitley and Monkseaton, and the part of the administrative county of Northumberland, consisting of the Moot Hall and precincts which is wholly surrounded by the county borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Hexham One The rural districts of Bellingham, Haltwhistle, and Hexham, the part of the rural district of Castle Ward which consists of the civil parishes of Bitchfield, Black Heddon, Capheaton, Cheeseburn Grange, East Matfen, Fenwick, Harlow Hill, Hawkwell, Heugh, Ingoe, Kearsley, Kirkheaton, Nesbitt, Ouston, Ryal, Wallridge, and West Matfen, and the urban districts of Hexham and Prudhoe.
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Nottingham The administrative county of Nottingtam. Five — — —
Oxford The administrative county of Oxford and the county borough of Oxford. Three — — —
Salop The administrative county of Salop. Four — — —
Somerset The administrative county of Somerses and the county borough of Bath. Seven Bath or North East (Bath, Frame, Wells, Weston-super-Mare). Four The county borough of Bath.
The rural districts of Bath, Clutton, and Keynsham, the part of the rural district of Frome which is not included in the Wells Division, and the urban districts of Frome, Midsomer Norton, and Radstock.
The rural districts of Shepton Mallet, Wells, and Wincanton, the part of the rural district of Frome which consists of the civil parishes of Cloford, Marston Bigot, Nunney, Wanstrow, Whatley, and Witham Friary, the municipal boroughs of Glaston bury and Wells, and the urban districts of Shepton Mallet and Street.
The rural dist riots of Axbridge (with Steep Holme Island) and Long Ashton and the urban districts of Clevedon, Fortishead, and Weston-super-Mare.
South West (Bridgwater, Taunton, Yeovil). Three The rural districts of Bridgwater and Williton, the municipal borough of Bridgwater, and the urban districts of Burnham-on-Sea, Highbridge, Minehead, and Watchet.
The rural districts of Dulverton, Taunton, and Wellington, the municipal borough of Taunton, and the urban districts of Wellington and Wiveliscombe.
The rural districts of Chard, Langport, and Yeovil, the municipal boroughs of Chard and Yeovil, and the urban districts of Crewkerne and Ilminster.
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Stafford The administrative county of Stafford (exclusive of the parts thereof comprised in parliamentary boroughs) and the county borough of Burton-on-Trent. Seven North (Burton,) Leek, Stafford, Stone). Four The rural districts of Tutbury and Uttoxeter, the part of the rural district of Stafford which consists of the detached part of the civil parish of Colwich which is surrounded by the civil parishes of Blithfield and Colton, the county borough of Burton-upon-Trent, and the urban district of Uttoxeter.
The rural districts of Leek and Stoke-upon-Trent, and the urban districts of Biddulph, Kidsgrove, Leek, and Smallthorne.
The rural district of Gnosall, the rural district consisting of the oivi1 parishes of Blymhill and Weston-under-Lizard, the part of the rural district of Cannock which is not included in the Cannock Division, the rural district of Stafford (except the aforesaid detached part of the civil parish of Colwich), and the municipal borough of Stafford.
The rural districts of Blore Heath, Cheadle, Mayfield, Newcastle-under-Lyme, and Stone, and the urban district of Stone.
South (Cannock, Kingswinford, Lich-field). Three The rural district of Seisdon, the part of the rural district of Cannock which consists of the civil parishes of Bushbury, Cheslyn Hay, Essington, Great Wyrley, and Hilton, the part of the rural district of Walsall which consists of the civil parish of Bentley, and the urban district of Brownhills, Cannock and Tettenhall.
The rural district of Kingswinford, and the urban districts of Amblecote, Brierley Hill, Quarry Bank, and Rowley Regis.
The rural district of Lichfield, the part of the rural district of Tamworth which is within the administrative county of Stafford, the part of the rural district of Walsall which is not included in the Cannock Division, the municipal boroughs of Lichfield and Tamworth, and the urban districts of Perry Bar and Rugeley.
East Suffolk The administrative county of East Suffolk and the county borough of Ipswich. Four — —
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
West Suffolk The administrative county of West Suffolk. Two Bury St. Edmunds. One The rural districts of Brandon, Mildenhall, and Thedwastre, the parts of the rural districts of Moulton and Thingoe which are not included in the Sudbury Division, the municipal borough of Bury St. Edmunds, and the urban district of Newmarket.
Sudbury One The rural district of Glare, Cosford, and Melford, the part of the rural district of Moulton which consists of the civil parishes of Lidgate and Ousden, the part of the rural district of Thingoe which consists of the civil parishes of Bradfield Combust, Bradfield St. George, Brockley, Chedburgh, Chevington, Depden, Great Welnetham, Hargrave, Hawstead, Little Welnetham, Rede, Stamingfield, and Whepstead, the municipal borough of "Sudbury, and the urban district of Glemsford, Hadleigh, and Haverhill.
Surrey The administrative county of Surrey, and the county borough of Croydon. Twelve North (Kinghton-upon-Thames, Richmond, Wimbledon). Three The municipal borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, and the urban districts of Surbiton and The Maidens and Coombe.
The municipal borough of Richmond, and the urban districts of Barnes and Ham.
The municipal borough of Wimble-don, and the urban district of Merton and Morden.
North-East (Croydon, Mitcham). Three The county borough of Croydon, and the urban districts of Beddington and Wellington, Carshalton and Mitcham.
South-East (Eastern, Epsom, Reigate). Three The rural district of Godstone and the, urban districts of Caterham and Coulsdon and Purley.
The rural district of Epsom, and the urban districts of Epsom, Leatherhead and Sutton.
The rural districts of Dorking and Reigate, the municipal borough of Reigate, and the urban district of Dorking.
West (Chertsey, Farnham, Guildford). Three The rural district of Chertsey, and the urban districts of Chertsey, East and West Molesey, Egham, Esher and the Dittons, Walton-upon-Thames, and Weybridge.
The rural district of Farnham, the part of the rural district of Guildford which consists of the civil parish of Pirbright, and the urban districts of Farnham, Frimley, Windlesham, and Woking.
The rural district of Hambledon, the rural district of Guildford (except
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Surrey—contd. West—contd. the civil parish of Pirbright), the municipal boroughs of Guildford and Godalming, and the urban district of Haslemere.
East Sussex The administrative county of East Sussex and the county boroughs of Eastbourne, Hastings and Brighton.) Seven East (East-bourne, Hastings, Rye). Three The rural district of Eastbourne, the part of the rural district of Hailsham which consists of the civil parishes of Arlington, Chalvington, Chiddingly, Hailsham, Hellingly, Laughton, and Ripe, and the county borough of Eastbourne, and the county borough of Hastings, and the rural districts of Battle, Hastings Rye, and Ticchurst, the part of the rural district of Hailsham which is not included in the Eastbourne Division, the municipal boroughs of Bexhill and Rye, and the urban district of Battle.
Mid. (Brighton, East Grinstead, Lewes). Four The county borough of Brighton and the municipal borough of Hove, and the rural districts of Cuckfield, East Grinstead, and Uckfield, and the urban districts of Burgess Hill, Cuckfield, East Grinstead, Hayward's Heath and Uckfield.
The rural districts of Chailey, New-haven, and Steyning East, the municipal borough of Lewes, and the urban districts of Newhaven, Portslade-by-Sea, and Sea ford.
West Sussex The administrative county of West Sussex. Two Chichester One The rural districts of East Preston, Midhurst, Petworth, Westbourne, and Westhampnett, the municipal boroughs of Arundel and Chichester, and the urban districts of Bognor and Littlehampton.
Horsham and Worthing. One The rural districts of Horsham, Steyning West, and Thakeham, the municipal borough of Worthing, and the urban districts of Horsham, Shoreham-by-Sea, and Southwick.
Warwick The administrative county of Warwick and the county borough of Coventry. Five — — —
Westmoreland The administrative county of Westmoreland. One — — —
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Wilts The administrative county of Wilts. Five — — —
Worcester The administrative county of Worcester and the county borough of Worcester. Five — — —
York, East Riding The administrative county of York, East Riding. Three — — —
York, North Riding. The administrative county of York, North Riding (exclusive of the part thereof comprised in the municipal boroughs of Stockton-on-Tecs and Thornaby-on-Tees), and the county borough of Middlesbrough. Six Middlesbrough and Cleveland Three The county borough of Middlesbrough and the rural district of Middlesbrough, the part of the rural district of Gainsborough which is not included in the Scarborough and Whit by Division, and the urban districts of Eston, Gui-borough, Hinder-well, Loftus, Redcar, Saltburn-by-the-Sea, and Skelton and Brotton.
North Riding (Richmond Scarborough and Whitby Thirk and Malton). Three The rural districts of Aysgarth, Bedale, Croft, Leyburn, Northallerton, Reeth, Richmond, Startforth, and Stokesley, the municipal borough of Richmond, and the urban districts of Kirklington-cum-Upsland, Masham, and Morthallerton.
The rural districts of Scarborough and Whitby, the part of the rural district of Guisborough which consists of the civil parishes of Commondale, Danby, and Westerdale, the part of the rural district of Pickering which consists of the civil parishes of Allerston, Ebberston, Kingthorpe, Levisham, Lockton, Marishes, Newton, Thornton Dale, and Wilton, the municipal borough of Scarborough, and the urban districts of Pickering, Scalby, and Whitby.
The rural districts of Easingwold, Flaxton, Helmsley, Kirkby Moorside, Malton. Thirsk, and Wath, the part of the rural district of Pickering which is not included in the Scarborough and Whitby Division, and the urban district of Malton.
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
York, West Riding. The administrative county of York, West Riding, exclusive of the municipal boroughs of Batley,Morley, and Ossett, and the county boroughs of Brnsley, Dewsbury, Halifax, Huddersfield, Rotherham, and Wakefield. Twenty-three. Barkston Ash. One The rural districts of Bishopthorpe, Selby, Tadcaster, and Wetherby, the part of the rural district of Great Ouseburn which consists of the civil parishes of Acomb, Hessay, Knapton, Moor Monkton, Nether Poppleton, Rufforth, and Upper Poppleton, and the urban districts of Garforth and Selby.
Barnsley (Barnsley, Penistone, and Went-worth) Three The county borough of Barnsley, and the urban districts of Ardsley, Darton, and Monk Bretton.
The rural districts of Penistone and Wortley, and the urban districts of Clayton West, Denby and Cumberworth, Gunthwaite and Ingbirch-worth, Holand Swaine, Kirkburton Penistone, Shelley, Shepley, Skelman-thorpe, Stocksbridge, and Thurlstone.
The part of the rural district of Barnsley which consists of the civil parishes of Billingley and Stain-borough, the part of the rural district of Rotherham which consists of the civil parishes of Brampton Bierlow and Wontworth, and the urban districts of Bolton-upon-Dearne, Darfield, Dodworth, Hoyland Nether, Thurnscoe, Wath - upon - Dearne, Wombwell, and Worsborough.
Doncastor and Rotherham (Don Valley, Don-caster, Rother Valley, Rotherham). Four The municipal borough of Doncaster, and the urban districts of Adwick-le-Street and Bentley-with-Arksey.
The rural districts of Doncaster and Thorne, and the urban districts of Mexborough and Tickhill.
The rural district of Kiveton Park, the part of the rural, district of Rotherham which is not included in the Barnsley Division, and the urban districts of Handsworth and Swinton.
The county borough of Rotherham and the urban districts of Greasborough and Rawmarsh.
Halifax. (Elland, Halifax and Sowerby.) Three The rural district of Halifax (except the civil parish of Norland), the municipal borough of Brighouse, and the urban districts of Clayton, Elland, Greetland, Hipperholme, Queensbury, Shelf, Southowram, and Stainland; and
The county borough of Halifax.
The rural district of Todmorden, the part of the rural district of Halifax which consists of the civil parish of Norland, the municipal borough of Todmorden, and the urban districts of Barkisland, Hebden Bridge, Luddenden Foot, Midgley, Mytholmroyd, Rishworth, Sowerby, Sowerby Bridge, and Soyland.
(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.
Country Constituencies—continued.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
York, West Ridinig—contd. Huddersfield, (Colne Valley, Huddersfield and Spell Valley.) Three The urban districts of Farnley Tyas, Golcar, Holme, Holmfirth, Honley, Linthwaite, Marsden, Meltham, New Mill, Saddleworth, Seammonden, Slaithwaite, South Crosland, Springhead, and Thurstonland; and
The country borough of Hudderfield.
The urban districts of Birkenshaw, Birstal, Drighlington, Gildersome, Heckmondwike, Hunsworth, Kirkheaton, Lepton, Mirfield, Spenborough, and Whitley Upper.
Keighley and Shipley, (Keighley, Shipley and Pudsey, and Otley.) Three The rural district of Keighley, the municipal borough of Keighley, and the urban districts of Denholme, Haworth, Oakworth, Oxenhope, and Silsden.
The part of the rural district of Wharfedale which consists of the civil parishes of Esholt, Hawksworth, and Menston, and the urban districts of Baildon, Hingley, Guiseley, Shipley, and Yeadon.
The part of the rural district of Wharfedale which is not comprised in the Shipley Division, the municipal borough of Pudsey, and the urban districts of Burley-in-Wharfedale, Calverley, Earsley, Horsforth, Ilkley, Otley, and Rawdon.
Pontefract. (Hemsworth, Normanton, Pontefract and Rothwell.) Four The rural district of Hemsworth, the part of the rural district of Barnsley which is not included in the Wentworth Division, and the urban districts of Cudworth and Royston.
The urban districts of Altofts, Castleford, Featherstone, Methley, Normanton, and Whitwood.
The rural districts of Goole and Pontefract, the municipal borough of Pontefract, and the urban districts of Goole and Knottingley.
The rural districts of Hunslet and Wikefield, and the urban districts of Ardsley East and West, Emley, Flockton, Horbury, Rothwell, and Stanley.
Ripon One The rural districts of Knaresborough. Pateley Bridge, and Ripon, the part of the rural district of Great Ouseburn which is not included in the Barkston Ash Division, the municipal boroughs of Harrogate and Ripon, and the urban district of Knaresborough.
Skipton One The rural districts of Bowland, Sedbergh, Settle, and Skipton, and the urban districts of Barnoldwick, Earby, and Skipton.
(6) WALES, INCLUDING MONMOUTHSHIRE.
Country Constituencies.
Name of Constituency Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Anglesey and Carnarvon. The administrative counties of Anglesey and Carnarvon inclusive of Bardsey Island. Three — — —
Brecon and Radnor. The administrative counties of Brecon and Radnor. One — — —
Cardigan The administrative county of Cardigan. One — — —
Carmarthen and Pembroke. The administrative counties of Carmarthen and Pembroke. Three — — —
Denbigh and Flint. The administrative counties of Denbigh and Flint. Three — — —
Glamorgan The administrative county of Glamorgan, exclusive of the parts thereof comprised within the constituencies of Cardiff and Merthyr boroughs. Nine East (Caerphilly Ponty-pridd, Llandaff). Three The urban districts of Caerphilly and Gelligaer, the rural districts of Cowbridge and Llantrisant and Llantwitfardre, t he municipal borough of Cowbridge and the urban district of Pontypridd. The rural district of Llandaff and Dinas Powis and the urban district of Barry.
Mid. (Neath, Aberavon, Ogmore). Three The rural districts of Pontardawe and Neath, the municipal boroughs of Neath and Aberavon, the urban districts of Briton Ferry, Glencorwg, Margam and Porthcawl, the rural district of Penybont, and the urban districts of Bridgend, Maestag and Ogmore and Garw.
East or Swansea. (Swansea, Gower.) Three The county borough of Swansea and the rural districts of Gower and Swansea, and the urban district of Oystermouth.
Merioneth The administrative county of Merioneth. One — — —
Monmouth The administrative county of Monmouth. Five — — —
Montgomery The administrative county of Montgomery. One — — —
(7) SCOTLAND.
Country Constituencies.
Name of Constituency. Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Aberdeen and Kincardine. The counties of Aberdeen and Kincardine, inclusive of all burghs situated therein and including the county of the city of Aberdeen. Five — — —
Argyll The county of Argyll, inclusive of all burghs situated therein. One — — —
Ayr and Bute The counties of Ayr and Bute, inclusive of all burghs situated therein. Four — — —
Banff The county of Banff, inclusive of all burghs situated therein. One — — —
Berwick and Roxburgh. The counties of Berwick and Roxburgh, inclusive of all burghs situated therein. One — — —
Caithness and Sutherland. The counties of Caithness and Sutherland, inclusive of all burghs situated therein. One — — —
Dumbarton The county of Dumbarton, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, except the burghs of Dumbarton and Clyde-bank. One — — —
(7) SCOTLAND.—continued.
Country Constituencies.—continued.
Name of Constituency. Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Dumfries The county of Dumfries, inclusive of all burghs situated therein. One — — —
Fife The county of Fife, inclusive of all burghs situated therein. Four — — —
Forfar The county of Forfar, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, and inclusive of the county of the city of Dundee. Four — — —
Galloway The counties of Kirkcudbright and Wigtown, inclusive of all burghs situated therein. One — — —
Inverness and Ross and Cromarty. The counties of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty, inclusive of all burghs situated therein. Three Inverness One The county of Inverness, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, except in so far as contained within the Western Isles Division.
Ross and Cromarty One The county of Ross and Cromarty, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, except in so far as contained within the Western Isles Division.
Western Isles. One So much of the county of Ross and Cromarty as is contained within the Lews County District, inclusive of the burgh of Stornoway, together with so much of the county of Inverness as is contained within the Harris County District, the North Uist County District and the South Uist County District.
Lanark The county of Lanark, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, except the county of the city of Glasgow and Seven North (Northern Bothwell, Coatbridge, ; Motherwell). Four The parts of the Lower Ward and Middle Ward County Districts which are contained within the parishes of Glasgow, Cadder, New Monkland, Shotts and Cambusnethan, exclusive of any burghs or portions of burghs or portions of burghs situated therein.
The part of the Middle Ward County District which is contained within the parishes of Old Monkland
(7) SCOTLAND.—continued.
Country Constituencies.—continued.
Name of Constituency. Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Lanark—could. North—contd.
so much of the burgh of Renfrew as is contained within the parish of Govan. and Bothwell, exclusive of all burghs situated therein.
The burghs of Coatbridge and Airdrie.
The burghs of Motherwell and Wishaw, together with the part of the Middle Ward County District which is contained within the extra-burghal portion of the parish of Dalziel.
South (Ruther glen, Hamilton, Lanark). Three The burgh of Rutherglen and the parts of the Lower Ward and Middle Ward County Districts which are contained within the parishes of Carmunnock, Cambuslang and Blantyre and the extra-burghal portion of the parish of Rutherglen.
The burgh of Hamilton and the part of the Middle Ward County District which is contained within the extra-burghal portion of the parish of Hamilton and the parish of Dalserf.
The Upper Ward County District, inclusive, of all burghs situated therein, together With the part of the Middle Ward County District which is contained within the parishes of Avondale, East Kilbride, Glassford and Stonehouse.
Lothians The counties of Linlithgow, Midlothian and Haddington, inclusive of all burghs situated therein except the county of the city of Edinburgh and the burghs of Leith and Musselburgh. Three — — —
Moray and Nairn. The counties of Elgin and Nairn, inclusive of all burghs situated therein. One — — —
Orkney and ; Zetland. The counties ; of Orkney and Zetland, inclusive of all burghs situated therein. One — — —
(7) SCOTLAND.—continued.
Country Constituencies.—continued.
Name of Constituency. Contents of Constituency Total Number of Member for Constituency. Names of Divisions of Constituency. Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency. Contents or Boundaries of Division.
Peebles and Selkirk. The counties Peebles and Selkirk, inclusive of all burghs situated therein. One — — —
Perth and Kinross. The counties of Perth and Kinross, inclusive of all burghs situated therein. Two Perth One So much of the county of Perth as is contained within the Eastern or Blairgowrie and Perth County Districts, inclusive of the city of Perth and all burghs situated within the said county districts.
Kinross and Western. One The county of Kinross, inclusive of the burgh of Kinross, together with so much of the county of Perth as is contained within the Central, Highland and Western County Districts, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.
Renfrew The county of Renfrew, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, together with so much of the burgh of Renfrew as is contained within the parish of Govan, in the county of Lanark. Four — — —
Stirling and Clackmannan. The counties of Stirling and Clackmannan, inclusive of all burghs situated therein. Three — — —
(8) UNIVERSITIES.
Description of University Constituency. Number of Members.
England and Wales:—
The University of Oxford 2
The University of Cambridge 2
The University of London 1
The University of Wales 1
The University of Durham, the Victoria University of Manchester, the University of Liverpool, the University of Leeds, the University of Sheffield, the University of Birmingham, and the University of Bristol 2
Scotland:—
The University of St. Andrews, the University of Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen, and the University of Edinburgh 3

LORD PARMOOR said: A new Schedule has to be introduced owing to the adoption of the principle of proportional representation. In the Schedule as printed, though I do not wish to make any amendment as regards any matter of principle, there are certain Amendments in matters of detail, and I have handed in a schedule of verbal Amendments at the Table. They deal with certain local divisions which, do not affect the general principle at all. It is only a matter of verbal accuracy. I should like to point out one or two matters upon these schedules in order that they may be clear. We have heard a good deal about the London constituencies, and if the noble Marquess who is specially interested in London will look at the schedule as regards Parliamentary constituencies in London, he will find that there is no interference whatever with the local and administrative areas. In some cases there is a grouping of boroughs, but in no case is there a division of boroughs in the sense of taking a boundary across existing boroughs, as it was suggested that we contemplated at one time. Of course, we never contemplated anything of the kind. As regards eight boroughs, it is merely a question of re-grouping—Battersea, Camberwell, the City of London, Islington, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth, and Westminster. That would include 28 Members in the metropolitan area. As regards the other boroughs in the metropolitan area, it is a mere grouping of two boroughs into one, in order to get the numbers requisite for proportional representation; apart, from that, no change is made at all. So that, if it is desired to maintain what has been called the borough spirit in the London area ample provision has been made in this Schedule, because it is based upon the principle of the borough areas themselves.

Then as regards the city and town constituencies, there are only five of the larger towns in which anything would be required except re-grouping—Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and Sheffield. It is nothing but re-grouping, and therefore outside those five large boroughs there would not have been any necessity for the Redistribution Commissioners to be consulted. Of course, directly you get beyond re-grouping, it is necessary that they should be consulted—a principle to which we have expressed our adherence more than once. In the same way with regard to the country constituencies in England. Look at the Schedule and take the first four examples. Nothing except re-grouping is required; but then; are counties where redistribution would be required. The principle is to maintain the administrative local areas so as to give the greatest possible weight to what is called local patriotism and local life.

I will pass by the English constituencies, and turn to Wales. With the exception of the case of Glamorganshire, there is nothing to be done except re-grouping. In Scotland there is only one county where any distribution would arise apart from mere re-grouping namely, Lanarkshire. With regard to the Scottish boroughs, Glasgow is the only case which would require anything except re-grouping. We propose that Glasgow, having fifteen Members, should be re-divided into three constituencies, with five Members each.

Those who have prepared this Schedule fully realise that it will have to be criticised and re-considered. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has put down an Amendment with reference to the Kent part of the Schedule, based on his great local knowledge. I heartily accept those Amendments. We have endeavoured to get the best local opinion to assist us. In the two most difficult cases—Lancashire, and the West Riding of Yorkshire—we were assisted by the Manchester Guardian in the ease of Lancashire, and by the Yorkshire Post with regard to the West Riding. But doing all we could, we could not ascertain—in the way in which it will have to he ascertained—what is the local opinion on these points. I beg to move that the Ninth Schedule be omitted, and that the new Schedule be here inserted.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I have no intention of detaining your Lordships for any length of time, but I think I ought to say a word—as my noble and learned friend has alluded to London—about the question of London representation. As your Lordships are aware, the system of proportional representation has not, so far, commended itself to the London Members as a body. And even after making every discount on account of the fact, which, of course, would apply everywhere—that a sitting Member cannot be expected as a rule to view with satisfaction a great alteration in the size of his constituency—even making every allowance for that, the opposition of London is a fact with which my noble and learned friend and those who act with him will have to reckon. Lord Parmoor stated in his speech that, practically speaking, the boundaries of the London boroughs are not interfered with. It is, of course, clear that the recommendations of the Conference have not been entirely adopted, in that there are a certain number of boroughs left to which proportional representation does not apply. Westminster, Holborn, Finsbury, and Battersea, are left out for reasons into which it is not necessary to go. I should like my noble and learned friend to consider whether the principle (of which he countenanced the adoption this evening) of admitting in some in- stances, and where desired, or required, the possibility of a seven-Member constituency, might, in some London cases, be applicable.

LORD PARMOOR

Hear, hear.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I do not express any opinion upon that; but no doubt the noble and learned Lord would consider whether that would enable him to work out a somewhat more consistent scheme. The only other point I wish to mention with regard to the London Schedule is that it is not quite clear why the present divided constituencies, such as, for instance, Westminster, Finsbury, and Holborn, should be combined and turned into two-Member constituencies.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

They are not.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Apparently they are.

LORD PARMOOR

Finsbury and Holborn are.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I understood that Finsbury and Holborn were going to return two Members, and that Westminster will also return two Members; and it is not quite clear to us why the single-Member system should be altogether abandoned in the metropolis of London. There are one or two other points. The case of Deptford and Lewisham, as he will have noticed, is a curious one, because the noble and learned Lord has given it only two Members, whereas it has a population of close upon 69,000 above the limit required for three.

LORD PARMOOR

It has three.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

It will undoubtedly put in a claim for four. I do not wish to pursue those points, but merely to call the attention of the noble and learned Lord to some of the anomalies which appear to affect London.

LORD PARMOOR

By permisson of the House, may I say that I cordially welcome any criticism such as the noble Marquess has applied to the Schedule; and I hope that any suggestions which come from London will be given the fullest weight before the Schedule is finally settled.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I should like to supplement what my noble and learned friend has said. We had calculated—we now know erroneously—upon having the assistance of the Boundary Commissioners in forming our Schedule. At the last moment we found that we were thrown entirely upon our own resources. There were two respects in which local knowledge, and such special knowledge as the Boundary Commissioners alone possess, are essential for making a satisfactory Schedule. The first is in connection with the grouping of the constituencies in the very big cities like Liverpool and Glasgow. The second is in the combination of a very small borough returning less than three Members with a contiguous county division.

As I said in my speech at another stage of the proceedings, from the moment that you proceed to apply proportional representation to the county divisions, the question of uniting some of the small boroughs in the county divisions in the industrial districts becomes insistent. The question is to make a proper discrimination where that principle is to be applied and where it is not to be applied. In my judgment, and in the judgment of those who act with me, in many cases—for reasons of history and tradition—boroughs ought to be kept distinct (although returning less than three Members) from the county divisions contiguous to them. But we found that discrimination which might be accepted from the Boundary Commissioners as beyond question, might on the other hand, if put forward by a private Committee of Peers or Members of Parliament, be subject to suspicion of partizanship. We found that discrimination was not a thing which could be done except by an official body acting beyond all suspicion of party bias. That is the reason why we applied the principle of a wholesale scale, except in very few cases where it seemed to us obvious it could not be applied, and I do not want the public or the House of Commons to think that we out forward our Schedule as one which could be accepted without revision by the Boundary Commissioners. We have put forward a Schedule upon which they can operate, and we do not contend that it is fit for acceptance until it has been revised the Boundary Commissioners.

LORD PARMOOR

As I stated, the Schedule has been amended as it stands on the Paper in certain verbal particulars, and as amended I have handed it in to the Clerk at the table.

LORD HARRIS had on the Paper the following Amendments to Lord Parmoor's proposed new Schedule.

Page 42, line 18, column 5, leave out ("four" ) and insert ("three").

Page 42, line 18, column 6, leave out lines" 18 to 25.

Page 42, line 19, column 4, leave out ("Canterbury")

Page 42, line 41, column 5, leave out ("four") and insert ("three")

Page 42, line 41, column 6, leave out lines 41 to 50.

Page 42, line 42, column 4, leave out ("Faversham")

Page 43, line 10, column 5, leave out ("four") and insert ("three")

Page lines 13 and 14, column 4, leave out ("and Sevenoaks")

Page 43 line 23, column 6, leave out lines 23, 24 and 25.

Page 43 line 26, line 26, column 0, leave out lines 26 to 31.

Page 43, line 27, column 4, leave out ("Ash-ford").

Page 43, line 29, column 4, alter ("Tonbridge") insert ("and Sevenoaks")

Page 43, line 38, column 6, at end insert ("The rural districts of Malling and Sevenoaks and the urban districts of Sevenoaks and the urban districts of Sevenoaks and Wrotham").

Page 43, after line 38, column 4, insert ("Mid Ashford, Canterbury, and Faversham")

Page 43, after line 38, column 5, insert ("three")

Page 43, after line 38, column 6, insert: ("The rural districts of Cranbrook, East Ashford, Romney Marsh, Tenterden, and West Ashford, the municipal boroughs of Lydd, New Romney, and Tenterden, and the urban district of Ashford. The rural districts Bridge and Elham, the rural district of Blean (with the detached parts of the civil parishes of Dunkirk and Hernhill which are wholly surrounded by that rural district), the county borough of Canterbury, and the urban districts of Berne Bay and Whitstable. The rural districts of Milton and Sheppey, the rural district of Faversham (except the detached parts of the civil parishes of Dunkirk and Hornbill which are wholly surrounded by the rural district, of Blean,) the municipal boroughs of Faversham, and Queenborough, and the urban districts of Milton Regis, Sheerness, and Sitting bourne.")

LORD HARRIS

Before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack puts the Motion, I have only to say this about my Amendments, that the effect of them is to change the grouping from three groups of four Members and one group of three, to five groups of three, and in doing so those who have drawn up this re-grouping seem to me to have given careful consideration to the peculiarities of each group, that is to say as regards similarity of employment and interests. The noble Lord was good enough to refer to my experience of the county, but in this matter I defer to my noble friend Viscount Chilston, whose experience of the county in this matter is really unrivalled, and I understand he is quite prepared to support the proposal. I know that it has been approved by other persons of experience in the county, and I have therefore no hesitation in moving it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Question is that the new Schedule, as amended by Lord Parmoor and with Lord Harris's Amendments, be inserted instead of the present Ninth Schedule.

On Question, new Schedule agreed to.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Peel.)

[The sitting was suspended at half-past eight o'clock and resumed at twenty-five minutes before ten.]

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

It is the usual practice of this House, though there is no Standing Order upon it, that Amendments cannot be made on Third Reading without notice of them having been given. I suppose that course will not be applied this evening, as it has been impossible to give notice of any Amendments in the usual way. Perhaps it would be as well that I should know what is the view of the House on that subject before I venture to move one or say anything about it.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The Bill should be read a third time first.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

I do not know whether the remarks of the noble Lord—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The usual course is that before we begin to discuss Amendments or points of order arising out of them, the Bill should be read a third time.

On Question, Bill read 3a.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

I was saying, when the noble Marquess quite correctly interrupted me, that I was not quite sure whether the remarks of the noble Lord were in the nature—

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Might I ask what clause the noble Lord is on, because I have an Amendment on one of the earlier clauses.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

I do not think the noble Lord was on any particular Amendment, but was on a point of order, and was asking the view of the House on the point. The point he raised was this. In the particular circumstances of the case it is impossible to observe the ordinary usage of never moving Amendments on the Third Reading stage in this House without notice; and he was asking, such notice in the circumstances of the present case not being able to be given, was he thereby precluded from moving Amendments. I am sure I am speaking in accord with the general sense of the House when I say, Certainly not. The opportunity can, of course, be conceded only by general consent in all parts of the House, and in so far as I can speak for this side of the House—and I believe I can speak for all your Lordships—we shall not interfere with the liberty which in ordinary circumstances he would possess.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I certainly shall not differ from my noble friend, but I think it is right to know that it is a most inconvenient practice to move Amendments without notice on the Third Reading, not because of any theoretical attachment to the bare bones of technical order, but because there is no means of setting right any mistake which takes place in the process; and without having the Amendments actually printed on the Paper before your Lordships, it is always possible that mistakes may creep in. This only bears out what some of us ventured to say earlier in the evening. In the circumstances no other course is open, but I am not sorry this point of order should have been raised, because it gives me the opportunity of pointing out the possibly serious consequences of the decision which the noble Earl induced your Lordships to take earlier in the evening.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I may point out as mitigation, although I agree in substance with what my noble friend has just said, that there is a marked difference between a Bill which comes up from another place to be amended, and therefore has to be returned to the other place as amended, and an agreed Bill which comes up from another place and on which an Amendment is moved on Third Reading and may pass almost without notice. In a case of this kind, I do not think that in fact the departure from the rule can be regarded as important.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I want to ask a question on Clauses 26, 27, and 28. I will not do it now if any other noble Lord has an Amendment earlier.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

I should like to move an Amendment which I honestly believe to be consequential to Clause 19. Your Lordships may remember that I succeeded in persuading—

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

Mine is to insert a new clause after Clause 39.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

Your Lordships may remember that I succeeded in persuading you to amend a particular set of instructions to the Boundary Commissioners in one of the Schedules. We changed the figure from six to seven, and if you refer to Clause 19 you will see that no proportional voting is possible in a constituency which returns more than five members, as it stands. I submit that we want to get rid of these words "no more than five."

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am afraid that I cannot quite agree with my noble friend. The words "not less than three and not more than five" are taken from the Speaker's Conference, and I should be sorry to see them altered. The words to which the noble Lord alluded are contained in a sub-paragraph which allows the Boundary Commissioners, under very exceptional circumstances, to go beyond the general rule of the Bill, and I am not prepared to assent to the alteration of these words.

LORD PARMOOR

I hope that the words will not be altered. They were very carefully considered when they were inserted, and are undoubtedly based upon the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I should like to ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill whether he can give me any assurance with regard to the matter that I wrote to hint about a few days ago, upon the subject of the difficulties which the Sheriffs in Scotland will have in acting as superior officers under the Bill. I wrote a full explanation to the noble Viscount which I do not want to repeat. These gentlemen hold high and distinguished offices; many of them are well known to me personally, and they have asked that these representations might be made, and that Parliamentary assurances might be given that the difficult position in which they are being placed would be carefully considered.

VISCOUNT PEEL

In reply to the letter which the noble Lord sent to me on this point, with respect to the various difficulties in which the sheriffs might be regarding the printing of ballot papers and other matters, I am able t o give him this assurance, that very shortly there will be a Conference of the various Departments concerned at which the sheriffs will be represented, and at which all these matters will be thoroughly gone into. The Government hope that they will be duly arranged. I am, therefore, able to give the noble Lord the definite assurance that the views of the sheriffs upon all these matters raised in his letter will have a real and sympathetic consideration.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

I propose to raise almost immediately a question of order upon my Amendment. But, in the first place, I feel that I ought to apologise to the House for not having been here last night when the Amendment that I refer to now was on the Paper for Report. As another preliminary remark, I think that perhaps I ought to offer some justification for putting down an Amendment of this kind. I think that the justification is this, that the subject does not come to the House for the first time. It was mentioned in speeches at early stages in Committee both by the noble Earl Lord Selborne, and by myself. Then it was put upon the Table for the Report stage and was for several days before your Lordships' House, and now it comes on again. Therefore I suggest that it is not going too far to move this Amendment on Third Reading. Then comes the question about order, because it seems to me that it is not of much use for me to proceed with the merits of this clause if your Lordships consider that it is out of order.

My Amendment is to insert as a new clause after Clause 39:—" Where a person has been returned as a Member to serve in Parliament, the subsequent acceptance by him from the Crown of any office of profit shall not vacate his seat." Perhaps the House would allow me to state what is my own view upon the point of order. I think that I am right in saving that, as a matter of practice in this House, it has never allowed itself to be ruled by any technicality in regard to the relation of the contents of the Bill to the Title; that is to say, that if any one objects that a proposed clause does not come within the Title of the Bill and the House desires to proceed with the clause an Amendment is made in the Title after the clauses of the Bill have been completed. In this case the question, therefore, really is whether your Lordships desire that the debate on this Amendment shall proceed or shall not. If I may mention my own personal feelings on the subject I must say that I have always regarded the tendency, which I believe is quite modern, to add to the Title of a Bill words such as those which occur in this Bill "and for other purposes connected therewith." and then to act, as I dare to say that the House does act, without principle in the construction of these words.

I certainly understood, when I spoke on this matter in Committee, that the feeling of the House was in favour of proceeding with some such Amendment as this. The question is whether it can be described as for any purpose connected with the specified objects of the Bill. It started on this occasion with the idea of removing an objection to the introduction of proportional representation, and I think it is open to any one to say that it is within the purposes of the Bill if you bring in an Amendment which would remove an objection to that which has now become, on the face of the Bill, a scheme with reference to the representation of the people. I do not myself favour such a construction, but I think it would be easy to find many precedents in this House for at least as wide an interpretation of these words as I have attempted to go upon. If your Lordships should shrink from that view but do not intend to accept any check upon this occasion, it would be in accordance with practice at the proper time to add words to the title of the Bill which will bring this within the practice of this House with regard to order. Before I proceed with the merits of the Amendment I should like to know whether anybody will take objection on the point of order.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Lords, the noble Lord asks me whether I wish to offer any observations on the question of the point of order. He says that he considers that there is some relevance to the Bill in his Amendment, because it was mentioned on Committee stage in connection with the question of proportional representation. No doubt one of the difficulties of proportional representation—as was stated in the course of our discussions—was that it was very difficult to arrange for by-elections; and it was pointed out that a certain number of by-elections would be rendered unnecessary if those who took places of profit under the Crown were freed from the obligation of again going to consult their constituents. I am bound to say that this is a very far-fetched reason (if I may use the expression) for extending the scope of the Bill, because it may effect some detail in one of the proposals of the Bill in this way; and I should certainly have submitted to my noble friend that the Title of the Bill, as it stands at present, certainly does not cover the proposal which he wishes to make. The title of the Bill is" to amend the law with regard to Parliamentary and local Government franchises; the registration of Parliamentary and Local Government electors; the conduct of elections; and to provide for the redistribuiton of seats at Parliamentary elections; and for other purposes connected therewith." I confess that I entirely fail to see how the proposal of the noble Lord comes within any one of those particular propositions. His proposal is to alter the Title of the Bill. I suppose it is not necessary to point out that the Bill has been through the other House, and has now reached the Third Reading stage in this House; and I should have thought that it was an extraordinarily inconvenient thing (to say the least) at so late a stage to alter the Title of the Bill in order to bring in an Amendment. I suggest that the question of the vacation of seats in the circumstances dealt with by the noble Lord is a matter which could be dealt with by the particular Act itself; and to bring it in here is wholly out of order and irrelevant to the Bill. Those are the considerations which I respectfully submit to your Lordships' House.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I rise to express my own individual opinion as a member of your Lordships' House. My impression is that the Amendment is certainly not within the Title of the Bill, and that it would probably be inexpedient to amend the Title so as to let in this Amendment. The Bill relates to the provision of electoral machinery; who are to be the electors; how elections are to be conducted, and so on. The Amendment of my noble friend raises a totally different set of considerations. The Rule which this Amendment proposes to repeal was originally introduced for the purpose of preserving the independence of Members of Parliament. I think it may be considered that the reason for the introduction of the Rule may have become obsolete. But nevertheless there are a great many other instances where although the reason for its introduction may have ceased to apply, the rule has a sort of definite use, and the rule itself affords a valuable test for ascertaining how far a Government which is in power is losing the confidence of the country; and I put it to your Lordships that, that rule existing, the question whether it should be maintained is really a matter of general policy, rather than one which is at all relevant to the purpose of this Bill which deals with electoral machinery. I submit that we should get into a different region altogether if we proceeded to the more exalted sphere to which the noble and learned Lord invites the House to ascend, and that it would be better if we confined ourselves to the terrestrial region in which we have so far moved.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I cannot advise the House to depart from the advice just presented by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, although I quite appreciate the wish of my noble and learned friend to bring this question before your Lordships' House. We have not kept, perhaps, very closely already to the Title of the Bill. It was on Clause 10 that I drew attention to what appeared to me to be a departure, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack then said that he regarded it as being very near the line, but he gave reasons why it might be regarded as just within it, and I said no more. What I confess biases me at this moment, is the admission of my noble and learned friend, that it might be a desirable thing, for the benefit of another place, to alter the Title of the Bill. I think that would be a highly objectionable course for us to take at this stage. To send this Bill back to another place with some addition to the Title of a general character, would. I think, arouse suspicion in that Assembly. On the whole, therefore, I should advise my noble and learned friend not to press his point, although the matter is one which I think we all agree at a proper time is well worthy of consideration.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not think we must exclude altogether, necessarily, on a point of order, the noble Lord's proposal to alter the Title of the Bill. There is no question that if it be required to alter the Title it would be very easy to bring the Amendment within the scope of the Bill with the Title as altered, and therefore we are brought back to the question whether it would be required to alter the Title of the Bill. Nothing was said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack which was strictly contrary to that view. He said he thought it would be highly inexpedient, and I am inclined to share that view, but that is not the same thing as being out of order. It is a different point. There may be many things which are inexpedient but which are strictly within order. It may be inexpedient at a late stage of the Bill to press an Amendment which involves changing the Title of the Bill, but I do not think we should rule it oat of order to change the Title unless the Lord Chancellor has other grounds for thinking it would lie out of order to change the Title of the Bill on the Third Reading.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I quite agree.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am anxious to say this, because what passes in your Lordships' House upon a point of order becomes part of the settled law of the House and therefore it should not be taken as a precedent that what is inexpedient is out of order. Then, to turn to the Amendment the question is whether it is out of order without changing the Title of the Bill; and I am inclined to think it is out of order It certainly is not so clear a case as some of your Lordships think it to be, because Clause 10, to which the noble Marquess has called attention, is not a clause introduced in your Lordships' House. It was in the Bill as it originally reached us, and that clause certainly goes a good deal outside the strict reading of the Title of the Bill. Until you come to the last few words, namely "or other purposes connected therewith," Clause 10 will be out of order, but it is quite clear that in another place they held that Clause 10 was in order by right of those words, "or other purposes connected therewith." If the determination of who may be a candidate comes within the scope of the Bill, it is only one step further to deal with such a subject as the noble Lord has suggested. Still it is a step further, and I am inclined to think it would be out of order. Therefore, if a humble member of your Lordships' House is entitled to have an opinion, I think it would be out of order without changing the Title. I hardly think the noble Lord would be well advised to ask us to change the Title at so late a stage of the Bill.

VISCOUNT PEEL

May I take advantage of the agreement of your Lordships that no notice should be given of Amendments to move one which I think comes before Lord Balfour's Amendment on Clause 42. It is to insert in Clause 42, on page 31, after line 43, as a new paragraph the words "(3) the expression 'land or premises' means any land or premises other than a dwelling-house of the yearly value of not less than five pounds or any dwelling-house." The object is to adapt the provision as regards Scotland to one of the Amendments introduced in your Lordships' House.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I have one earlier than that. I am sorry I did not know where the change would come in. My noble friend will see the extreme necessity of this at once if he will refer to page 31, lines 4 and 5. There is there a definition of a Parliamentary county or a Parliamentary borough. I desire to move to leave out "Parliamentary county or in the same Parliamentary borough" for the purpose of inserting "county or in the same county of a city." This is absolutely necessary in consequence of the alteration of the Schedule and the Amendment agreed to earlier in the day. There is a second one after line 18 which is also before that of the noble Viscount, and it is consequential on the one I have just suggested. It is to insert the definition of a county—"a county means a county inclusive of all boroughs therein except a county of a city."

Amendments moved. Clause 42, page 31, lines 4 and 5, to leave out ("Parliamentary county or in the same Parliamentary borough") in order to insert ("county or in the same county of a city"). Page 31, after line 18, to insert the words ("A county means a county inclusive of all boroughs therein except a county of a city").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

VISCOUNT PEEL assented.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I now beg to move the Amendment which I indicated a few moments ago.

Amendment moved— Clause 42, page 31, after line 43, insert as a new paragraph ("the expression land or premises' means any land or premises other than a dwelling-house of the yearly value of not less than £5 or any dwelling-house ").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The second is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment moved— Clause 42, page 32, line 14, at the end insert ("and provided further that in the case of land or premises other than a dwelling-house the aggregate yearly value thereof must be not less than the amount produced by multiplying £5 by the number of joint occupiers").—(Viscount Peel.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

This is merely consequential on what was done on the English clause.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

May I call the attention of the House to the proviso on page 33, lines 4 to 9. The House will recollect that in Committee I moved to omit this proviso, and some discussion took place in regard to it. The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, made an offer of certain words, and I asked time in order to communicate with Scotland in regard to them. I could only write on Friday and get the answer on Monday, and I gave notice on Monday to pursue, on the Third Reading, not being in time for Report stage, my opposition to the proviso and to move to omit it. I know quite well the noble Viscount will not agree to accept it, and it has been suggested to me that, possibly, the Treasury—I know the Scottish Office will agree—that the Treasury will agree to some words being inserted as follows: "But such consent shall not be necessary in the case of the re-appointment, as assessors for any borough or county, of any officer of the Inland Revenue who is, at the passing of this Act, assessor for such borough or county." Those words save the existing interests so far as we can, but they do not, in the least, satisfy those for whom I am speaking. I understand it is the best I can get, and I have reason to believe that, so far as the Scottish Office is concerned, they approve of the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 9, after ("Treasury") insert "but such consent shall not be necessary in the case of the re-appointment as assessor for any borough or county of any officer of the Inland Revenue who is, at the passing of this Act, assessor for such borough or county").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

This matter has been fully considered by the Inland Revenue, and I regret to say that their view is that they must abide by the provision as it is now drawn. They maintain that they "mist keep full control over these officers. Their interests are connected with the revenue, and the heavy duties that may be placed upon them by the registration work might. interfere with their duties as revenue officers. The Inland Revenue, therefore, wish to keep complete control over them. I am able to give this assurance to the noble Lord, that if the Inland Revenue does terminate their appointment as assessors, they will give them fresh work and have full regard to the loss of emoluments they might suffer by being disconnected with this work. I hope the noble Lord will be content with that assurance, because I am afraid in the circumstances that is all I am able to give him.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

That does not touch the point at all. It does not save the privileges of the boroughs. I do want to make a very earnest protest. This proviso was put in by the Treasury in one of the last stages of the Bill in the House of Commons. It is—I will not say what I think about it—upsetting a compromise which has been in existence for forty years, and for which I fought hard all the time I was at the Scottish Office. I think it is a very mean thing.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This again illustrates the extraordinary inconvenience of the Government not allowing Us to have a proper Third Reading. Here is a gross injustice alleged by my noble friend, and at any rate he had a right to submit it to the judgment of the House. But for the action of the Government earlier in the evening he would have had full opportunity to give notice, and the Amendment would have been on the Paper when we came to consider it. At the present moment not one of us can follow the point and know whether it is right or wrong. This is proof, if any proof were needed, that it is better, if I may say so respectfully, to adhere to the proper Standing Orders of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I beg to move that this Bill do pass.

Moved, That this Bill do now pass.— (Viscount Peel.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

On this Question, I am unwilling to allow the Bill to reach its quite final stage without expressing the gratitude of those of us who sit on this side of the House for the manner in which it has been conducted by the noble Viscount who has been in charge of it. All through our proceedings he has shown the most masterly knowledge of a complicated and a difficult Bill. As those who are experienced in this House very well know, no amount of skill or tact can enable a man to conduct a Bill satisfactorily through the House unless he knows it in all its clauses and in all its features. That knowledge the noble Viscount has shown I that he possesses. But in addition to that he has shown all those qualities of good temper and forbearance which commend the conductor of a Bill to your Lordships' House. I was most unwilling to let this occasion pass without expressing my own opinion, and I am sure it is the opinion of all your. Lordships, of the admirable manner in which the noble Viscount has performed his task.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

My Lords, I do not know that it is a usual thing for a Minister to join in praise of one of his own colleagues, but I cannot allow the generous tribute that has been paid to my noble friend, Lord Peel, by the Leader of the Opposition to pass without saying, on behalf of those with whom I act, and on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House, as their cheers just now showed, how cordially I endorse the language he used.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My noble friend has not given us a chance of saying how much we agree with it.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

The whole House is really agreed. As the noble Marquess intimated, it is a great stage in the Parliamentary career of any man when he is put in charge—and complete and full charge, as my noble friend has been—of a first-rate Parliamentary measure, and the manner in which he has fulfilled that duty is, I think, an augury of a Parliamentary career of singular distinction. The noble Marquess has referred to the knowledge of the Bill shown by my noble friend, and to his good temper and unfailing resource. There is a further difficulty that he has had to encounter, and has successfully overcome, to which the modesty of the noble Marquess did not allow him to allude. And it is this. My noble friend Lord Peel has been confronted throughout by an array of talent on the Front Bench opposite which we all of us admire, but from which we sometimes suffer. The noble Viscount has successfully met that artillery, directed at him from so many powerful weapons at all stages of the Bill, and, whatever may be your opinion about the form in which the Bill leaves your Lordships' House, there is no one who will dissent from the view taken by the noble Marquess that it has added greatly to the public reputation of my noble friend, Lord Peel.

Several NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.