Sitting of 20 February 1893

QUESTIONS.

  VOLUNTEERS AS JURYMEN.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the favourable view taken by the late Administration with respect to the proposal to exempt some ranks of efficient Volunteers from liability to jury duty, Her Majesty's Government see their way to the introduction through the Lord Chancellor of some legislative proposal on the subject?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): No, Sir; I do not think there is any likelihood of such a Bill being introduced.

  BOSSCARBERY PIER.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any complaints have reached hint as to the pier at Rosscarbery not affording sufficient shelter for vessels in bad weather; and whether the Government will consider the necessity for so extending the pier as to afford safe anchorage?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer this question. I have not seen, nor have the Board of Works received, any complaint as to the pier in question not affording sufficient shelter in bad weather. I am not, therefore, aware of any necessity for extending the pier, nor are there any funds available for the purpose.
  MR. W. REDMOND: If representations are made in favour of extending the pier, will the Treasury consider the matter?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes, Sir; but I must repeat that there are no funds available for such a purpose.

  FAIR RENTS IN COUNTY KILDARE.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that originating notices, for the fixing of fair rents, served by tenants in the Celbridge Union, County Kildare, from two to three years ago, have not yet been heard by the Land Commission; and, if so, whether he will direct the Irish Land Commissioners to send down a Sub-Commission to hear them without delay?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The Land Commissioners report that at the present date four applications to fix fair rents, or holdings, in the Celbridge Union remain to be disposed of, and they appear in a list of cases for hearing on the 8th of next month.

  DUBLIN POST OFFICE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is in contemplation to make any changes in the staff of the Dublin Post Office; and is the position of the Secretary ship at present vacant, or likely to become so soon; if so, will the Post Office authorities in making the new appointment recognise the claims and services of Irishmen who are eligible for promotion?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): I have been asked to reply to this question. No changes in the staff of the Dublin Post Office are in contemplation. As regards the second part of the question, I informed the hon. Member for the North Division of Dublin County, in answer to a question, that, so far as I am aware, there is no foundation for the rumour that the Secretary to the Post Office in Ireland is about to vacate his office.

  BRITISH GUIANA.
  CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the stipend of £2,000 a year, payable out of the Consolidated Fund to the Bishop of Guiana, has lapsed by the death of the late Bishop; whether the Diocesan Synod of British Guiana has
  1852
  applied to the Governor and Court of Policy for a grant of £500 a year out of the Colonial Revenues towards the salary of a new Bishop; and whether, in the event of an Ordinance for that purpose being passed, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, adhering to the policy adopted in recent years in regard to the cessation of grants for religious purposes in Crown Colonies, will advise Her Majesty to refuse to sanction any such Ordinance?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The stipend of £2,000 a year payable out of the Consolidated Fund to the Bishop of British Guiana has lapsed by the death of the late Bishop. The Diocesan Synod has requested the Governor to submit to the Combined Court a Vote from the Colonial Revenues towards the salary of the new Bishop. But the Secretary of State has informed the Governor that he considers that the Church of England in British Guiana already receives a full proportion of assistance from public funds, and that he is not prepared to approve of any further Vote being proposed.

  HARBOUR EXTENSION IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. DUFF: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been directed to the last Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, recommending "a plan of harbour extension to be carried Out systematically over a series of years"; and whether, in consequence of this, and of the Report of the Select Committee on Harbour Accommodation, 1883–4, recommending additional National expenditure on harbours, it is the intention of the Government to ask Parliament to provide means for carrying out these objects?
  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I am aware that the Fishery Board, with whose Reports my right hon. Friend is so familiar, have made recommendation in the words which he has quoted in the question. The Fishery Board use thriftly and well the funds they have for harbours, and I should be glad if those funds could be somewhat increased. The systematic provision of harbour extension would be a policy which the Government, and especially the

  1853
  Treasury, would have very seriously to consider before it was undertaken.
  MR. DUFF: Arising out of the answer, may I ask if it is the intention of the Government to continue the policy of spending money for fishery purposes exclusively on the West Coast of Scotland?
  *Sir G. TREVELYAN: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to put down that question.

  THE LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS.
  MR. MOLLOY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the necessity for simplifying the Labourers (Ireland) Acts by further legislation, so as to reduce the heavy law costs and shorten and simplify the procedure now necessary in obtaining a title to lands required for the erection of labourers' cottages?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: I have already answered two questions bearing on the delay in the procedure ender the Labourers Acts, and pointed out that this delay is more often due to Boards of Guardians rather than to the Local Government Board. If however, some hon. Gentleman from Ireland has proposals to make for the simplification of this procedure, I will carefully and promptly consider them.

  QUALIFICATIONS FOR POOR LAW GUARDIANS.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many and what percentage of the English Boards of Guardians forwarded him resolutions in favour of having a low uniform rateable qualification for candidates for guardianship before he fixed the amount of £5 annual value?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): The Local Government Board have received from time to time various representations in favour of the reduction of the rating qualification of Guardians, and in a few cases for the abolition of the qualification altogether.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether recruiting for the Royal Irish Constabulary is still going on over Ireland; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of suspending recruiting for the present, in order to prevent the creation of further vested interests, which will have to be redeemed by the Irish Parliament?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: In view of the statutory obligation to supply each county in Ireland with a free quota and to furnish extra force when duly required, it is necessary to provide against the natural waste in the Royal Irish Constabulary front tine to time as occasion requires. To that extent recruiting is going on, and must go on.

  POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS BILLS.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will consider the propriety of repeating the Instructions of 1892 to the Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulation Bills, with the addition to the effect that it be an Instruction to the Committee not to sanction the insertion or repetition in the Bills committed to them or sections and portions of the General Statute Law?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I propose repeating the Instructions of 1892 to the Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills, with an addition to prevent, in the case of Bills introduced during the present Session, the insertion of any provisions contained in any Public Act.

  CRIMEAN AND INDIAN MUTINY PENSIONS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total amount and the number of the exceptional pensions or payments already granted to veterans of the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny under the arrangements initiated by his Predecessors; whether these pensions have been granted to deserving veterans apart from the consideration of their present position or only to those in a state of

  1855
  poverty; and whether, in the case of men who have earned the ordinary pensions, and who are forced to go into a workhouse, any exemption is secured by the War Office on their behalf from the practice which renders such pension liable to be appropriated by the Guardians?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Five hundred and eighty special pensions have been granted representing a gross charge of £8,479 a year and a net charge of £8,046, after deducting the small deferred pensions held by some of the men and merged in the larger special pension. These pensions have been granted only to men whose circumstances were such as to call for charitable assistance. A pensioner with an ordinary pension who enters a workhouse is not exempt from the usual claim of the Poor Law Guardians, who can take his pension in aid of rates to an extent not exceeding the ordinary pauper rate of maintenance.
  MR. BRODRICK: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what is the number of candidates who fulfil all the conditions, including that of poverty, for whom no pension is available?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot state the exact number, but it is considerable.

  PROMOTIONS FROM THE RANKS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of men who have risen from the ranks and were candidates for Army commissions, a difference has recently been made between those who were willing and those who were not willing or able to forego the outfit allowance of £100 on promotion; if so, whet her this is in accordance with the inducements held out to recruits, one of them being the opportunity of promotion to commissioned rank with the aid of the outfit allowance; and whether the amount in the Estimates for outfit allowance is sufficient for the number of otherwise qualified candidates for such commissions?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Provision is made in the Army Estimates for 10 outfit allowances yearly, and these are given to candidates of five years' service and upwards. If more commissions can be given during the
  1856
  year they are necessarily awarded to properly qualified men who are willing to forego the outfit allowance.
  MR. HANBURY: Are there any special conditions required in the ease of the 10 men alluded to, before the outfit allowance is granted?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; they have merely to be properly qualified.

  DWELLINGS FOR THE POOR AT KENSINGTON.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the action of the Kensington Vestry, in connection with the dwellings of the poor in James Street, Kensington Square, by first proceeding, under Section 32 of "The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890," to obtain orders from the magistrate closing the houses in the street; and then, while the houses are so closed and vacated for repairs, passing a resolution for the preparation of a scheme for dealing with the area under Section 39 of the said Act, thus apparently evading the obligation, under Section 40 of the Act, to provide other dwellings for the working classes so displaced; and whether, before he sanctions any scheme prepared by the said Vestry for dealing with the area in question, he will cause a local inquiry into the matter to be held?
  *MR. H. FOWLER: I am informed that the Vestry of Kensington, On the representation of the Medical Officer of Health that 24 houses in James Street were unfit for human habitation, decided to take proceedings to secure the closing of these houses, and that they have had under consideration the preparation of a scheme for the improvement of the area. When the scheme is submitted to the Local Government Board, the Board, before arriving at any decision, will direct a local inquiry.

  INCOME TAX IN IRELAND.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if tenant purchasers in Ireland are required to pay Income Duty both as occupiers and as owners while still under liability for purchase instalments?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): Yes; if, after deducting, the interest he pays on the purchase-money, his income, from all sources, is above the exemption line (£150).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how the vendor, in the case of a sale and purchase of a farm under the Ashbourne Act, is assessed to Income Duty in respect of the amount paid to him; (2) and how the purchaser is assessed in respect of his ownership, in respect of his occupancy, in respect of the amount paid by him, as principal money and interest severally included in the amount of the purchase annuity?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: (1) the amount paid to him is a capital sum, and, as such, is not liable to Income Tax. If, and when, it earns annual interest, dividends, or profits, they become liable to the tax; (2) as owner, he is assessed under Schedule A on the amount of the Poor Law Valuation, at 6d. in the £1. As occupier, he is assessed under Schedule B on the same valuation, at 2¼d. in the £1. He receives no allowance in respect of the principal money included in the amount of the purchase annuity, but allowance is made to him of the duty on the interest.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Is any allowance made for the amount paid on account of the principal?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I must ask for notice or that question.

  EDUCATIONAL EXAMINATIONS IN CO. CARLOW.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education directed an inquiry to be held in December last into certain alleged fraudulent practices at the results examination in 1891 in a female school in County Carlow; whether the charges were proved; and, if so, what the Commissioners intend to do in the matter; and whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Head Inspector's Report?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: I presume the question has reference to the female school at Leighlinbridge, County Carlow.
  1858
  The Commissioners of National Education report that they did not direct any such inquiry, inasmuch as no charge involving fraud has been made against the teacher of the school. In the course or an investigation, however, of an entirely different character held last December, a charge of fraudulent practices was made arising out of matters alleged to have occurred nearly two years previously. The Inspector took a note of the evidence adduced in support of the charge, but did not consider it trustworthy. The hon. Member must see that it would be contrary to practice to lay such a Report on the Table of the House.

  THE AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION.
  MR. WILSON-TODD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the Government will be able, this Session to give a practical proof of the sympathy expressed in Her Gracious Majesty's Speech with the depressed condition of agriculture by so amending "The Local Government Act, 1888," as to give a larger contribution from Imperial sources in aid of local rates?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer the question. All I can say is I should be sorry to give any reply which might lead to unfounded expectations.

  THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will enlarge the scope of the inquiry referred to a Royal Commission on land in the Highlands and Islands Of Scotland, so as to include lands formerly commons, which have been appropriated without compensation by landlords in the Island of Lewis and the mainland of Ross-shire to the serious loss and injury of the population?
  *SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am obliged to give the same reply as to other proposals to enlarge the scope of the Commission. It is appointed for a special purpose of great importance, which should not be mixed up with any other considerations.

  TRAWLERS ON THE ROSS-SHIRE COAST.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is a fact that Her Majesty's cruisers stationed on the Ross-shire coast for the protection of the fishing industry remain in port an undue length of time; and, if so, whether instructions will be given to the officers in charge to devote more attention to the movements of trawlers?
  *SIR G. TREVELYAN: In reply to the hon. Member, I have had no complaints as to the manner in which the cruisers which are placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty perform the important duties imposed upon them. At the same time, I will ask the Fishery Board to communicate with the commanders on the necessity of watching illegal trawling.

  LIGHT DUES AT STORNOWAY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the levying of Light Dues at the Port of Stornoway is seriously injuring the trade of that town, and that masters now proceed to foreign ports to obtain stores; and whether he will abolish or reduce the Light Dues in the case of all vessels calling there to purchase limited supplies of provisions and bunker coal?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The only information which I have upon this subject is contained in a letter which I received from the hon. Member in December last. Vessels calling for bunker coal only are at present exempt from the payment of Light Dues; and, as I informed the hon. Member on Friday last, the question of extending this exemption to vessels which, under certain circumstances, put into port for provisions, is now being considered with a view to the same exemption.

  THE WELSH SUSPENSORY BILL.
  SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I had intended to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department upon what day he proposes to move for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent for a time new appointments to Church of England bishoprics, dignities, and benefices in Wales and Monmouthshire; but
  1860
  since I gave notice of the question the right hon. Gentleman has intimated that he will bring the Bill in on Thursday. May I, however, ask him whether, in the event of the Registration Bills not being brought in to-night, the Welsh Suspensory Bill will still be the first Order of the Day on Thursday?
  MR. ASQUITH: I trust that that contingency will not arise. In any event, the Welsh Suspensory Bill will be the first Order of the Day for Thursday.

  UNDERMINING BUILDING GROUND.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the great destruction of property in the towns of Motherwell and Hamilton and the neighbourhood, caused by the owner of the land undermining the ground which he has given out for; and whether the Government will endeavour to remedy the evil by legislation?
  *SIR G. TREVELYAN: My attention has not, that I remember, been officially called to the state of matters to which the hon. Member refers, but I have reason to believe that it causes great loss and inconvenience in the present, and anxiety as to the future. The Government will be very glad if the hon. Member can promote any remedial Bill, and will do their best to assist him.

  DISTRICT AND PARISH COUNCILS.
  MR. WHARTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is his intention to deal with the institution of District and Parish Councils in one or in separate Bills; and, if in separate Bills, which he proposes to give precedence to; and when the Bills will be printed and circulated?
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: I propose that the constitution of District and Parish Councils should be dealt with in one Bill. The Bill will lie printed and circulated directly after it is brought in.

  ARMY DISCHARGES AND REENLISTMENTS.
  MR. E. H. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Susan Bennett, a

  1861
  widow, who spent her entire means in purchasing her son's discharge from the Army in April last, and the fact that, although the man re-enlisted within a month, the War Office refuses to refund any portion of the money; and whether there is any Regulation against the repayment; and, if so, whether he will abolish such Regulation, and in the meantime exercise the power he possesses to suspend it in the case of Susan Bennett?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no power, under existing Regulations, to make any refund of purchase-money in case of a man who re-enlists. The discharge and re-enlistment give rise to public charges from which the soldier should certainly not be relieved; but the subject generally is under consideration, and it is possible that some modification may be made in the present Rides.

  CHATHAM DOCKYARD.
  COLONEL LLOYD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that the Government employees working on the island or extension works at Chatham cannot get home to the mainland for their dinner, whether the Government will take into consideration the necessity of erecting a workmen's canteen similar to the one at Portsmouth?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SUTTLEWORTH,): There are already three canteens provided for the workmen employed in Chatham Dockyard. Two of the three are most conveniently situated for those who work on the island and extension works. There does not appear to be any need for further provision for these men, especially as the men themselves manage, in a very satisfactory manner, one of these two canteens.

  ILLITERATE VOTERS.
  MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can inform the House, seeing that the Return of Illiterate Voters at the General Election of 1886 was presented to Parliament within a few months after the completion of that Election, the reasons for the delay in the production of the similar Return ordered by the House in August last; and whether, having regard to the
  1862
  importance of the information contained in these Returns, he will endeavour, before the Second Reading of the Bill for the Government of Ireland, to secure the presentation of this Return?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Return was presented last Friday.

  TRIAL BY JURY IN BENGAL.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, pending the Report of the Commission which will inquire into the expediency of restricting trial by jury in several districts of Bengal, the decree of the Lieutenant Governor interfering with that right of Her Majesty's subjects, mid of foreign residents, will be withdrawn?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): In the absence of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India, I have to answer that, as the Commission may be expected to report at an early date, the Secretary of State has not thought it necessary to direct the withdrawal of the notification pending their Report.

  THE SANDWICH ISLANDS.
  *MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to inform the House whether the report of the annexation of the Sandwich Islands by the United States Government is correct?
  SIR E. GREY: We have no information on the subject beyond what is contained in the newspapers.
  *MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Am I to take it from the hon. Gentleman that the information in the newspapers is correct or not?
  SIR E. GREY: I can only say we have received no official information from the United States Government.

  SWAZILAND.
  *MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of-State for the Colonies when he will be aide to lay upon the Table further Papers relating to the affairs of Swaziland?
  MR. S. BUXTON: As the hon. Member is aware, Her Majesty's Government have authorised Sir Henry Loch to intimate to the President that, if the

  1863
  South African Republic so desire, they are willing that he should go into conference with the President, in accordance with the understanding between the late Government and the South African Republic, in order that the arrangement of 1890 may be re-considered. It would not be consistent with the interest of the Public Service to lay further Papers before Parliament at present, but they will be laid as soon as the circumstances permit.

  CORK CORPORATION AND THE POPE'S JUBLIEE
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Cork City Council decided, by 25 votes to 7, on 27th January, that the expense incurred by the Mayor in going to Rome to present the Pope with an Address of Congratulation on his Episcopal Jubilee should be paid out of the rates; and if he can say whether the action of the Corporation, in taxing the Protestant minority of the city for such a purpose, is legal?
  MR. W. REDMOND: Before the question is answered, might I be permitted to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the Protestant minority in the Cork Corporation voted in favour of this being done?
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: Is it not the fact that the seven members who voted against the motion were all Catholics, and that the majority was largely composed of Protestants, among whom was the ex-High Sheriff of Cork, a Protestant, who not only voted for, but spoke in favour of the Motion?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: I think hon. Members have answered the question on the Paper by their supplemental questions. It is a fact that the Cork City Council have decided, by a majority of 26 votes to 7, to defray out of the rates the expenses to which the hon. Member refers; and it is, furthermore, a fact that the Conservative and Protestant members of the Council, to the number of six, voted with the majority on the motion, the minority being exclusively Roman Catholics. As to the legality of the payment, that is entirely a matter for the Auditor of the Local Government Board, by whom it will eventually come to be reviewed. In the meantime, it is
  1864
  open to any ratepayer to take such action in the matter as he may be advised.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask if it is not a fact that the opposition to paving the expenses of the Mayor on this Mission arises not from religious feeling, but because the Mayor had thought fit to subscribe to a particular fund?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are the Local Government Board prepared to intervene? As this vote was taken against the wishes of the Nationalist members of the Corporation, and as the citizens of Cork are strongly opposed to the proposal, will the right hon. Gentleman set in motion any measures for preventing this illegal expenditure?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: So far as I know, it is not my business to interfere. I shall, however, have to take legal advice on the point.

  MUFTI REGULATIONS.
  KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has decided to cancel the restrictions set forth in Paragraph 109, Section 7, of the Queen's Regulations, which, whilst permitting certain Warrant Officers of the Army to wear plain clothes under the same conditions as those laid down for Commissioned Officers, deny to other Warrant Officers the privilege of wearing plain clothes except when on pass or furlough, and leaving the place where they are stationed; whether he is aware that Lord Wantage's Committee recommended that this privilege should be extended to a much lower rank in the Army; and whether, when the Warrant rank was extended by the Government in 1881, it was clearly intended that all recipients of the Warrant should have the privilege of wearing plain clothes when oil duty?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is a more complicated matter than is presumed in the question. Warrant Officers are not all alike. Some of them discharge purely military duties, others have duties of a quasi-civil character. I do not think, therefore, that there can be in all cases precisely the same regulations as to wearing uniform. It appears to me that this is a matter which is best left mainly to the discretion of the General Officers commanding districts, who are acquainted with the circumstances of the

  1865
  several classes of officers and of individuals. Recently, indeed, certain irregularities were brought to the notice of the Military Authorities which led to a warning being issued against undue laxity in this respect, but it appears to me that this is not a subject upon which a very definite regulation is desirable. I wish also to say that while I desire to see the greatest liberty allowed consistent with discipline, I will give countenance to the idea that it is a "privilege" for any man serving the Queen to put off Her Majesty's uniform, or the infliction to have to wear it. I am not sure that there is not a great deal to be said in favour of proceeding in the opposite direction, and making the wearing of uniform more obligatory than it is upon the upper ranks of the Army.
  MR. KEARLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend his remarks to apply to Commissioned as well as Warrant Officers?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I had better not interpret my own answer.

  THE LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) ACT, 1891.
  MR. RENTOUL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a complete block has taken place in the administration of "The Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891," caused by the insufficient legal and clerical assistance in the Central Office in Dublin, owing to the refusal of the Treasury to provide funds, and also to the fact that, although the Act has been in operation since 1st January, 1892, no payment has been received by any of the local registering authorities; and whether, having regard to these circumstances, the Government contemplate taking any steps; and, if so, what, to remedy such a state of things?
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Treasury has not refused any application for funds to provide legal or clerical assistance in the Central Registry of Titles in Dublin. For the payment of the local registering authorities a sum of £8,500 was provided in the Estimates of the current year; but the actual payment has been deferred until experience had been had of the amount of work caused by the Local
  1866
  Registration Act in the various local registering districts.

  THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the demand for copies of the Report of the International Monetary Conference has been such that it has exceeded the supply; and whether instructions will he given for a further and adequate issue of that Report?
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Owing to unusual demands for the Report in question the first supply was very quickly sold out, but instructions for a reprint were given some days ago, as soon as the extent of the demand was noticed: and I hope that in a few days there will he an ample supply of copies.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES MEDICAL AID ASSOCIATION.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Council whether the General Medical Council has any legal power conferred upon it by Parliament to declare those medical men who hold office under Friendly Societies Medical Aid Association guilty of infamous professional conduct; and whether, if this be so, and the General Medical Council does make this declaration, he will take steps to amend the law?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND,): The General Medical Council have power under the Medical Acts of 1858 and 1886 to strike off the register the name of any registered medical practitioner whom they judge, after due inquiry, to have been guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect. The Council inform me that they have appointed a Committee of their own Body to inquire into various allegations made on the subject of what are called Medical Aid Associations, and expect to receive the Committee's Report in May. Until this Report has been received and considered the Council decline to express any opinion as to the conduct of medical men in relation to these Associations. It would, therefore, be premature to enter into the question

  1867
  whether any amending legislation may or may not, under certain circumstances, be required.

  THE CASE OF SERGEANT W. STEVENSON.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Sergeant William Stevenson, of the Donegal Artillery, was seriously injured whilst upon duty travelling on the Londonderry and Letterkenny line of railway in the collision on the 21st June, 1891; whether he was subsequently discharged as having thereby become permanently disabled; whether, on the 23rd September, 1892, the Accountant General of the War Department intimated to him that, under the circumstances, an allowance of 3s. 6d. per day, limited to a period of six months, had been granted to him; what was Sergeant Stevenson's record whilst in the Artillery, and to what pension was he entitled (if any) under the Army Regulations; and whether, having regard to all the circumstances and the fact that Sergeant Stevenson has a helpless family of nine children depending entirely upon him, the War Office will award him a moderate life pension?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sergeant Stevenson, who was injured in a railway accident in 1891, was discharged in 1892 suffering from bronchitis, which could scarcely be said to be the result of the accident. He was granted six months' sick allowance. The Regulations do not admit of the grant of a pension, unless it is clearly proved that the discharge was for unfitness for further service in consequence of the accident.

  WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Attorney General if he can state how many cases now stand adjourned for want of time in the Wandsworth County Court; and how many days a mouth the Judge of that Court sits there?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL,): The number of eases now standing adjourned for want of time in the Wandsworth County Court is eight. The total number of days the Judge sat for the year 1892 was 39.

  COUNTY COURT ADJOURNMENTS.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Attorney General if he will inquire into the state of business in the Metropolitan County Courts, and bring under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, with a view to remedy, the inconvenience, delay, and heavy expenses to which parties are now subjected by reason of "adjournments for want of time" and repeated attendance of witnesses before cases are actually heard?
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: The obtaining of this information will involve considerable inquiry, and I must ask the hon. Member to put his question down for a later day.

  CENSUS CLERKS.
  MR. BOUSFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in reference to the appointment of temporary Census clerks for the last Census, whether he will furnish a list of the names of the 50 clerks first appointed, and the names of those subsequently appointed, with dates of the appointments, and state the number of days each one was employed upon day work and upon piecework, respectively, up to the end of last month; whether, having regard to the fact that a complaint was made to the Registrar General in the month of August, 1891, that the promise that "during the greater part of their engagement they will be employed on piecework" was not being observed, and the reply of the Registrar General that he was "only too anxious to employ them on piecework" as soon as possible, he will state whether the original statement that "during the greater part of their engagement they will be employed on piecework" has been adhered to in the case of any single clerk; and, if so, in whose case or cases; and whether additional clerks were appointed, after the first 50, upon the same terms and conditions as the first 50?
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is a fact that while most of these temporary clerks have been employed during a great part of their service on piecework rates, it was found impossible to fulfil the specified Regulation that they should be so employed during the greater part of their service; but, at the same time, the spirit

  1869
  of the Regulation which stated that a clerk might earn considerably more than his day-pay, has been fully carried out. The average amount paid to the whole of the 73 temporary clerks, including many of very short service, exceeded the initial rate of 6s. per day, at which they were all appointed, by very nearly 50 per cent., and has been equal to £11 6s. per month. The earnings of the 13 of the original 50 temporary clerks, who are still employed in the Census Office, have, moreover, averaged £12 7s. 5d. per mouth throughout the whole of their service of about 22 months. Most of the temporary clerks were employed for nearly six mouths upon special work, which, although not technically paid as piecework, was turned into a kind of modified piecework, since time day-pay of those engaged upon it was raised in proportion to the amount and accuracy of their work. If this work were classed as piecework the Regulation quoted above would have been fulfilled to the letter as well as in the spirit. I do not think that it is necessary to furnish the detailed statement asked for by the hon. Member.
  MR. BOUSFIELD: Arising out of the answer, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman does not regard as binding the promise to employ the clerks on piecework? Has not that obligation been broken, with the result that the clerks have earned a great deal less than they would have done had the promise been carried out?
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: The answer of the Registrar General is that he has fulfilled the obligation in spirit, and the men have had a large amount of piecework. It was impossible to fulfil the obligation to the letter.
  MR. BOUSFIELD: Will the right bon. Gentleman give the Return I ask for in my question?
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: I will consult the Registrar General on that point.

  THE COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Commissioner for Labour whom lie has appointed has had any practical experience in the branch of either factory labour or farm labour; and, if not, would he state to the House
  1870
  what are his qualifications for so important a post to Labour in Great Britain and Ireland?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Mr. Llewellyn Smith is exceptionally qualified for the important office to which I have appointed him. He is a man of high scholastic attainments. His writings on economic subjects are well-known. He bas lived for the last five years in the East End of London, where he has closely studied labour questions, and has worked in cooperation with Mr. Charles Booth, several chapters of whose works were written by him. His latest work is the Report on the Trades of London and their Needs with Regard to Technical Education. This is admitted to be one of the ablest documents of the kind ever produced, and the London County Council have adopted its recommendations. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, and I have had congratulations on all hands upon this appointment.

  SKIBBEREEN AND BALTIMORE RAILWAY.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, when the Skibbereen and Baltimore Railway was projected and approved, it was intended to extend on to a deep-water pier enabling fishing vessels to discharge their cargoes direct into railway waggons; is he aware that, as a matter of fact, as constructed, it ends at a point 150 yards distant from deep water; and, if so, upon whose recommendation, and under what circumstances; how much public money was granted pursuant to recommendation of a Royal Commission for the construction of this line and for the purpose of developing the valuable mackerel fishery; how much has actually been expended; and does the Government contemplate granting a further sufficient sum for the completion of the line to the deep water, and for the erection of a proper and sufficient pier; and, if so, when will the necessary work be commenced?
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The extension of the railway on to the pier was not included in the scheme submitted by the promoting company, or contemplated in the Statutory Report thereon by the Board of Works. The railway ends, as stated, in accordance with the original scheme of the promoters. The grant under the Act of 1889 was £56,700, and £46,411

  1871
  of this has been expended up to date. No funds are available under the Act of 1889 for extending the railway, or under the Fishery Piers Acts for constructing a new pier; and the Treasury are not able to provide the funds necessary for either work.

  THE COINAGE.
  MR. BECKETT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the great public inconvenience which is caused by the superabundance of florins and the comparative scarcity of half-crowns and shillings (especially of the latter) now in circulation; and whether he will issue such instructions to the Mint as may be necessary to bring their relative proportions more into conformity with popular requirements?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No florins have been issued from the Mint for circulation in the United Kingdom since December, 1890, except a small sum (£2,000) forwarded to Ireland in July, 1891. From January, 1891, to December, 1892, no less than £501,400 in half-crowns and £369,400 in shillings were issued. In addition to the stock held at the Mint, £72,000 in half-crowns and £203,000 in shillings ready for issue are lying at the Bank of England, in addition to a very large amount of mixed coin, and can be obtained by bankers on application. With regard to the second part of the question, I would point out to the hon. Member that the Government have little power of determining what class of coins shall circulate. This is determined by the public themselves. The Bank of England, which acts in this matter for the Mint, delivers to all bankers, or their other customers, silver coins of such denominations as they ask for. If any person suffers inconvenience from the deficiency of any particular class of coin, all he has to do is to ask his bankers to supply them. As I pointed out in the first part of my answer, a large number of half-crowns and shillings are now lying ready for issue at the Mint and the Bank of England, if the public will only ask for them.
  MR. FORWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that country bankers charge one-eighth cent. on applications for these coins?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. Member must settle that with the Member who asked me the question.

  CHILSON BOARD SCHOOL.
  MR. PARKER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether Mr. Barker, who has for seven years been master of the Chilson Board School, and during that time has improved the school and given general satisfaction, has had to resign because lie could not qualify as a teacher of drawing; and whether the Education Department is going to call on other masters similarly situated, many of whom have been many years most successful teachers?
  MR. ACLAND: It is not at present necessary that drawing in an elementary school should be taught by someone holding a certificate in drawing, either for the annual grant from the Education Department or for the drawing grant from the Science and Art Department, if the work of the scholars shows that they have been satisfactorily taught. Where the existing teacher is unable to do this, drawing may be taught by some competent person not on the school staff. In the last Annual Report on this school, it was specially pointed out to the managers that, having regard to the general success which has attended the attempt to teach drawing by teachers without previous experience, Mr. Barker should make some effort iii this direction. The Department have been recently informed by the managers that Mr. Barker lies resigned, and another teacher appointed in his place, but no reason is assigned by them for the change.
  MR. PARKER: Am I to understand that Mr. Barker resigned independently of any communication from the Education Department?
  ACLAND: I am not informed on that subject.

  THE AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE
  MR. WHARTON (in the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wells Division of Somerset): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will be good enough to inform the House whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to refer to the Committee, proposed to be appointed to

  1873
  inquire into the "wide prevalence of agricultural distress," the question of the incidence of taxation (Imperial and local) on agricultural land?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Government do not propose to refer any special question to the Committee, or to restrict their inquiry into any remedies that may be proposed.

  ERNE LOUGH AND RIVER DRAINAGE.
  M. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he say how many applications were made by landlords, and in respect of how many holdings, to the Irish Board of Works for an increase of rent in respect of the Erne Lough and River Drainage; how many of these applications have been heard and with what result, and how many remain undisposed of; and having regard to the universal desire amongst all parties interested that a public sworn inquiry should be held into the administration of the funds advanced by the Irish Board of Works so far in excess of the estimated cost, will the Government consider the propriety of granting such inquiry, or some inquiry?
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Applications by 62 landlords affecting 1,448 tenancies have been made and heard. The rents of 1,121 tenants were increased; in 96 cases no increase was made, and in 231 cases the Commissioners had no jurisdiction. The total annual increased rents payable by tenants amount to £1,487. Two additional applications, each affecting one tenant, are still undisposed of. Full information respecting the Lough Erne Drainage scheme has been given in Parliamentary Paper No. 414 of 1891, and I do not consider it necessary that any further inquiry should be made.

  CHOLERA AT MURREE.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is the fact that the outbreak of cholera, so fatal to Europeans, which occurred at Murree last autumn, was due to culpable negligence on the part of the Indian Government in ordering native troops, known to be infected with cholera, to proceed, without proper organisation or any sanitary precautions, to Kashmir viâ Murree, in disregard to the protests of the
  1874
  Local Authorities; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the Telegrams, Letters, and Reports from the Civil and Military Authorities at Murree and Rawalpindi, commencing in April, 1892, in reference to the passage of troops viâ Murree, together with Copies of the Reports of the General Commanding and the Civil Commissioner upon the outbreak of cholera, and copies of the subsequent Correspondence relating thereto?
  SIR E. GREY: The Government of India are inquiring into the subject. They have not completed their inquiry, but have promised to supply the required information as soon as possible. When their Report is received the Secretary of State will be glad to reply to the hon. Member's question as to Papers to be laid on the Table.

  POPE LEO XIII.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there would be any less justification for the Unionists of Ulster refusing to recognise the proposed Irish Legislature than for Pope Leo XIII. refusing to recognise the Government of Italy?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  [No answer was given.]

  NATIONAL EDUCATION, IRELAND—MR. J. MORLEY'S EXPLANATION.
  *MR. J. MORLEY: I wish to make a correction with respect to a statement I made in the House on Friday in regard to the change suggested in the National Education Conscience Clause. I stated that the change was supported by Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, by one of the senior Fellows of Trinity College, and by three other Protestant Commissioners. I was in error as far as the three Protestant Commissioners were concerned.

  THE HOME RULE BILL.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, with regard to Public Business, whether the House is to understand that the Motion for the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill is definitely fixed for Monday, March 13, or whether that day has merely been put down with a view

  1875
  to a later day being fixed? I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that as long notice should be given as possible.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): The Bill is definitely fixed for that day. I hope the notice given will be ample.
  MR. HUNTER)May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question arising out of his answer that it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill on the 13th March. On the following day there is a Motion in which a large number of hon. Members are interested with regard to railway rates. It is the first Order for that day. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to take the whole time of the House will he give us, at all events, an assurance that he will not take Tuesday, March 14?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I was not aware of the arrangements for the Tuesday to which the hon. Member refers; but I am afraid I could not undertake to give any pledge on the subject such as that which the hon. Member asks for.

  THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask the Leader of the House with regard to the Motion, No. 15, on the Orders of the Day, the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Agricultural Depression, if we are to understand it will not be proceeded with to-day? There does not appear much chance of its being reached; but, still, it would be a convenience to many hon. Members if we had an understanding on the point.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It will not be taken before Thursday.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, seeing that the National Education Bill is the first Order on Wednesday week, he will expedite the printing of the correspondence between himself and the Board, in order that it may be available to hon. Members before that day?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: I laid the Papers on the Table a week ago, and I have no control over the printing of them.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: But surely the right hon. Gentleman can expedite the printing if he chooses.
  *MR. J. MORLEY: I have no more power than the hon. Member.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the Papers include the correspondence with the late Government?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: It will begin with the letter of the right. hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I understand the Secretary to the Treasury is responsible for the printing. Will he expedite the printing of this correspondence?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have no objection to doing my best to hasten it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Mellor take the Chair,"—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone,) — put, and agreed to.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1892–3.

    CLASS I.
    Motion made, and Question,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893, for certain Re-arrangement of Rooms in the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

MOTIONS.
  REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS AMENDMENT.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): It was my desire that this Bill should be introduced without any preliminary statement, because I felt that it would be more convenient both for the purpose of explaining and of criticising so highly technical a measure if hon. Members had the text of it in their hands. But the Leader of the Opposition, in the exercise of his undoubted right, has claimed that a preliminary statement should be made. In asking leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of registration mainly of Parliamentary voters—but of course the Bill applies to other voters as well—I think it is right to recall the attention of the House to what the present system is—what are its defects, and what are the proposals the Government make for the amendment of those defects. Registration is not franchise. It is simply the official declaration, or perhaps I may call it the legal certificate, of the right to exercise the franchise, and that the conditions which the Legislature has prescribed before that right is admitted have been fulfilled. Our franchise to-day for the election of Members of Parliament, putting aside all minor franchises, practically rests on three grounds: A man is entitled to vote either in respect of property that he owns or of property that he occupies, or of his residence in a house or in a lodging. It is not necessary for the purposes of this Debate that I should trouble the House with a precise statement as to the limits of these three franchises; but it is necessary to hear in mind the ownership franchise, the occupation franchise, and the residential franchise, in order to follow me in my explanation of the conditions which the law requires before anyone can be registered in respect of either of these franchises. So far as ownership is concerned, I can state them in one sentence. Owners who have not acquired their qualification by descent, or succession, or marriage, must have been in possession of their qualification
    1878
    for a period of not less than six months in the case of freeholds, and of not less than 12 months in the case of leaseholds, both of these periods expiring on July 15. The House will, therefore, see that there is a qualifying period in the case of the ownership franchise. The occupation franchise is technically different from the household franchise, being a survival of the Reform Act franchise of 1832. The occupation franchise requires a twelve months' occupation, ending also on the 15th July, and it has a further qualification, namely, that the assessed taxes due in respect of the qualifying premises before the 5th of the preceding January shall have been paid before the 20th of the following July. These are the two main conditions referring to the owner-ship and occupation franchises. Then we come to the third and most important so far as number is concerned, aye, and so far as peace and order is concerned—the residential franchise, that incorporates nearly the whole of the electorate. An occupier, in order to be entitled to vote, must have possessed his qualification for 12 months before July 15. He must have been rated, or be "deemed to have been rated," for the poor rate in respect of his qualifying premises for 12 months before July 15, and all poor rates due in respect of such premises before January 5 must have been paid before July 20. The other franchise is the lodger franchise; and a person, in order to be registered as a lodger, must for 12 months before July 15 have occupied his lodging, and he must claim annually. These are the conditions which the Legislature has imposed before a man, who is entitled to the franchise either by virtue of ownership or occupation, has his name placed upon the roll. The present system of registration is this: The clerk of the County Council in a county, or the town clerk in a borough, early in the Spring sent a precept to the overseers of every parish, as the officers responsible for the collection of the poor rate, instructing them to make out the list of electors. In many parishes—I think I may say in half the parishes of England and Wales—there is an officer called the assistant-overseer, a paid officer, and, of course, the duty is done by him. When they have received this precept the over-

    1879
    seers are bound to publish and serve various notices, which are detailed in the Order in Council which forms the Code of our registration system, in order to ascertain the names of the voters. The various processes having been concluded, the lists of those entitled to vote have to be published on August 1. Then every elector whose name is not on the list, and whose name ought to be there, can send in his claim to the overseer; and any objection to any name in the list can be made by any elector also on the list sending notice of his objection both to the overseer and to the person objected to. The next stage of the procedure is the holding of the Court of the revising barrister, by whom these various questions are decided. He adjudicates on the claims and on the objections; he makes up the lists of voters, and signs them. They are then formed into Registers by the clerk of the County Council in a county, or the town clerk in a borough, and are forwarded by them to the returning officers of County or Town Council elections. This proceeding lasts, practically, into October. The register comes into force for Parliamentary purposes and for County Council elections on January 1; but it comes into force for municipal purposes on November 1. I will now explain to the House the machinery we propose to adopt, and I will ask the House to consider what are the objections, in the first place, to the conditions of the rating requirements, and then the objections in regard to the machinery. It is rather a technical question; but I intend to ask the House to make substantial enactments with reference both to rating and the payment of rates, and it is necessary, therefore, I should explain the present anomalous state of the law. The requirements that persons should be rated for the qualifying premises was enacted in 1832 and 1867, and in this latter year the great conflict with reference to the compound householder was raised. The Act of 1867 has now been rendered nugatory so far as rating is concerned, for in 1869 a Bill was brought in by the then President of the Poor Law Board, by which it was provided that the name of the occupier should be entered in the rate book, even if the owner was liable for and paid the rate; and even if the name of the occupier was not on the rate book,
    1880
    he was nevertheless to be entitled to vote. The paper barrier of a rating qualification, which was set up in 1832 and 1867, was swept away in 1869, and finally abolished in 1884. Still the antiquated and complicated machinery in reference to the payment of rates continued. The requirement of the payment of rates was enacted in 1832, and again in 1867, but by the Act of 1869 the omnipotence of Parliament decreed that the payment of the rates by the owner should be deemed payment by the occupier. The payment of assessed taxes was provided for only by the Reform Act of 1832, it being enacted that the voter in respect of £10 premises must pay all the assessed taxes payable by him with respect to those premises. The only assessed tax now payable is the House Tax. By recent enactment the payment of that is only due on houses, as distinct from shops and other business premises, of £20 annual valuation and upwards. But the sole occupier of such a house acquires the household franchise under the Act of 1867, which does not require the payment of assessed taxes. Consequently, the only two cases where assessed taxes have to be paid to gain the franchise are (1) that of two or more joint occupiers of a dwelling house of £20 and upwards; (2) that of an occupier but not an inhabitant for 12 months of a £20 house. These are the objections to the conditions of rating. Now, what are the objections to the length of the qualifying period? The House will remember that a man must have been in occupation and 12 months, expiring on the 15th of July. The objection to that is obvious, that the occupier could not practically get his vote until the lapse, on the average, of two years after he has gone into occupation of the premises. I will put a case with which I am familiar. A large section of the Nonconformists—the Wesleyan Methodists—in the country change their ministers every three years. The change takes place in the month of September, and this anomalous state of things arises: that a Methodist minister entering into possession of his qualifying premises, on September 20, 1890, when July, 1891, came had not been in possession 12 months, and therefore could make no claim to be put on the register till after July 15, 1892, although he had been in

    1881
    possession from the preceding September 12 months; and as the 1892 register did not come into force until January 1, 1893, he could not have voted at the General Election which took place in July, 1892. These cases are numbered not only by hundreds but by thousands. It is only the man who commences his tenancy on July 15 who is able to avail himself of the minimum 12 months' qualification. Practically, however, there is a minimum of 18 months and a maximum of two years and three months before a qualified householder is able to exercise the franchise. Such a state of things ought not to exist. There is another objection to this qualifying period. If a voter changes his residence from one electoral area to another, he has to go all through the process again, as his vote depends on the register of the district into which he a moves. The same thing applies in the case of lodgers. The moment there is any break in the continuity of the qualification, time whole disappears. Then another objection is that If an elector in one area changes his residence to another he cannot transfer his vote to the second area. I will now allude to some of the objections that are entertained to the existing machinery. The first objection is the lists is imposed upon the overseers—that the main part of the duty of preparing officials not in all cases the fittest persons to fulfil such functions. They are unpaid, they change office periodically, and have not, therefore, the advantage of cumulative experience nor of the motive of remuneration. I do not cast any reflection upon these gentlemen, but I think that to cast the duty of making out the Voters' Lists upon them is absurd, and, to use a common expression, it is played out. My next objection is that the lists are so inaccurate that many persons have to claim, while others are subjected to objections, the bulk of which are purely technical. The consequence of the imperfections in the lists is that, in order to correct them, we must endure a costly and vexatious system of claims and objections, followed by attendance in the Revising Barrister's Court. To a certain class of voter this may be unimportant, but there is a mass of artizans and labourers to whom such a loss of time must be a severe pecuniary fine. There is another objection of, perhaps, even greater force—that in our
    1882
    present system the accuracy of the register depends mainly on the activity of election agents. This is objectionable in principle and mischievous in practice. Political organisations are formed for the purpose of discharging this duty, which ought to be discharged by the public; the result is, that extensive political machinery is set in motion with the object of striking off the register assumed political opponents and putting on assumed supporters. It is found worth while to scatter objections broadcast upon the calculation that a certain percentage of voters who are objected to would be disinclined to sustain their right, and so at a comparatively small expense a great political advantage may often be gained. The power of revising barristers to award costs when objections fail is insufficiently exercised. There are other objections also to the present system. For instance, it is impossible to discriminate between money spent in registration and money which, under the pretext of attending to registration, is practically employed to corrupt a constituency. The system imposes a very heavy tax upon candidates and Members. I do not think we should fine candidates before they are elected, and Members after their election, by compelling them to subscribe to Party Associations, which, as we know, are conducted for the purpose of performing what is really a public duty. The subject has been discussed frequently since 1868, when a Committee was appointed to consider it; and since the election of the present Parliament last July two important Bodies, representing both sides of political thought, have expressed their views upon it. The Trades Union Congress in Glasgow last autumn agreed that legislation should be promoted for reducing the qualifying period to three months, and that there should be registration Officers responsible for the placing of qualified persons on the register. Then there was a great gathering of the Conservative Party in Birmingham, at which it was pointed out very forcibly that a revision of the Registration Laws was urgently called for, and that all those to whom the State had given the right to vote should be able to obtain the opportunity of exercising that right with as little difficulty as possible. Well, Sir, I think there are many on this side of the House who

    1883
    believe, with the great Conservative Party, that the present machinery of registration demands amendment. It becomes the duty of the Government to propose remedies for the existing defects of the law. I have been asked by many to bring in a Bill to codify or consolidate the Registration Laws; but there are at least 100 Acts of Parliament relating to the subject, and to attempt consolidation would have the effect of postponing reform. Then it has been suggested that I should introduce a measure dealing with the plural, or multiple, vote; but that has really nothing to do with registration, and will be dealt with separately. I have also been asked to include in the Bill clauses for the improvement of the method of holding elections; but this is not an election Bill, and, however great an improvement it may be to arrange that all elections should take place on the same day, the subject cannot find a place in the present measure, which is confined simply and solely to the reform of registration. The Committee of 1868 recommended—and pressed very strongly—the adoption of the Scotch system, which is certainly far better than that in force here. It is not possible, however, to adapt to the case of England without alteration the whole method of Scotch registration. The Government propose to effect changes in the law both with respect to the conditions precedent to registration and with respect to the machinery of registration. They propose to abolish the conditions with reference to rating, to repeal the legal provisions requiring either the payment of assessed rates or poor rates. The present conditions with reference to rating press very hardly upon the Service voters enfranchised in 1884. A landlord can, in fact, prevent his servants from voting by not paying his rates before July 20. That we consider indefensible, and it is a condition of things that ought not to be allowed. I may say in one sentence that the Government propose to abolish this serious defect as to rating. The next difficulty is with regard to the period of qualification. In this connection I wish to refer to some remarks made by the late Prime Minister on the first night of the Session. Lord Salisbury said—
    "Some residence, I do not say how much, is absolutely necessary in order to prevent that
    1884
    which is a rapidly growing evil, the evil of personation. It is only because people are, known by their neighbours that it is possible to guard against the danger of personation."
    What I desire, Sir, to point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite is that Lord Salisbury's defence of the qualifying period is a defence of it as machinery rather than a defence of its principle. I do not see that any long period of time is necessary. Our plan is that the householder is to have a vote. Why should it be necessary for him to be a householder of 18 months' or two years' standing? You might as well say that he shall be a married man with a family. Guided by the practical experience of those who are best acquainted with the question, the Government have come to the conclusion that the period of qualification should be reduced to one uniform period of three months ending on the 24th June. We propose to reduce the qualification for all electors of whatever description, because we consider it quite time that all differences should be put an end to. Having practically got rid of the question of paying the rates, we propose one qualifying period of three months, ending on the 24th June in each year, which will remove all the difficulties arising under existing enactments, which refer to "the 15th day of July or before the 15th day of July." Then we propose, with reference to this qualifying period, that successive and different qualifications in the same electoral area shall be sufficient. By this means an elector is made eligible if he occupies different premises, partly as occupier and partly as lodger, or if he occupies the different premises partly as householder and partly as lodger, or if he has occupied the same premises on those terms, not an infrequent case. We do not propose to deal with successive occupation when the elector removes during the three months from one area to another. That may have been necessary with a 12 months' or 18 months' qualifying period, but the necessity is obviated, it appears to me, with the period of three mouths. I will point out to the House that if we allow successive occupiers in different electoral areas, it may result in electoral gerrymandering. To allow an elector to remove from one lodging into another in a different area a week before the 24th June would be very undesirable.

    1885
    Then the Government propose to abolish the obligation of lodgers to send in a claim in order to be put on the register. The practice which has hitherto prevailed has been to put a great many obstacles in the way of people exercising the franchise after they have been given the franchise. The lodger franchise is no doubt a novel franchise, and the law is not so generous in respect to the facilities for lodgers as it is to householders. It compels the lodger not only to send in his claim, but to renew it once every year. The Government, however, consider the same inquiry should be made in respect to the lodger as is made at the present time with regard to householders. When a man is entitled to be put on the register he shall be put on, even if he does not send in a claim. Overseers at present are bound to ascertain from the landlords, and the landlords are bound to tell them, under a penalty, the name of the occupier of the houses which are let to other persons. There seems to us no reason why this obligation should not extend to persons entitled to vote as lodgers. The Government proposes that the separate list for lodgers shall cease, and that they shall be included under the head of Inhabiting Occupiers. I now come to the question of machinery, and I will state very briefly what is proposed. The Government proposes that in future the registration of electors in all its stages shall be entrusted to a new class of officials, to be called the Superintendent and District Registrars of Electors. We propose that a Superintendent Registrar shall be appointed for every Parliamentary area, and upon this Superintendent Registrar will devolve the duties of the Clerk of the Peace and the Town Clerk under our existing system. We propose that the District Registrars shall take the place of Overseers. The notices which are now given by the Overseers in all the lists which they prepare are in future to be given and prepared by the District Registrar. We provide that all Overseers, Assistant Overseers, Vestry Clerks, rate collectors, and other Local Authorities will be required to give such aid and information and produce such rate and other books to the Registrar as may be prescribed or reasonably required. Any failure in this respect is to be visited by a penalty. In the preparation of these lists the Go-
    1886
    vernment do not propose a new army of officials, but they contemplate and indicate the desirability and wisdom of employing the local officials, who at present are competent to exercise these duties when the Local Authorities think fit to employ them. The desire of the Government is that those officials who at present occupy positions such as Vestry Clerks, Assistant Overseers, and Registrars of Births and Deaths shall be eligible.
    SIR J. GORST: Who is to make the appointment?
    Mr. H. H. FOWLER: I will come to that presently. When the District Registrar has prepared these lists of voters, the Government propose that the lists should be sent by him to the Superintendent Registrar of the area, and upon the Superintendent Registrar will devolve the duty of correcting all misdescription, all omission, and all technical error in these lists. He will deal with all claims and objections, whether formal or informal, and will make such corrections as he thinks necessary. As the House well knows, nine-tenths of the inaccuracies are due purely to mistake, and the Registrar will practically be able to deal with every question except questions of law. It is not proposed that the Superintendent should hold a Court. He is to be an administrator; and if anyone is aggrieved by his action, that person will have the right to appeal to the Revising Barrister. The Revising Barrister's Court, in fact, will become a Court of Appeal for questions of right of franchise and questions of a legal character, and not for dealing with those endless and technical and clerical errors with which so much of the time of the Revising Barristers is taken up at present. The Superintendent Registrar will publish a list of all claims and objections, and a statement showing the manner in which he has dealt with them. We give the Revising Barrister power to register every claimant or person objected to when he is satisfied that such person is entitled to be registered. It is frequently the case that bonâ fide electors are dis-franchised on account of some technical error, and in order to prevent this in future, we give the amplest judicial discretion to the Revising Barrister. We also make another provision, to which

    1887
    some objection may be taken, but which I am prepared to defend in Committee—namely, that in the event of an appeal against the insertion or retention of any name in the Register being dismissed, the Revising Barrister will be obliged to award costs. We think that where a man is obliged to come into Court to defend his right to vote, and succeeds in establishing that right, he should have fair costs allowed him. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Gorst) has asked me with whom the appointments of the Registrars will rest. I have received a great many suggestions on that point. I should deprecate their being placed in the hands of any Department of the Government. The amount of patronage that would involve—although, perhaps, it would not be very large in amount—would affect a numerous body of persons, and the exercise of such patronage would lay the Government open to the charge of being influenced by political motives. As the Town Councils are the representatives of the people in the boroughs, and the County Councils are the representatives of the people in the counties, we think the appointments should be left in the hands of the Town Councils and the County Councils, and that the Registrars should be responsible to those Bodies for the discharge of their duties. The appointments will be for no fixed period, but we give the amplest powers in case of misfeasance, and we abolish all right to compensation in the event of abolition of office. We are trying to destroy the hydra of the continual claims for compensation which have to be faced whenever men are removed from office. We prohibit the Superintendent Registrars from acting as agents of the candidates, or of any Political Association or Party. We provide that the whole system of registration shall be accelerated, so that the Parliamentary Register shall come into force on the 1st of November, when the Municipal Register comes into operation. We see no reason for the present difference between the two periods, and I hope that the provision we have made is a step towards the day when we shall have one register for all election purposes, whether for Members of Parliament, Town or County Councils, Boards of Guardians, or anything else. We provide that if any
    1888
    Registrar wilfully fails to register the name of any person, or is guilty of any neglect, or misfeasance, he shall be liable to a considerable penalty. In London we treat every division of a Parliamentary borough as a separate electoral area. I have only one other point to deal with, and it has reference to removals. I have pointed out to the House the injustice that is felt by those electors who remove from one area to another, and, in consequence, either lose their votes, or are compelled, at considerable cost, to travel some distance in order to record them.
    MR. POWELL J. WILLIAMS: I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but will he kindly say who will provide the pay of the registrars?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Certainly; it will come out of the general fund either of the county or the town. It will practically be the same fund as that out of which the expense of registration is provided at present. I think I shall be able in Committee to show the House that which they are perhaps not aware of at present—namely, the enormous cost of our present system of registration. I do not think there will be any material increase of such cost.
    *MR. WEBSTER: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that all the Superintendent Registrars of London are to be appointed by the London County Council?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my statement, which is a very technical one and a very wearisome one to myself, and I have no doubt to the House, I will endeavour to reply before the Debate closes to any questions. It only disturbs the continuity of a statement to be subjected to interjectional cross-examination. The first proposal that was made to us with reference to the question of removals was, that we should have two revisions in one year. That is a proposal which is at first sight a taking one, but we have to look at it from the practical point of view. The present revision lasts nearly six months. It commences in April and is not completed until October. Although we may commence in May the registration will not be in force until November, and if you have two revisions in one year you will be revising practically all the year

    1889
    round. Even in America, where they have the widest and broadest franchise, they only make up the electoral rolls once a year. At all events, our opinion is that two revisions a year, bearing in mind the fact that we have provided only a three months' qualification, and having regard to cases of removals, could not be carried out, and that there will be no great injustice or hardship in confining the revision to once a year. We admit, however, that there would be a great grievance in the case of removals, and we provide that, where a householder is registered in one Parliamentary area and moves into another, and has completed a residence of three months, ending on the 25th of December, he shall be transferred to the register of the area to which he has removed. Machinery is provided by which he will be struck off the old register before he is placed on the new one—"that he shall be off with the old love before he is on with the new." This will remove the danger of people voting in more places than one. Although this provision will be a very difficult one to work, we think that, on the whole, it provides a fair remedy for the evil. There is but one other detail for me to mention, and that is that the Bill provides that, as far as possible, all lists shall be in strict order. The principle on which the Bill is based is that every voter is entitled, with as little trouble as possible, to be put in a proper legal position to vote. In the Report of the Committee, which was presided over by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) in 1868 occurs the following sentence:—
    "The registration of voters is the business of the State, and ought to be placed as far as possible beyond the influences alike of the ignorance or apathy of the citizens and the interested action of political agents."
    This is the principle which the Government are endeavouring to carry out. As I have just said, in times gone by there seems to have been some disinclination to open the door of the franchise as wide as possible. Historically I am not surprised at it. The Act of 1832 produced a very great change in the Constitution, and I think it is impossible to deny that the policy of the Reform Act, whilst extending the franchise, was to render its acquisition not an easy matter. For a long period of years Parliament held to the doctrine which, I
    1890
    think, was first propounded by Sir Robert Peel under very different circumstances—namely, that it was a duty to register, and that the battle of the Constitution was to be fought in the Registration Courts. We have now gone beyond that. The battle of the Constitution is nowadays to be fought not in the Registration Courts, but by means of argument and by appeals to the reason and wisdom of the electors. Battles in the Registration Courts are battles of pettifogging details and technicalities, and the sooner the registration is reduced to a machine for carrying out a public duty the better. Public opinion of the present day is more enlightened, more independent, and more effective than at any former period. There is a vast machinery now at work, the object of which is to ensure that everyone who ought to contribute to national or local burdens shall be compelled so to contribute. That is not left to any optional organisation, and I think that the same principle ought to apply to registration, so that every person who is entitled to a voice in the government of the country shall be able to exercise that voice with as little difficulty as possible. Capable citizens ought not to be rendered incapable by a mistake in their names or qualifications, or because they from time to time change their residences. Well, Sir, we submit this measure to the fair judgment of the House in the hope that it will be amended as far as is desirable or necessary in Committee and carried with as little delay as possible, so that we may accomplish a much-needed amendment of the law on the subject of registration.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to Enable Persons to be Registered for the Purpose of Parliamentary, County, and Municipal Elections with more speed and accuracy."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am reminded that I have made one mistake. alluded to the Committee stage. Our intention is, if the House approves, that this Bill shall be referred to a Grand Committee representing all sections of opinion in this House. I think the Bill will have a much more thorough discussion before a Grand Committee than it could otherwise obtain. [Opposition cries of "Oh!"] At all events, that is

    1891
    for the determination of the House and not for the Government.
    *MR. WEBSTERsaid, he was not at all surprised that Her Majesty's Government were giving the House another species of Reform Bill under the guise of a Registration Bill. Hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side, as well as on the Ministerial side of the House acknowledged that the qualifying term, which, under present circumstances, might practically be 2½ years, was somewhat too long. At the same time, he thought the term proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, three months—was a great deal too short. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that he was not going to permit what he described as "gerrymandering" in allowing people to have the right of the franchise from one end of England to the other. The risk, however, of reducing the qualifying term to three mouths would be very great, especially in London and in large areas of Lancashire. In London at the present time the changes were as great as 25 or 30 per cent. in a year, and under the Bill now proposed they might be increased to 40 or 50 per cent. in a year. The Bill would really give the voting power in populous areas not to the residents, not to those who had a stake in the various districts, but purely and simply to the migratory population. In many places the electoral power was very evenly balanced. At the election before the last his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) was actually elected by the vote of the Mayor, and there were other constituencies where the Parties were very evenly balanced. In such constituencies what was to prevent a man starting some bogus work and importing into the division a large number of workmen in order to turn the scale at the election? There would also be a very grave and serious danger of personation under the Bill. Even in small local areas in the country men did not become known to their neighbours in three months, and if that was the case in small localities it was ten times more so in a place like London. If the term were as short as three months the risk of personation would be very great, and there would be considerable danger of
    1892
    sham and bogus representation. He was quite ready to admit that the period of qualification at present was too long. His own view was that a man ought to be qualified after one year's residence in a constituency. In regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman as to successive occupations, he (Mr. Webster) had been pleased to notice that the right hon. Gentleman had not ventured to make the proposal put forward by the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), which was to the effect that if a man had spent, say, two and a half months in one part of the United Kingdom and only a fortnight in the constituency he should become a qualified elector. He (Mr. Webster) agreed with the President of the Local Government Board that that would have opened the door to a vast amount of fraud. It had been a principle acknowledged in this country ever since the Reform Act of 1832 that payment of rates and taxation should be the qualification for an elector. Representation and taxation had always gone together for men voting for this Assembly, and he saw no reason why that principle should be abandoned. No doubt there were anomalies in the law at present, but they must not forget that in the Reform Acts of 1832, 1867, and 1885, that principle was recognised. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to say to people who had comparatively no stake in the country that they should decide who were to be the Parliamentary Representatives. If this was carried out, he expected that in some future Parliament hon. Gentlemen would rise in their places, and instead of confining themselves to moving reductions to the Estimates, would complain that they were too low, and propose additions to them. He believed the proposal to do away with the principle by which those who paid the taxes should have the main say in the expenditure was a bad principle. There were some proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that he could not help agreeing with. It was to be regretted that so many people were dragged into the Registration Courts and required to defend their votes from merely technical objections. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman that he proposed to do away with that system

    1893
    to a certain extent; but as to the proposal for the appointment of Electoral Superintendents, he did not know how it would work. He could not say whether it would be satisfactory to leave the appointments to the Municipalities and the County Councils in the country; bat, so far as London was concerned, the subject required the most careful consideration. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal would have the effect of placing a great deal too much patronage in the hands of the London County Council. He cared not whether the majority in this Governing Body were Liberal or Radical, or whether at some future date it might become Conservative; but he certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to put too much patronage into its hands. No doubt the gentlemen on the County Council would exercise their privilege in an honourable way, and endeavour to select unbiased men to act as Electoral Superintendents; but, at the same time, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that hitherto in making appointments, especially as regards the Aldermen they elected to their body, the County Council had selected men of the same political faith as the majority on the Council. In this way they would always be open to suspicion in their exercise of patronage. Everyone knew that the London County Council, though elected to discharge local functions, had spent a vast amount of time in considering questions that more nearly appertained to the House of Commons. He thought, therefore, that it was very undesirable that this Body shall be entrusted with the duty of appointing over 60 Electoral Superintendents. These officials world not only have the power of Overseers, aided by Vestry Clerks, to prepare the lists of voters, but they would have the appointment of the officials, who would have to find out who were the qualified electors. They would have a great deal of local political power and patronage in their hand —a great deal more than it would he well for them to possess. Pending the time that the present or some future Government established District Councils, it would be wise to give the power of appointing the Electoral Superintendents temporarily to a Committee of Judges or some thoroughly extra parte authority, who would deal with the question in a
    1894
    fair manner. When the Bill went into Committee, he should venture to move some Amendments. But neither he nor any of those with whom he acted intended to oppose the Bill simply because it had been brought in by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. They would support such portions of it as they thought desirable; but, for his part, he should oppose doing away with taxation and representation and the short qualifying term which it was proposed to enact.
    *MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he did not propose to follow his hon. Colleague through his discursive speech. He begged, however, to express on behalf of most of the London Liberal Members their unqualified satisfaction at the Bill the Government were asking leave to introduce. Some of them desired to see other changes introduced into the law; but he believed that the whole of them would be united in supporting the Bill as a sensible and practical measure for dealing with the present difficulties of registration. He did not at all agree with his hon. Colleague in his anxiety with regard to the absence of the principle of representation and taxation in the Bill. Representation and taxation, as a matter of fact, had nothing at all to do with the matter. Rating was foisted on the Parliamentary qualification nominally with a view to securing responsible people on the register, but really as a practical disqualification of certain classes of people. The time had come when he thought they should get rid of disqualifications of this character. The absurd disfranchisements resulting from the rating conditions were so apparent that the wonder was the country had been content to endure them so long. They disqualified a man, who might be an honourable and respectable citizen, and who paid rates in his rent, because his landlord did not choose to forward the rates by a particular time. A most absurd and unjust proceeding, punishing one man for another's faith. He was glad to see that the Government had abolished rating in connection with registration. The three months' qualification was one which would, he believed, commend itself to sensible men on both sides of the House. In connection with the other provisions of the Bill, they would ensure most people who ought to be on the register being there, and would keep off

    1895
    persons who might otherwise get on through gerrymandering or shifting from one constituency to another. As to successive occupation, or transfer of voters from one qualifying place to another, he thought there might be some difficulty in carrying on such a system as between one constituency and another, but in the same constituency successive occupation was perfectly practicable and perfectly reasonable. Successive occupation between lodgers and householders was an absolute necessity if men were to be treated fairly and properly in connection with the franchise. He knew a case of two houses that were let out in rooms. They were owned by the same man. The owner lived in one house and took in lodgers, and he let the other house in tenements. He chose to transfer his residence from one house to the other, and thereby dis-franchised the whole lot because he transferred the lodgers into tenement occupiers, and the tenement occupiers into lodgers. They all hail to wait nearly two years before they could get on to the register again. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, he supposed, would be only too glad to see such an injustice as this put an end to. With regard to the officials who had hitherto attended to registration, he thought there had been a good deal of unfair and undeserved criticism as to the way in which they had done their duty. For his own part, he believed that the Overseers had discharged their duty honestly and fairly well. If they had not put on the register all the people entitled to be on it their excuse was that in consequence of their not having efficient machinery they could not make up a perfect register; besides, they were disinclined to incur the necessary expense without the authority of the Legislature. While it was their duty to put the tenement occupiers on the register, it was not their duty to find out and put on the lodgers, and if they had gone to expense in the matter, the probability was that their expenses would have been disallowed. Under the circumstances, he was not inclined to speak harshly of the way in which the Overseers had done their duty. The time had arrived when it was desirable that there should be a more efficient system of registration. He did not
    1896
    know a more important and responsible duty than the preparation of the register. Surely it was desirable that they should have registration officers appointed with sufficient power and with adequate funds for the purpose of carrying out the duty. As to the appointment of the officers in London, some hon. Gentlemen opposite viewed with suspicion the putting of the patronage into the hands of the London County Council, as it happened that that Council was at present mainly composed of gentlemen with whom hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had not much sympathy. While he was not a slavish admirer of the London County Council, he would say for them that whenever they had to make appointments they selected the best men they could find regardless of their political proclivities. For instance, they had had lately to appoint a Coroner; and instead of choosing a prominent politician of their own way of thinking, they selected a man who had nothing whatever to do with politics, but whose recommendation was his fitness for the office. He did not think that it was necessary to have a Superintendent electoral officer for each electoral division. It would be sufficient to have one for each borough in London, and he could be the Vestry Clerk of the parish, or of the largest parish in the borough, taking the position by virtue of his office. The district officers might be appointed by and responsible to him. By this means the difficulty complained of would be got over. This, however, was a matter of detail which could be dealt with in Committee. He trusted the Electoral Superintendents would hold their office during good behaviour, and only be liable to be removed for neglect of duty or excess of duty, or improper conduct. As to their remuneration, he would have liked to hear from the right hon. Gentleman how he proposed to remunerate them—whether by fixed salary or by fees, and from what particular fund? He had risen, however, for the purpose of expressing his entire sympathy with the effort made by the Government to deal with the question. He believed the Government had dealt with it in a comprehensive and practical spirit, and he hoped the measure would receive the unanimous support of the House.
    *SIR A. ROLLITsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had referred to what had passed at a meeting at which he (Sir A. Rollit) had been present, and he felt it almost a duty to say in his place in the House what he had said on the occasion of the Conservative Conference at Sheffield in moving the resolution in favour of a reform of the law of registration. The right hon. Gentleman was merely asking for leave to bring in a Bill; therefore this was not a time to criticise in minute detail the provisions of the measure; but the right hon. Gentleman had shown not only that there were real grievances to be redressed, but that he had prepared a remedy which would meet them practically and moderately, and one which ought to commend itself in general principles to both sides of the House. The subject was essentially one of a non-Party character. There was a division of opinion on the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), but the majority in favour of it had been very large, and composed of all Parties, whereas the small minority seemed to consist almost entirely of one section. Numerous Bills on this subject had been introduced by Members of all Parties. The hon. Member for Somerset and himself had introduced a Bill embodying many points of the present scheme, and dealing with them on a very similar principle. Public opinion in the country was strongly in favour of a reform in this direction. There was no question which appealed to the Constituencies more thoroughly than questions of registration reform, and both Parties had passed resolutions in favour of taking some such step as that to which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had referred as having been suggested at the Conservative Conference at Sheffield. At present they were living under a system of household suffrage; and if they ever had to discuss—as they might have to do—the question of household suffrage, which was the suffrage of citizenship, as opposed to manhood suffrage, it became most important to see that those who had the right to exercise the franchise had no obstacle whatever placed in their way, but that, on the contrary, household suffrage was strengthened and made
    1898
    in its practical application as inclusive as it possibly could be. The principle was conceded, and all differences, it seemed to him, were comparatively minute. He was sorry the President of the Local Grovernment Board had not seen his way to propose some codification of the law. He knew nothing so intricate, voluminous, and intermixed as the law of registration; and inasmuch as it dealt with the greatest of our public rights, it seemed to him that it should be made as simple as it could be. He had heard it said that a Roman Emperor hung up his laws at a great height so that they could not be read by the people, and so that he might punish the people for disobeying them; but we in this country were more ingenious, because we buried our law in piles of volumes as Statutes and cases, so that it was unintelligible to the people. He should have been glad if some means had been devised to make this law accessible to the people so as to give them greater interest in it and a greater knowledge of their rights. He concurred in the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and hoped the time was not far distant when we should have but one register. He believed that the burgess roll in boroughs and the lists in counties would be sufficient. The use of one register would prevent the anomalies that now existed; but whether they got a simple law, or one register or not, he thought they must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having devised a plan to remove many of the anomalies and technicalities with which the present law abounded. No one could have had experience of the Registration Courts without feeling that a strong sentiment of political disgust was occasioned by a large number of people being brought up to endeavour to sustain their votes, those votes being probably ultimately rejected, and a large expenditure of time and trouble and money being involved through operations of this description. Mistakes might be made by accident in the statement of qualification, and for an error of that kind a man should not be refused the vote, as at present, owing to some absence of power to amend that column. He, therefore, hoped that in that respect the widest latitude would be given to the Revising Barrister so that he might do substantial justice. With regard to the term of residence, no

    1899
    one could defend for one moment the anomaly under which a man might live for two years in a district without obtaining a vote, while another man might obtain the franchise in one year. Those things were not understood by the mass of voters, who knew little of electoral law, and it produced in their minds a feeling of inequality which it was most desirable to remove. He was sorry, perhaps, for the moment that the test of rating was proposed to be repealed, because he thought it was the best evidence of a householder's occupation; but, after all, the great principle of the franchise, in the boroughs at any rate, was inhabitancy or occupancy, and, that being fulfilled, every other consideration was comparatively unimportant. Residence was a good check on personation and a good proof of bonâ fide occupancy; but, after all, permanent residence was in one sense immaterial. A man need not reside in the house, though technically a resident, for the whole period. He might be absent during the whole period, but have the intention of returning. Therefore, residence from that point of view was a secondary consideration. The great principle was that a man should be a householder, performing the duties and obligations of citizenship, and that being fulfilled everything else was a minor consideration. He was inclined to think that the length of the term of residence proposed was too short, and that a modified period of six months would be more generally acceptable, but on this point he reserved his opinion for the present. He was glad that the anomalies of successive occupation were about to be removed. He had never been able to understand why a householder should have the benefit of successive occupation, while the lodger was deprived of it. He wished to point out on this question of successive occupation that as the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to allow successive occupation in cases of removal from one area into another, the division of the present large areas into small ones would result in the existing anomaly being aggravated rather than removed. Another point of great importance was that the obligation of the lodger to make his claim every year was about to be removed. The terrors of the lodger franchise were so great as to deter people from making claims. Lodgers had to
    1900
    claim annually; they had to state matters of detail such as who was the landlord—or the landlady—and the amount of rent paid; and indeed, the obstacles in the way of establishing the claim were such as to very materially limit the lodger franchise. He hoped some improvement would be made in the existing law with regard to the lodger qualification. No topic occupied so much of the time of the Revision Courts as the conflict as to the value of the rooms in respect to which a lodger claimed, and as to the separateness of his occupancy, &c. In his opinion, a much better principle than the existing one in such cases would be to take the rating of the house, and let each house carry, according to its rating, a certain number of lodgers. He had only to say, in conclusion, that he thought the system of having a public official charged with the duty of securing the franchise to every man who has a right to it in law was one which could not be resisted for one single moment. The combative legal system imported from the English Law Courts into the Revision Courts, by which a man's right to the franchise had to be defended by one party and resisted by another, had led to the loss of the right to vote where it existed in many cases, and to the assumption of that right where it did not exist in many other cases. Some objections might be raised to a public official dealing with a matter like the franchise, but to his mind the proposed system was far better than the present one, under which Political Parties dealt with a man's right to the vote as a Party matter. He was sure the Political Parties would welcome the change, for a strong distaste of the work of registration was general. He knew of nothing which alienated men more from political life than to have, after the General Election, to take up the political drudgery—for it was nothing more—of revision. In work of that description much political energy was dissipated which would be much better spent in the political teaching and instruction if the people. He believed that Superior tendents of Registration such as the right hon. Gentleman proposed in his Bill already existed in Scotland and worked well; and that being so, they should no hesitate to avail themselves of a system

    1901
    which had been proved to produce good results in another country. There were points of detail in the proposed Bill upon which differences would arise; but, taking it as a whole, he believed the right hon. Gentleman had put forward a scheme of moderate, practical, and progressive reform which he hoped would in all its essential features take its place on the Statute Book of the country.
    *MR. JAMES STANSFELD: Mr. Speaker, there was a proposition stated in the opening of the speech of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board with which I am in entire agreement, and which I think will also have the accord of the House generally. He asked why it should be necessary for a Government with a majority in this House to ask for leave to introduce a measure. I do not see why the Government should not be entitled, as private Members are entitled, to introduce Bills, and why we should not save time by postponing to the Second Reading the discussion which now takes place on the First Reading. But my right hon. Friend added words with which I do not agree. He apologised to the House for being compelled to take up their time with a wearisome speech on an uninteresting subject. I am certain that I express the unanimous feeling of the House when I say that I have never heard an explanatory speech more practical and more easily intelligible than that of my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend said that this is a Registration Bill, and not a Franchise Bill. I am not going to take exception to that statement, except to this extent: that I think it must be admitted—at any rate, I have always felt it—that you cannot simplify registration without touching the franchise, though you might deal with the franchise with the sole object of improving the registration. For instance, my right hon. Friend, in speaking of the defects of the present law, referred to the necessity of payment of rates and assessed taxes. But that is a portion of the qualification which confers the franchise under the existing law. He also referred to the length of occupancy and successive occupation, which also affect the exercise of the franchise at the present moment. My right hon. Friend was right in telling the House that the object of his Bill was to deal with the system of registration; but,
    1902
    as I have tried to demonstrate, you cannot simplify registration without in some respects touching the franchise itself. Many Members of this House, who were Members of the last Parliament also, know that this is a subject of which I possess some little knowledge. Well, I have not lost my knowledge or my interest in it, and I wish to say that I not only welcome the speech of my right hon. Friend, but I welcome also his measure as a sound liberal, and not an immoderate, measure of reform. I desire to compare the proposals of my right hon. Friend with the proposals contained in the Registration Bill which I introduced in the last Parliament. I should like to say first that, in the preparation of the Bill which I brought forward in the last Parliament, as the spokesman of the Opposition at the time, I received the valuable assistance of many hon. Friends, including the help of the right hon. Gentleman himself, so that that measure was the most practical contribution we could make on this question of registration reform at that time. Under these circumstances, it affords me great satisfaction to find how small is the difference between our proposals and the proposals of the Government to-day. This Bill abolishes the necessity of payment of rates and assessed taxes. The Bill which I introduced and carried through the Second Reading by a large majority also abolished that necessity. My Bill reduced the period of qualification from 12 and six months to three months. There is an identical reform in this Bill. My Bill provided for successive occupation, both in cases of removal within the electoral area, and in cases of removal from one electoral area to another. I am not sure that my right hon. Friend is not wise in removing this latter reform from his Bill. I know it was open to the danger of abuse, and I am not disposed to quarrel with the judgment that the Government have arrived at. With regard to the lodgers, my Bill proposed a very similar arrangement to that put forward in this Bill. There is, therefore, practical identity between the two measures in questions of reform; but when we come to the question of the machinery there is a clear distinction, and I am not sure that it is not in favour of the present measure. The Bill which I introduced started with the Overseer as the

    1903
    possessor of the rate books, and having the requisite knowledge, and appointed a Superintendent Registrar, as in this Bill, who would make the Overseers his servants, and oblige them to perform their duties in a more accurate and reliable manner than they have done under the present system. My right hon. Friend in his Bill starts not with the Overseer, but with the Superintendent Registrar, and then there are District Registrars who are to be sub-officers of the Superintendent Registrar. The conception of my right hon. Friend appears to be to take the construction of the voters' lists out of the hands of the Overseers and place it in the hands of the District Registrars under the superintendence of the Superintendent Registrar. That is a different point of view from that in my Bill, but I do not know how far it will work out differently in practice. My right hon. Friend referred to the question of expense. I think the House will feel a desire to know at the earliest opportunity what is the estimated expense of my right hon. Friend's arrangements as compared with the estimated expense of the proposals embodied in my Bill, but I do not know that the estimate of this system will be more expensive than the other. Informing a system, voluntarily as well as official, expenditure should be taken into account. I quite agree with the view, that the work of registration should he a burden on the public. One consequence of the proposed change in the system of registration will be, undoubtedly, a very large reduction in the expenditure of political agents and Registration Associations on whom the present system imposes a heavy burden, besides acting unfairly in giving an advantage to the wealthy man as compared with the poor man, who is entitled to the vote, but who, without money or without time, is unable to establish his claim. The principle is a sound one, and to secure the vote to every man entitled to it is a matter of public duty. I may say that on the whole it appears to me that the Bill is admirably conceived and admirably propounded. There will be differences, of course, but I hope our discussions on the Bill will continue to be conducted, as they have been conducted to-day, and that we shall be able without any undue delay to deal with
    1904
    the details in Committee and to carry the measure forward to a successful conclusion.
    *MR. E. STANHOPE: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to think it was absolutely unnecessary that the introduction of this Bill should be prefaced by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. But if any justification were wanted for the demand we made on this side of the House to hear from the right hon. Gentleman an exposition of the Bill when it came to be introduced, it is found in the fact that though he stated the facts as concisely as he stated them clearly, it required an hour to explain the measure. So far from any time having been lost by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the statement he has put before us as to the objects of the Government and the remedies they desire to apply to the present system of registration, will very much simplify our task when we come to examine the provisions of the Bill. I will not attempt to go at any length into the details of the Bill; we must wait until we see it in print; but I should like at once to express my concurrence, and I believe I may say the concurrence of gentlemen who sit near me, with some of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman as to the necessity for a reform in the system of registration. We on this side of the House, as well as those on the other side of the House, have felt that reform is not only wanted, but wanted at an early date. We certainly think that those voters who are declared by Parliament to be qualified to vote should be put on the register without any unreasonable delay, and that they should not be taken off the register for the trifling causes for which many are now deprived by the franchise; but, at the same time, every precaution should be taken for the purpose of preventing personation. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that the present system of registration does not meet our requirements in this matter; but it is also true that a system of personation prevails to a considerable extent, and I am afraid to an increasing extent, in this country. The House should, therefore, examine the Bill to see how far it fulfils every one of those

    1905
    requirements; whether it enables voters to get the vote, whether it prevents them being struck off for trifling objections, and also whether it prevents the prevalent system of personation. The right hon. Gentleman has said that really what he proposes to deal with in the present Bill is not the franchise, but registration. He has proposed various remedies which, he says, will meet the existing system of registration. I ask how are we going to deal with this Bill when it is introduced? I would refer to a precedent fresh in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman—the Registration (Occupation of Voters) Bill, introduced after the last Reform Bill. With the assent of both sides of the House, that Bill was sent upstairs to a Select Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman and myself had the honour of being Members of that Committee. The Bill Was examined with the greatest care, and we called three witnesses one an expert in county registration, one skilled in borough registration, and a Revising Barrister. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the hearing of those witnesses threw light upon the many details of the Bill, and as a result we were able to present the Bill in a form that made its passage much easier and more speedy. Unfortunately, judging from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, he is not going to follow that precedent, but that the Government desire to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee. The right hon. Gentleman says very properly, however, that that will be a matter for the House to decide; and when the time comes we shall object to the proposal, as we think it is not one of those Bills that ought to be sent to a Grand Committee. I now come to some of the suggested remedies of the right hon. Gentleman, but I will not deal with them in the same order. I will touch, first, the question of lodgers. In the case of lodgers he proposes to get rid of all applications, leaving it to a proper authority to take care that they should be put upon the register. I doubt whether any proper authority can investigate who are entitled to be put on the register as lodgers. For my part, I think the more sensible proposal would be to require the lodger to claim, in the first instance, as he does now, and then a careful investigation could be made as to whether he is entitled, and after that,
    1906
    whilst retaining the same qualification, there would be no necessity for reclaiming the vote year by year; that would be a fair compromise, would be a security against some possible evils, and would enable lodgers to be kept on the register much easier than under the present system. Then I come to the question which, after all, is one of franchise, though the right hon. Gentleman said he desired to keep franchise out of this question. When the right hon. Gentleman came to the present system of rating which he desires to abolish, he was going into the question of franchise. For my part, I doubt whether it is wise to give up the principle of rating. You have to go through the whole course of making, up the rate book in any case, and I think it is highly desirable to keep up a book which, after all, is not alone for Parliamentary and municipal franchise, and which is much less liable to manipulation than any register that might otherwise be prepared. The term of residence the right hon. Gentleman proposes is one of three months, and he proposes to make that a term of residence in the case of all franchises. Much as I desire to shorten the present term, I think a term of three months is too short. I quite agree with what fell from my hon. Friend below the Gangway on that subject, that it would be better to have some intermediate term—say six months, which would gain all the objects the right hon. Gentleman is aiming at, and against which no substantial objection would be raised. Then I come to the question of successive occupation. Our main desire in this matter is that the constituency as a, whole should be composed of bonâ fide residents; we do not want real bonâ fide residents to be swamped by temporary residents who have invaded a constituency. That every one would condemn, and I was heartily glad to learn the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to follow successive occupation from one constituency to another, and in that determination I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and the Government Will receive very great support from this side of the House. But when we deal with the question of removals, I do not think I can go with the right hon. Gentleman, and I doubt whether any machinery can

    1907
    be devised to carry out removals from one constituency to another in the manner he advocates without introducing other dangers against which there ought to be some safeguard. I have dealt with those special points the right hon. Gentleman raised, and I think I have fully explained to the House the desire which we have in the matter, a desire to assist the Government in making reasonable amendments in the law of registration. And I will go further; for thought I think the scheme proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in some respects is open to objection, it will be an improvement upon the present system, though I am by no means sure the proposal of the Government is the best scheme. For myself, I would throw out a suggestion which I hope the Government will consider, whether it be in Committee of the Whole House or whether in Committee upstairs, and my suggestion would rather be this: Whether you could not fix a qualifying date in the first instance? then you should make out a list of the residents in the constituency at that qualifying date, and that afterwards no one should vote who had not retained that qualification unbroken from the qualifying date to the time of the election. However, I feel that I cannot fully appreciate the proposed alterations without seeing them; and when the time comes, we may have an opportunity of making the suggestion I have thrown out, and I shall he very glad to hear whether it commends itself to the approval of the Government. Now I come to what, after all, is one of the main changes, and that is, the appointment of a public official to carry out the registration; but before speaking of that, I should like to say a word for the Overseer, who will be swept away. I agree with the hon. Member behind me, that the Overseers have done good work in their day, and I am by no means sure that in many of the country districts you would get better work than has been done by the Overseers, much maligned though they have been. We have every reason to be grateful to the Overseers for the manner in which they have done the work, even if it be proposed entirely to entrust this work to someone else. I am not opposed to registration by a public officer; that may be a provision that may be proper; but when he goes on to say that all the registration officers are to be
    1908
    appointed by the County Council or the Town Council, that opens up a question of very great difficulty. Everyone can, see that it might lead not to the danger of jobbery itself, but to what is as bad—the suspicion of jobbery; and I am bound to confess there are some Bodies to whom I should be exceedingly reluctant to entrust this power. I am not going to say a word by way of attack upon the London County Council, who claim to carry out the wishes of the majority of the ratepayers in the distribution of their offices. They carry out the principle of the spoils to the victors. ["No, no!"] In any case, if they do not, there is a suspicion abroad that that has been their object; and whether it be the London County Council or any other County Council or Town Council, very great safeguards will be required before we entrust to them the right of appointing an enormous number of officials. Then what is to be the cost? The right hon. Gentleman does not suggest it can be reduced, and it is obvious to me that it cannot be reduced. You are going to establish an expensive system of officials all over the country—all of them will be paid, I presume; you are going to keep up the Revising Barristers, who will cost the country, as at present, a large sum, and you are not going to get rid of the Party machinery because you are going to have a field for the Revising Barrister, and each Party will naturally expect that the officials of their own side will appear to defend the votes that are the subject of appeal before the Revising Barrister. Therefore, it appears to me, the probability is that, in the first place, you will not diminish the expenditure; secondly, you will largely increase the expenditure by the appointment of official Registrars; and, what is worst of all, you are going to require that this large item of expenditure be met out of the rates. To that proposition we shall offer the strongest possible objection. The right hon. Gentleman himself has said that to put voters on the register is the duty of the State; but there is no reason why one description of property should pay the whole burden, therefore we shall oppose any attempt to put any expense whatever on the rates for the purpose of performing what, after all, is the object and duty of the State. I do

    1909
    not wish to speak of this Bill adversely, but I have offered suggestions upon points that require amendment, and, so far as the introduction of the Bill is concerned, we are not desirous of putting any difficulty in the way of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman.
    SIR HENRY JAMES: The Bill of my right hon. Friend has had a very friendly greeting, and I have no words to utter except those of joy in welcoming it, though there are one or two matters I would like to refer to. As to the length of occupation before the elector is entitled to vote, every man should be permitted to vote as quickly as he can, and the only danger you have to deal with is the invasion of the constituencies by electors who cannot be identified with the constituency. Now, Sir, as I understand, the right hon. Gentleman's proposition, the minimum time within which a voter can be entitled to vote, is eight months, or rather a fraction over seven months, because there is to be three months before the 25th June, and then the register does not come into operation until the 1st November. If a man comes into occupation on the 26th June he will not be entitled to vote for 20 months. In times of great excitement there is grave danger of particular constituencies being invaded. Under this Bill, for instance, the constituency of Midlothian in 1880 would have been in great danger, and I am, therefore, somewhat alarmed by the proposition of my right hon. Friend. If I understand him rightly, a person, during the winter-time having a vote in another electoral area, could, by coming into a particular area, utilise his previous occupation, and gain a voting qualification by a three months' residence in the particular area; therefore how could you minimise invasion if you allow successive occupation? Supposing an election was coming on in which the greatest possible interest was taken; the parties were very equal, and 50 votes would turn the election, 50 strangers might be brought in, and, while the real occupants must have eight months' qualification, the invading stranger only requires three months. Of course, to-night we cannot discuss this question, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he can insist upon the successive occupation, and whether he
    1910
    considers it a protection against invasion? Then, as to the abolition of rating, a great deal has been said in favour of the abolition of rating which never was really the qualification, but merely the evidence of it; the real qualification was the occupation of the house, which meant ownership or ratal. If a man was in arrears with his rates you disqualified him; but if he were in arrear with his rent, which was the real qualification, you did not. The rating qualification has already been abolished in the Service franchise, and in the case of small tenements—in both cases the rates not being paid by the voter. That is in favour of the abolition of rating, but then this difficulty will arise: If you are going to abolish rating, you will open the door to a greater number of false claims being made, because no man takes upon himself the burdens of rates in order to get a vote. But then if you have not got to pay rates, any man's name may go upon the register, if some body says he is the real occupier. It is to be feared there would be a great many claims made by people who are nominally the payers of rent and not the actual occupier. That, however, is a matter that can better be discussed in Committee. The other principal subject is the appointment of the public officer. I think the House will agree, as a whole, it is well to have a central officer for the purpose of controlling the register. If you abolish the rating qualification the reason for the Overseer having charge of the register is gone, and there is no reason why he should be further continued. In dealing with such an amount of patronage you have to consider whether the Overseer shall remain. I am rather inclined to think he ought to go, but we must reserve our opinion as to the method of appointing the public officer. No one would wish to see the patronage in the hands of the Government. We should wish, as far as possible, to see the patronage in the hands of an Elective Body subject to the control of their constituents. I think there is a great distinction between the patronage being in the hands of an Electoral Body in a locality where public opinion can be rapidly brought to bear, and patronage in the hands of the London County Council, which administers over an area where public opinion cannot so well be brought to bear. You could not bring the public opinion of Islington to

    1911
    bear upon an election at Kensington. I am not going to dwell upon that to-night, as the proper time will be in Committee. But may I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to let this Bill come before this house to be dealt with in Committee? As it is a question of general interest almost amounting to a political reform, you ought not to deprive the House of the right of dealing with this subject. There are some kinds of Bills so complicated that you cannot deal with them in the House; but this is a general Bill, on a subject with which all Members are presumed to be acquainted. In 1883 my right hon. Friend near me brought in a Bankruptcy Bill, and I introduced the Corrupt Practices Bill. The House could not have dealt with the Bankruptcy Bill, which was a complicated and difficult subject, and it was referred to a Grand Committee; but what would have been said if you had sent the Corrupt Practices Bill to a Grand Committee? You would have deprived the House of dealing with a subject of general interest. Another practical reason for dealing with the present Bill in the House is that many Members are prevented from attending Grand Committees by business or professional engagements. We might go through the Bill in great detail on Report, but that would not be a wise thing to do. I am sure there will be no undue discussion in Committee, and I would therefore suggest that the Bill, which I think ought to pass, should go into Committee of the Whole House.
    *MR. BARTLEYthought the Debate had justified the view that it was of the greatest importance to discuss these questions on the primary stage. He thought they were all agreed that the question or the Registration Laws was one that required investigation and alteration, and he also agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that many or the anomalies he had pointed out were not creditable to their laws, and should be amended; but they must also remember that the object of registration was also of a local nature, and that it was of great importance to retain the local idea of registration. But they could not retain that idea if they were going to sweep on to the register, in the fashion proposed, thousands of accidental residents. He objected to a three
    1912
    months' period, and he thought when it came to be discussed in the House the arguments against it would be found conclusive. They could not retain the idea of local representation with such a system as that proposed, but what was worse was the changing from one district to another, and it appeared to him that it would lead to every conceivable gerrymandering. At Cirencester, for instance, it would have been possible under the Bill for a number of persons to have changed their residence within the last few months and have become voters in the division. ["No, no!"] There was no question about it, because it had been known for more than three months that the result would be a very narrow one. It often happened that in one division there was a large majority, whilst in another there was a very small one. In his own district he had the good fortune to secure a large majority, but his neighbour had a small one, and 40 or 50 electors would have turned the scale; and under this scheme it would have been possible to have transferred sufficient votes to have done so, thus upsetting the whole system or representative government. This was not a supposititious case. The transfer could be made under this scheme, and thus frustrate the whole registration system. He should like to emphasise the point to which the late Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) referred—namely, that the Bill would do away with Party Registration Agents in the view of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board or Trade (Mr. H. H. Fowler). He could not see how that could be the case. If there was going to be some heavy penalty imposed if anyone eligible was not put on the register, they were embarking on a very difficult task; and if there was not a serious penalty, it would be necessary, as in the past, for each Party to look after the registration. If the London Registration were going to be handed over to the London County Council he should resist that to the uttermost. If the County Council should appoint an agent without the approval of the Patty Organisation, they would have to look after him and although he might take no part whatever, the chances were that his previous history and opinions—whether Liberal or Conservative—would be

    1913
    known. Therefore, it seemed to him obvious that they would still require all the trouble and expense of the Registration Agent in spite of this Bill having become law. There were many other points. Some said that it was the duty of the people to vote, that to vote was a sacred duty which ought to be attended to. No doubt that was so; but, on the other hand, they were so multiplying elections that a great number of people who were not on the register now, were not there because they did not care to be on. There was great indifference on the subject, and they were making elections so common that people were beginning to be bored with them. Last year they had a School Board election, the County Council election, the Guardians' election, and the Parliamentary election, and it was getting much more difficult to get many people to take any interest in the matter. The very fact that they were making these elections more common, and at the same time taking the responsibility from the people they wished on the register, would, in his opinion, cause greater apathy from year to year. With regard to the period of qualification, there was, he thought, some misapprehension on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. As he understood it, the minimum time before anyone could be on the register and able to vote was seven months, and the maximum qualification 16 months; i.e., if a person became a resident on the 25th March he would be able to be on the register on 1st November following; but if he became it resident in the previous July—having, therefore, resided for a year and three months — he would have a qualification of something like 16 months. He thought there was a great deal to be said for making the period six months and not three, and be certainly hoped the House would agree on that point. The essential point was whether the register consisted of the real bonâ fide inhabitants of the district, and he thought six months' residence, which meant nearly a year, before the person was on the register was not an unreasonable time.
    MR. J. JAMES STUARTsaid, he hoped the general chorus of approval that had attended the introduction of this Bill would be maintained when they came to the Second
    1914
    Reading, and he almost hoped, from the nature of the discussion, that the Second Reading, might be passed over with a very short discussion. All the points that had been raised were clearly points for Committee. They had been indicated as such by those who had touched upon them, and the passage of the Bill might be largely expedited if those points were raised in the same spirit as they had been to-day. So far as the general scope and aspect of the Bill was concerned, he had not had an opportunity of consulting with those London Members with whom he was accustomed to act; but he felt certain that he could say On their behalf that the measure was one which they cordially accepted, because it embodied really the two Bills which they had introduced in the last Parliament year after year on the subject. The right hon. Member for Bury bad very ably summarised the main points of the Bill, and he had omitted only one of great importance. Those main points were the shortening of the period of residence, the appointment of all officer who was to be responsible for registration, and the assimilation of the lodger to the occupier franchise. The point with respect to the assimilation of the lodger and the occupier franchise was one which so seriously affected London that they who represented London constituencies could not help putting it in the very forefront of their consideration. But of the various strictures that had been passed on the Bill, so far as he could understand, the principal one was the objection to the three months' residence. He sincerely hoped the Government would stand firm upon the question of three months. There was a very great difference between six months and three months with regard to the amount of disfranchisement that took place, and he trusted, therefore, the Government would stand firm. Some criticism had been passed upon the proposal to enable a transference to take place from one constituency to another. Whatever method they might adopt of transference of voters under certain circumstances, that transference would always be a very difficult matter to deal with. It was a matter much, more difficult to deal with in detail than any other portion of this Bill. A point with respect to London had been raised

    1915
    by an hon. Member opposite—namely, that it was undesirable to restrict the successive occupation to the individual constituencies of London. He entirely disagreed with that stricture. An opportunity for gerrymandering would be afforded if they allowed the transference by successive occupation to take place from one Loudon constituency to another, and therefore he welcomed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who, in introducing the Bill, had pointed out that for the purposes of the Bill the separate constituencies of London would be regarded as practically separate boroughs. A suggestion had been thrown out by a right hon. Gentleman to-night, which was of so bizarre a kind that it could scarcely be taken into consideration by the House. He proposed that, a registration should take place of all persons who were in occupation upon a certain given day, and that then those only should be allowed to vote at an election who had remained in continuous occupation up to the election. But it scarcely needed to be pointed out that that practically amounted to the compilation of the register on the day of the election. With respect to the opposition to the London County Council on the other side of the House, really it was almost unnecessary to enter into that question now, as there were so many hon. Members on the other side to whom the London County Council was like a red rag to a bull. But he would only correct one mis-statement. The hon. Member for St. Pancras had said that the London County Council had placed members of the majority of the Council in the position of Chairman of every Committee. Now, it is an entire mistake. Many of the most honoured and respected Chairmen of the London County Council Committees belonged to the minority, and were recognised as most influential members. Then there was the question of the expenses of registration. Notice was almost given from the other side of the House that they would oppose the placing of any expense connected with registration upon the rates, but the expenses connected with registration at present fell upon the rates, and he could not see that there was any necessity for a great change in this matter. As he understood, the total cost of registration, as it
    1916
    fell upon the Public Bodies in England, did not differ much from £300,000 a year, and, as he took it, the amount of expense that would be added to that by this Bill would be only a small portion of the general expenditure. Take London, for instance. In London the cost of registration to Public Bodies was £32,000 a year, and of that it was certain that no less a sum than one-third (£10,000) might undoubtedly be saved if the printing of the registers was carried on upon a reasonable basis. If that could be saved in London, he had every confidence that a large sum might be saved elsewhere. No doubt some Party organisation must still be continued, but no one could look at the provisions of this Bill and see the numbers which would be put upon the register without admitting that a very large amount of the Party work would henceforth be done away with. The number of electors which such a provision as this Bill might reasonably be expected to add to the constituencies of London would be something not fan short of from 25 to 30 per cent., and he believed the cost of putting a voter upon the register would be diminished under the new circumstances instead of being increased. He most heartily hoped the Bill would be proceeded with early, as it was a matter of the deepest importance to this country.
    Several hon. Members having risen in their places to continue the Debate, Mr. WALTER M'LAREN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. W. H. FISHERwho expressed surprise that an hon. Member should have attempted to closure the Debate at that hour of the evening. The hon. Member might have observed that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House were desirious of being very concise in their remarks. He did not intend to traverse the ground taken by other speakers, but he believed that this discussion would facilitate the passing of the Bill. He only intended to emphasise one point that, had been raised, and to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question on his own account. He agreed

    1917
    with the right hon. Gentleman in most of the remedies he proposed for the grievances the electors suffered from, but, of course, he did not agree with the three months' qualification. One of the points which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury brought before the House was that the constituencies might be invaded by aliens destitute of any local qualification or interest. There might be what he might call a natural importation. For instance, when certain works were being carried on, they might have a large body of navvies imported into a district, but he desired as much as possible to reserve the local qualification for electors, and he must say he thought it would he very hard upon a rural constituency which took a different view of matters from an urban constituency, if it should be swamped by voters from an urban constituency, who had no permanent residence in it, but whose residence there was perhaps just that period which would qualify them for voting at a by-election. He thought that was a reasonable objection to the three months' qualification. Then, again, there was the danger of an artificial importation into the constituencies. In some cases they had months of warning, that a by-election was about to take place; and undoubtedly if the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion was carried out, it would be perfectly possible for some hundreds of persons who were qualified in another constituency to go down to a constituency for the express purpose of altering the balance. He wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill a question in connection with the appointment of the Superintendent of Registrars. He did not suppose that the hon. Member for Shoreditch would think he would be altogether satisfied if the Superintendent of Registrars at Fulham were appointed by the County Council, although he had never been a bitter opponent or a very hostile critic of the County Council. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that a Superintendent of Registrars could not hold the position of an agent, and could not himself be a candidate either for Parliamentary or municipal honours; but what he wanted to know was, was the office to be subject to any disabilities? Could he resign his office and become a candidate? He did not think such an officer
    1918
    ought to be allowed to become a candidate for Parliament except within a reasonable number of years after his resignation of office. Subject to the question of the three months' qualification and one or two other points, he would be most happy to give his general support to the Bill.
    *SIR J. GOLDSMIDsaid, that as one of the Members who during the last, few years had brought in a Bill on this subject, he would like to say a few words upon it. Over and over again he had heard complaints from lodger voters in London that it was practically impossible to obtain access to the register without incurring the greatest loss of time, which meant loss of occupation and income. Therefore, any change which was made towards facilitating the access of the lodger to the register was eminently desirable. He understood that in future lodgers would not have to claim in order to be placed on the register—that they would be placed on it in the same way as the occupier. He, for his part, could not see that there would be any real difficulty in providing a proper supervision so as to prevent the names of false lodgers appearing. He should like to refer to the service franchise. The service franchise was a question or great difficulty in many constituencies, and as a matter of fact it was well-known in most cases that the service was manufactured or was a pretence. He had known some sons to be put down as servants of their father because they could not be put upon the Register in any other way. It was a hardship that a son living with his father, and who was quite capable of acting as a good citizen, should be obliged to resort to this device in order to get on the Register, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether in some way it was not possible to treat sons residing with their fathers in a more liberal manner in the service franchise. As regarded the registration itself, he had often thought it an absurdity that there should be more than one register for so many different elections they had to go through, such as the Parliamentary, Municipal, and School Boards. There should be one Register for all these elections, and there should also be one Registration Officer, independent of candidates and electors. Upon that point there seemed to be a

    1919
    unanimity of opinion, but with regard to method of appointment there seemed to be a difference of opinion. He had never expressed any want of confidence in the London County Conned, but it did strike him that after all the London County Council had big matters to look after, and could not therefore know local feeling as well as the locality itself. In local feeling he thought there would be found the proper safeguard with regard to the method in which the Registration Officer carried on his duties, and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the authority which should appoint the Registration Officer was not the County Council but the Parish Councils which were about to be created. He believed in the Parish Council would be found sufficient local knowledge to control the method in which Registration Officer performed his duty. As to the period which should qualify for registration they had now a period of 12 months, which in most cases came to nearly two years, or even more. That was too long a period, and he had made humble attempts to get it shortened. But it was impossible for a private Member to carry a measure on so important a matter, and therefore he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken this duty. With regard to the period of three months, objection only was taken because of the possibility of the invasion or a constituency. It was proposed by the Bill that there should be only one registration every year. He once suggested before, and he would throw out the suggestion now, that it might be worth while for the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether there should not be two registrations every year and a six months' qualification, which would thus enable any difficulty to be got over? In any case, he was glad the long-suffering electors would have the chance of getting on the register without the difficulties they at present experienced. He had noticed, when he attended the Registration Courts, that the agents on both sides raised all kinds of technical objections. He had also on more than one occasion heard Revising Barrister say he was constrained by the Act of Parliament to strike men fully qualified off the register. He contended that that ought not to be possible. The proper method would be, that the
    1920
    Revising Barrister in such cases should have power to alter the register.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: He will have.
    SIR J. GOLDSMIDwas very glad to hear it, because he knew from personal experience that this subject caused the greatest irritation and injustice. He thought it was desirable not to have much discussion upon the Second Reading, but this was a question that would depend entirely on the tribunal to which the right hon. Gentleman referred the Bill. If he sent it to a Grand Committee, it would be impossible to avoid long discussions, not only on the Second Reading, but also in Committee of that House. He would, therefore, support the suggestion that had been made, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, where there were few Members, and where it would be prepared for consideration by the Committee of the whole House. That seemed to him the proper course to pursue, and if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to it, it would greatly facilitate the passage of the Bill.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, generally speaking, he considered the Government must be congratulated upon the introduction of this Registration Reform Bill, and as criticism had been directed from both sides of the House as to the short period of qualification, it was only right he should give his opinion upon this, and one or two other points that had been mentioned. If there was any fault to be found with the Bill, he found fault with it in the direction that the period of qualification was too long; that it was not sufficiently democratic and advanced; that it was not based upon adult suffrage; that registration agents had not been entirely abolished; that one register had not been definitely decided upon, and that canvassing had not been made illegal. But they must be satisfied with what they could get from all Governments, and he would accept the instalment embodied in the Bill with the greatest possible pleasure. He would not have risen to have spoken on the Bill except for the remark of the right hon. And learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), and as he (Mr. Burns) happened to belong to the body adversely, unjustly, and inaccurately criticized by hon. Members on that side of the House, he ventured to reply to the right hon. Member for Bury's

    1921
    criticism with regard to the Superintendents of Registration not being placed under the control of the County Councils. The right hon. Gentleman said very truly that, whenever it was possible, the Superintendents of Registration in every constituency should he placed under the Elective Body, as by that means public criticism would he focussed and concentrated upon the appointments, and corruption and maladministration would he avoided. He agreed entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's re-Marks upon that point and it was because the London County Council was certainly the most directly elected popular Body in London, that he trusted the Government, as a vital principle, would insist upon those Registration Officers being under the jurisdiction of the London County Council, at least until the new District or Parish Councils were created. Who was to elect these Superintendent Registrars? In London they had to chose as between the London County Council and the City Corporation or the existing vestries. Certainly not even hon. Members on that (the opposite) side of the House would suggest that in the matter of securing the voting power for 4,000,000 of people the City Corporation, with practically 100,000 of a population, should take Precedence of the London County Council that had 4,000,000 of people under its jurisdiction; consequently the City Corporation could not claim the right to elect those men. Certainly they could not allow the Registrars to be elected by the existing vestries on a fancy franchise—property qualification—and not the best form of honest government as he was sorry to say prevailed in too many districts, and until the new District Councils were created he saw no reason why the London County Council should not have the appointment of the registrars and the management of the elections in the same way as Provincial Corporations managed their own elections through their clerks. Until they got District Councils London, there was a strong probability that, if the County Council had the election Or these superintendents what would happen would be what happened in the case of all other appointments—namely, that they would appoint local men, apart from political predilections, on their own merits and qualifications
    1922
    alone for the post. He came now to another point which had been made by the hon. Member for East. St. Pancras (Mr. R. G. Webster). In one of the most unfair criticisms of any public Body which he had ever heard, that hon. Member made remarks which he (Mr. Burns) must traverse al a little length. The hon. Member said he objected to the County Council having anything to do with the registration officers of London, on the ground that the majority always elected men of their own political persuasion. Now, he happened to be a humble member of the hardworking, energetic, and, he ventured to say, one of the most uncorruptible Bodies in the world, and he had frequently voted for officers on their merits, and afterwards found out accidentally that they were of totally different political and social opinions to himself. It was necessary he should say that the hon. Member's statement was not true, because the Chairman of the Theatres Committee (Mr. Fardell) was a Conservative; the Chairman of the Building Committee (Dr. Longstaff) was a Conservative; the Chairnman of the Parks Committee (Mr. Fletcher) was also a Conservative; the Chairman of the Housing Committee (Mr. Beechcroft) was also a Conservative and he was elected as all Alderman; and altogether the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the London County Council—
    *MR. R.G. WEBSTER (interposing): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but all I said was, that in the appointment of London Aldermen they appointed them entirely from one side, and that was the Liberal side.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, that was not true, as Mr. Beechcroft, who was Chairman of the Housing Committee, was a Conservative in politics, and a member of the last Council is one of the gentlemen that the Progressive majority elected with others as all Alderman at the last election. Of course, it was not to be expected that hon. Members, who shared that apathy and indifference to London government that another hon. Member said was characteristic of the rich and well-to-do classes in London, should take the trouble to inquire into the character, the policy, and the work of the Body that they so unfavourably criticised. He could only say he trusted that, so far as London was concerned,

    1923
    the Government would look upon the appointment of Superintendent Registrars for all registration purposes as a vital principle not to be vitiated in any way by unfair criticism of the representative Body in London, the County Council. If hon. Members liked to dissociate themselves from that Body because they happened to differ with it, on behalf of the London County Council be should have much pleasure in disavowing all connection with hon. Members so unfair and so inaccurate as to misrepresent a Body which ought to have placed in its power those privileges and functions which, in connection with elections, were given to provincial Corporations, and which London ought to exercise through its County Council, a Body which, whatever its faults might be, had worked hard in the interests of its constituents and this great Empire.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I only rise to say a few words. I must at the outset congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on his admirable Bill and the speech he made in introducing it. The reason why I principally support this Bill and its application to Ireland is that it will make a great reduction in the burdens which rest upon the people. Not only will it make savings in the pockets of the ratepayers, but also in the pockets of the candidates and in the funds of Party Associations. These savings might be calculated by tens of thousands of pounds. In Ireland we require this Bill quite as much as in England, and I gather from the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman on another occasion, that it is the intention Of the Irish Government to apply it to our country. I heard with some interest what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to lodgers; and the hon. Baronet who represents the St. Pancras Division (Sir Julian Goldsmid) made a statement with regard to England which we cannot make with regard to Ireland. He said that some means should be devised of placing lodgers upon the list without making bogus claims. If he would be good enough to take a decision given in Ireland with regard to lodgers in a case in the City of Derry, he would find that we do not labour under any disability in that respect, because a divinity student named McVicker, who resided in Belfast, and attended the college there,
    1924
    was enabled to get upon the register because his father was able to swear that he was paying him for his rooms in Derry, and that they were kept separate and apart for him, no other member of the family being allowed to use them. One other observation I have to make as to the necessity of simplifying the means of objection. The hon. Member for South Tyrone is fond of boasting that he is the representative of the tenant farmers of Ulster. I can safely say that he is the representative of the bogus votes that were put upon the register despite the strong protest of the Court of Appeal. The majority which sent him to this House is 370, and last year the Court of Appeal had before them this fact, that close upon 400 votes were returned upon the list because the objector had omitted from his objection the statement that he was now upon the register for the County of Tyrone. The Revising Barrister refused to amend the objection, and within the course of two months that Revising Barrister was made a County Court Judge by the late Government. On the whole, Mr. Justice Shaw now sits as County Court Judge, and enjoys £1,200 a year because he returned the Member for South Tyrone. There is no country which requires this Bill more than Ireland, and I sincerely trust to have from this Government a definite statement upon that point. No doubt there is a difficulty in applying the law, because you have County Councils in England and we have not got them in Ireland. The Conservative Members think they suffer from a plethora of elections in this country. We suffer under no such disability. We have no County Councils, no School Boards, and really our voters do not think it a hardship once in seven years to be called upon to cast their votes for a Member of Parliament. Having no County Councils in Ireland deprives us of machinery the right hon. Gentleman has to his hands in England. I do not say that the machinery to be created should be the Poor Law or the Clerk of the Peace. That is a matter for the Government to consider, and I am quite sure when they do consider it they will hit upon the cheapest and most economical system, and one which will give the ratepayers the greatest advantage to be derived from this improved system.
    *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: There was one announcement which has just been made that came upon the House with some sense of novelty, and that was that this measure should extend to Ireland. I listened to the able statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and I failed to hear any reference to Ireland in his speech announcing the policy of the Government. Do I understand this measure is to extend to Ireland, or not?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I will explain afterwards.
    *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is in possession of information of that kind.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: What I founded myself on was the statement that, these principles would be made of universal application.
    *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: But I think if the hon. and learned Gentleman casts his eye lower down the Notice Paper to-night he will see that a measure is to be introduced dealing with a kindred subject in respect to Scotland, and if universality of application is one of the merits of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill it seems somewhat, inconsistent that a measure dealing with Scotland should stand in the name of one of his Colleagues in the Government to be immediately submitted to this House. On a former occasion, when a Bill partaking largely of the character of the present measure was before the last House of Commons, I felt it my duty to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months. That Motion, or at any rate the discussion consequent thereon, has, I ant glad to find, had one very beneficial result—namely, as far as I can gather from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill he now proposes omits certain provisions which were extremely objectionable in the measure of last year. That measure, which was introduced in a very able speech of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) dived, I thought somewhat dangerously, into the question of coat bilious occupation, and I certainly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) on having managed to steer clear, to a large extent at any rate, of the pitfalls which surrounded the previous measure in that regard. With regard to the extent to which the right
    1926
    hon. Gentleman carries that principle in the present measure I would like to say a word. Our representative system is founded upon what is known as the local principle. That may or may not be the soundest basis upon which the principle of representation should be framed, but it has always been the principle supported by Parliament, and I very much question whet her Parliament would be lightly induced to part from it. We have known many propositions made to this House for altering that system of local representation. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt recollects the proposal brought forward by Mr. John Stuart Mill in favour of the system of personal representation. I confess when I heard some of the arguments which have been advanced to-night in favour of comprehensive changes in our existing registration system I felt we must be losing sight of the fact that Parliament has always declined to vary that local representation and to endorse mere personal representation. This Bill, as I understand it, although it steers clear of that continuous occupation included in former measures, provides that a person who is duly qualified by residence to vote in respect of his qualification in one given locality is ipso facto entitled to record Ids vote where-ever he happens to be. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but some of those who followed him indicated that such was the case. Now, on the contrary, I say that a vote is conferred upon a person in respect of a local qualification, and until he identifies himself with some other locality by a sufficiently long term to enable him to be put on the register as a member of that other local community, he ought not to be foisted as a voter out a community with which he has no local connection. I think the right hon. Gentleman endorses that as being involved in the principle of local representation. Of course, if we adopt the principle of personal representation, it would not matter where the person resided at the time the election took place, and if he voted in respect of individual capacity and not in respect of local connection, he ought to have a vote in the nearest polling booth to the place where he happened to be residing. I am glad to find that we may entirely get rid of the theory that Her Majesty's sub-

    1927
    jects are to be entitled to vote wherever they happen to be, with or without reference to the localities to which the votes belong. That brings me to the vital question of the period of residence. Three months is a probationary period not long enough to identify a person who claims to vote in a locality in which he has resided for only that term. I am glad that countenance has not been given in the Bill to the theory that the Queen's subjects should be at liberty to vote wherever they may happen to be at a given moment. But, Sir, the period of residence given in the Bill is certainly not long enough. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government have erred in making the period so short. A good deal may be said against 12 months, but the error is as great in making it three. Six mouths ought to be the irreducible and. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will yield tot he suggestion that six should be included in the Bill as a minimum. The right hon. Gentleman told us he would entrust the preparation of the new register to an official who would be paid out of local rates. Well, I do not think any attempt should be made to add to local burdens, and I am sure the House will not wish to add to them at this juncture. I am of opinion that that portion of the Bill will be resisted from mote than one quarter of the House. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be justified in proposing to east the expenditure in this twitter on the owners of real estate alone. The preparation of the Voters' Lists is a national duty, and should not be accepted by the House as local in its application. Then a point was made with regard to the extent to which this measure would apply. Well, Sir, I have always protested against the fragmentary and piecemeal character of legislation relating to the representation of the people in this House. An hon. Member has told us that this measure must add some 25 or 30 per cent. to the electorate of the Kingdom, which shows that it is a very comprehensive measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. V. Harcourt), who nods approval of that, has also a Bill of his own dealing with the representation of the people, and surely there is reason to complain that such measures should be brought in this fragmentary way, and by different Ministers sitting on the same Bench. My point is that the whole subject should
    1928
    be dealt with in a thoroughly comprehensive measure. That is the practice of Parliament, and I think the House will agree with me that time—the time of hon. Members and of the Government—can be economised if these Bills were merged and one scheme submitted to us. There is one other matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. It is that he should take into account the case of that class of persons who are not of the class of servants, but who live in premises in the discharge of their work. These premises the fully rated; where they are so rutted the persons occupying them are entitled to consideration. I shall not detain the House more than a moment longer, but I should like to say that I agree wit h and endorse what has been said as to the London County Council having the nomination of persons for the preparation of the lists. I think there will be complete want of confidence in any proposal that gives this power to that body. The County Council has displayed a marked bias. It has shown a partisan character, and we cannot accept it as a competent body to discharge the duties cast upon it by the machinery of your Bill. If time right hon. Gentleman does not want to prejudice the chances of the Bill he will take my advice and dissociate the initiative in such appointments from any connection with partisan bodies. I hope his draft of the Bill is not altogether final on several of the questions involved, and I trust any practical suggestion that may be made will be entertained by him, and that a fair opportunity will be given to the House at large for discussion on the later stages of the measure.
    *MR. DUNBAR BARTON: I do not intend to discuss a Bill which does not apply to Ireland. I merely rise in order to enter my protest against some observations of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth respecting one of the County Court Judges of Ireland. I speak as a member of the Irish Bar, and as one acquainted with the gentleman referred to. I can safely say that there is no foundation for the suggestion that the late Government gave him his promotion in return for services rendered in connection with the registration of voters. This gentleman (Mr. Shaw) occupied a high position in his profession. His appointment to a County

    1929
    Court Judgeship was universally recognised as a good appointment on the merits. I regret that any suggestion to the contrary has been made, and I cannot allow any such statement to pass uncontradicted.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): We propose to take the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday. All the questions asked to-night will be answered to-morrow morning, when hon. Gentlemen see the Bill. It is now, as a matter of fact, in the printers' Lands, and I only await the permission of the House to introduce it, so that you may have copies of it as early as possible. I trust the House will now grant me leave to bring in the measure. I have to thank the House for the gracious hearing it gave to my explanation of the Bill. I am glad to have heard the criticisms passed, and I have no doubt they will prove of advantage to us in the further consideration of the measure. With reference to Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has under consideration certain clauses framed with the intention of extending some portions of the Bill to that country—without having a separate Bill, as will be necessary in the case of Scotland. I now ask for leave to introduce the Bill.
    Question put, awl agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Secretary Asquith, and Sir Walter Foster.
    Bill presented, awl read the first time. [Bill 215.]

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I have to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law in Scotland relating to Registration of Voters for the purpose of Parliamentary, Municipal, and County Council Elections, and for other purposes.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: When Scotch Members compare the size
    1930
    of the English Registration Bill with the size of the Scotch they will have reason to congratulate themselves on a contrast which is very favourable to Scotland, and with very good reason, because the compactness and brevity of the measure which I am going to lay before the House, in a speech which I will try to make as brief and compact as the measure itself, is a testimony to the good sense of our predecessors—the Scotch Members of old in this House, who enacted the present excellent system which we enjoy, and a testimony to the good sense and selfcontrol of the nation which for 30 years hail worked it with the most practical success. The laws which regulate Scotch registration date from those happy days in this House when, by no Standing Order, but by an unwritten law of Parliament, Scotch Members were allowed to deal with Scotch businesss in obedience to Scotch needs, without being unduly interfered with by Members who did not understand those needs, and to whom the Very terms in which Scotch Legislation was couched Were altogether Void of meaning. The Scotch system, therefore, we do not need to reconstruct; we only require to complete and perfect it. The Valuation Act of 1854, the Registration Act of 1856, and the County Voters Act of 1861 have long ago given Scotland all, I think I might say more than all, that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton will be able to give to England by means of his Constructive Clauses. In Scotland we have an officer in every constituency or group of constituencies, who is administratively responsible for the preparation of the List of Voters. He is appointed by a superior authority—the Local Authority which can call him to account, and I am quite satisfied that the Scotch Members who heard the cheers of English Members just now when it was intimated that the appointment of the Registration Officer should be made by the Local Authority, must have smiled when they recollected that their own registration business has so long been conducted by an officer freely appointed and freely removed by the Local Authority itself. The assessor has under him a recognised and paid staff of trained subordinates, thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances of every locality and every house in the locality. He and his employép;s can collect the rates, draw up the Registration List,

    1931
    and make up the Valuation Roll. It is a matter of great advantage that the Valuation Roll, which is the list of civic burdens, and the Registration Roll, which is the list of civic privileges, should be drawn up by one and the same hand. When he has drawn up the valuation roll the assessor sits in review of it quietly, with closed doors, and—can English, still more Irish Members, believe it?—who are his adjutants and agents in drawing up this roll and settling the list of voters for the future? They are the agents of the two parties, who sit quietly on each side of him making suggestions, not quarrelling, but helping forward the general work of the community, and it is at their suggestion that the assessor strikes off the names of the dead, alters the qualifications and does rapidly, quietly, and cheaply all that in less happy countries is done publicly, noisily, and at much expense. I have been a Scotch Member for 25 years, and in none of those years have I paid one single half-penny for registration, and I am certain I have not allowed any one to pay a half-penny for me. Hon. Members, speaking for England are afraid of the expense of a new system. I have got a Return of the expenditure in 32 Scotch counties containing 42 seats, and the whole expense to the public of that admirable system, including the assessors, cost of printing and payment, of all subordinates was in 1890–91, £10,400, or as near as possible £250 a seat; £250 to the public, nothing at all to the individual is a very good show already, and now I am going to explain to the House how we intend to make it more economical to the public than it was before. I need not go deeply into these matters; Scottish Members understand registration, and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Shiress Will) brought in a capital Bill last Parliament, backed by eight other Members, and they are all with us, which shows how the Scottish Representatives are interested in this question. In the first place, we alter the period of qualification from 12 months to three, and in the next place we alter the date of the end of the qualifying period from the 31st July to the 3rd September. Now as to the first, the three months, I shall say nothing on this occasion, but if it is attacked I will defend it on the Second Reading. It is the essence of the Bill that when a man has naturalised himself locally by three months' residence, he
    1932
    should become a naturalised citizen with full citizen's rights. But as to the change of date, I want to point out two very remarkable advantages. In Scotland the change of residence takes place to a large degree at the Whitsuntide term, that is in the latter half of May. I believe May 28th is the actual term of removal. Every man who changes house before the end of May has completed by the 3rd September three months, and the date chosen is the date that was in the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Shiress Will) and will square with the habits of the Scotch people, will not do violence to those habits, and, therefore, avoid a great deal of discomfort and discontent. In the next place, a very great advantage will be gained by the public at large. It is a good thing that the Valuation Roll and Registration List should be drawn up by the same man, but it would be better still if the same inquiries, and the same labour expended, enabled that man to compose and construct them both, and so it will be under our Bill. The Valuation Roll must by Statute be completed on the 15th of August in each year, and it includes all owners and occupiers who were in their present position at the end of the previous May. The roll of voters will he made up on the 4th of September, and so that, too, will include the owners and occupiers who were in their present position at the end of May. Therefore, the Registration List will be a reproduction of the Valuation Roll. The labour of the assessors will be greatly reduced and will be confined to removing from the roll the names of corporations, partnerships, awl factors, and, I am bound to say, women, and others incapacitated as voters, and adding the names of the service franchise and the lodger voters, and in that respect the labours of the assessors will be much diminished by the provision common to this and the Bill of my right hon. Friend, that householders are now to he bound to return the names of all those, either in their employment or living under their roofs, who are entitled either to the lodger or the service franchise. The public cost will also be sensibly reduced, and Scotland will at last get a system which she has deserved by the skill and judgment with which Scottish officials and politicians have made the best of the system they have already. Now I will say a word about what I may

    1933
    call the minor proposals of the Bill. At this present moment there are very great inequalities between the various Scottish constituencies, and still greater inequalities between the Scottish and the English constituencies in the number of occupiers in each. Taking the constituency of Glasgow, in the Blackfriars constituency there are 123, in Bridgeton 201, in Camlachie 302, in St. Rollox 403, in Tradeston 568, in the Central Division 770, and in the College Division 1,277. This is largely due, no doubt, to the fact of the £10 qualification, and so far it is a franchise question. But it was likewise due to registration; to the fact that in some cases the lodgers do not claim, and in others they do. I think it is clearly proved when I tell the House that I have been informed—I should say these figures I have given I have received from a private source, but I have been informed that among the four seats of Dundee and Aberdeen there are hardly more than 400 lodgers. That is because the representation of Dundee and Aberdeen is, if I might say so, so one-sided that there is no great excitement on the question of registration, and therefore the lodgers do not claim. Consequently they are kept out of their rights, but this Bill will remove that condition, and enact that the landlord will be responsible for returning their names, and the assessor will be responsible for placing them on the register. The lodger franchise is much too narrow, but we are determined by this proposal to see that those who, under the present figure, ought to have a vote, shall get it as far as registration is concerned. Then there is a very important clause which enables a man to claim successive occupation, even though he has carried on that occupation under various franchises. For instance, if a man has spent part of his three months as a lodger and has then set up horse for himself, or has spent part of the three months as an occupying tenant and has then bought his freehold, he will be allowed to claim successive occupation. But there is another very great grievance. If a man, having secured the franchise, moves to a great distance he is practically disfranchised, he cannot generally spare the time to go, he cannot spare the money to go, and under the very proper provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act no one can help him with the money, but under the 7th clause or our proposed
    1934
    Bill, if by fulfilling the terms of the Act by residing three months before the 3rd September he has gained a vote anywhere, then he shall not be disqualified by removing to another and distant constituency. When for three months he has occupied premises in the new constituency, if those three months come before the 31st of March, he may apply to the sheriff, and the sheriff, if satisfied with the evidence, will transfer the voter from the constituency in which he lives no longer to that in which he now lives. Hon. Members may perhaps ask me why that should be done by the sheriff and not the assessor. For this reason, because on the 31st October in each year the roll of voters passes out of the hands of the assessor into the custody of the sheriff who becomes responsible for it. And there is another reason, because if the assessor is to be brought in to make this change—and we have gone very carefully into this matter—yon cannot stop short of a second registration with all its expense and labour, and against the second registration in the same 12 months, not only do the assessors protest, but so far as we can gather, the working and fighting politicians on both sides in Scotland are averse. But our proposal does away with the most troublesome features of elections, the tracing of removals, the mention of which causes a shudder to every one who has fought or managed an election. Then we propose to do away with the obligation of payment of the rates as a qualification, a condition which is grossly unjust in principle and full of anomaly. The failure to pay rates for himself does not disqualify, the failure of occupying tenant does disqualify. We think it is an injustice and therefore ought to go. Besides that it has very great disadvantages. I am informed that in one community of 26,000, 4,500 lost their votes by the obligation to pay the rates, and I take it that that is the proportion that prevailed in other places. The Parliamentary franchise had nothing whatever to do with the question of the payment of rates, and, moreover, the system was liable to abuse for political reasons; and I think, in this respect, the power of Local Authorities to exempt from the payment of rates lays those Local Authorities open to a temptation to which they ought not to be subjected. Now, Sir, the only other matter

    1935
    that I have to speak about, because I do not wish to travel over the ground gone over in such masterful strides by my right hon. Friend beside me, the only other matter I have to lay before the House is the dates of qualification. The qualification is to date back from the 3rd September; the list of voters is to be made up and presented on the 12th September, to be open for inspection, not as now for five days, but for a whole fortnight, from the 12th to the 26th September, and to be atfixed—not to the church doors, towards which the footsteps of a portion only of the population naturally turned in a country where not going to the parish church does not mean that you do not go to church—to every post office and telegraph office in the electoral area. There the voter can always have this list at hand, instead of having to travel miles to see it. The notice of objections must be given before the 26th September, and the list of them, I believe, must be printed on or before the 30th September. I do not want any hon. Member to think these dates follow too closely upon each other, and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be properly done. We have gone into this matter most carefully, consulting the small number of assessors we ha ye in Scotland, and they say, almost unanimously, that there will be ample time to go through all the various processes. The Valuation Roll will henceforward be the same, to all intents and purposes, for registration and taxation, and with this before them the assessors say they will be able to complete the registration at the dates fixed in the Bill. And then, Sir, we come to October, when the Sheriffs' Courts will sit. These, unlike Revising Barristers' Courts in England, often do not sit for a whole day, and seldom exceed two days' sittings, and, therefore, by the 1st November a better, a fuller, and in the highest sense a much more accurate roll of Scottish voters will be complete and authoritative. That is our system and those are our proposals. They have been carefully thought out, and if Scottish Members can amend these proposals we shall readily acquiesce, but hon. Members must remember this—that this is a Registration Bill, and that improvements in our electoral system, which are justly clear to them, can only be admitted if they come within the meaning which is covered by the title of
    1936
    a Registration Bill Parliament has decided that every resident householder in town and country should have the vote, and should have that vote without trouble, without worry, without delay, with less cost to the public, and no more cost to the candidate than he has to pay now. We confidently believe that that this Bill will give.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law in Scotland relating to Registration of Voters for the purpose of Parliamentary, Municipal, and County Council Elections; and for other purposes."—(Sir George Trevelyan.)
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: Sir, although' this Bill is introduced as a sister and auxiliary Bill to that which we have already discussed to-night, I think it must be apparent that it is viewed with a vastly different Opinion in the case of Scotland to what it was viewed in the case of England. The right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Trevelyan) who has just sat down has ended with what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. H. H. Fowler) began, that he has in the strongest terms deprecated the idea of this being in any sense a franchise Bill. I think it has been already pointed out by my right hon. Friend beside me that there are certain points where franchise and registration arrangements necessarily overlap and underlie. In this Bill we have a conclusive proof of that statement. All will agree that undoubtedly the existing cause for the introduction of the Bill at all in the case of England has been the defective condition of the English registration arrangements, and I think that the House will have seen already, from what the right hon. Baronet said, that at least in Scotland we have had no cause for complaint as to our registration arrangements for long past. I think he perhaps scarcely did justice, though he did ample justice to the prescience of those who have been before us, because, I believe, he left out of the account—which, after is the basis of the whole system—the Valuation Act of 1854. At any rate, I believe with him that when the present Bill for England passes into law they will in the end have a system inferior to the system we have hitherto enjoyed for Scotland, because, at least in one respect I could mint out in Scotland we are enabled to dispense with at least one officer which

    1937
    has been proposed under the arrangement explained to-night. If I caught the right hon. Gentleman aright there were two officers, one called the District Superintendent and the other an assistant, and those two officers only find their counterpart in one officer in Scotland. But, Sir, we are reduced to this rather peculiar result, that so far as Scotland is concerned we are discussing, upon a Bill which its introducer says is not a Franchise Bill, points that have to do with franchise and franchise alone. I think there is one matter on which I might perhaps enlighten the House a little, because, though I believe quite unintentionally, the view given by the right hon. Gentleman did not quite strike English Members as it ought to; I mean the position of Scottish assessors. It is scarcely the case that the Scotch assessor is a gentleman who is appointed at the will entirely of the local authority. In one sense he is appointed by the local authority, but to make it quite plain it should be stated that the choice of the local authority is entirely limited. In Scotland we possess a system of valuation by which the valuation roll of the whole of the land in burghs and counties lots to be made up year by year, and by the Statute it was provided that if the local authority chose to take the Government official as their assessor they would have this advantage, that the same assessment would be applied to both Imperial and local taxation. I need scarcely say a practical country like my countrymen were very willing to avail themselves of that, mid accordingly when it came to the Registration Act it was provided that the already existing assessor should be taken by the local authority as the registration assessor, so that the House will see that. the right bon. Baronet's words do not exactly represent the state of affairs. As regards expense, the right hon. Baronet said that he had never paid a single penny during, the many years he lots sat as a Scottish Member for registration. In these days one is rather careful to say who pays for what, but at the same time I think the right hon. Baronet will remember that he described with admiration the position of the two political agents sitting on each side of the assessor's table, and I take it that, though the right hon. Baronet did not pay for the agent's services, that that gentleman's services were not altogether
    1938
    given for love, but somebody or other remunerated than gentleman for his attendance. However perfect the improvement of the system may be, there would still be work for party organisation, which would call for party money. I have pointed out, I think justly, that really so far as Scotland is concerned in this matter we are discussing questions of franchise rather than questions of registration. Therefore, although I do not want to trespass on the time of the. House or repeat what has been said in the Debate already, I may be allowed a few words upon these very important and vital questions that form the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. I will take first of all the payment of rates, and there, again, I think by the form of expression used by the right hon. Gentleman he has conveyed a Wong impression to an English audienee. Rates in Ireland, I understand, mean rates of every sort; but "rates" when used in Scotland as a condition of the franchise mean poor rates alone, and, whatever may be said upon principle, I do not think the abolition of the poor rate clause will be effectually defended upon the grounds upon which the right hon. Gentleman put it—namely, that there was inequality between different persons. It is quite true that some of the older franchises were not chargeable upon the condition of the payment of the poor rates, but it is also true that for all practical purposes these older franchises have been merged and swallowed up in the newer franchise of inhabitant occupier, which is always founded upon the payment of poor rates. I respectfully enter a protest against the proposal of the Government, and seeing how little is to be put upon the voter in this matter, seeing that along with these you must take the Scotch provision that in holdings under £4 you are allowed to put the poor rate upon the owner and not upon the occupier, there is a great deal to he said in favour of those not enjoying the benefits of citizenship who show they are utterly unable to realise its burdens. I pass to the question of the period of qualification, and I heard with some surprise that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to alter the date from the 31st July to the 3rd September. Upon this matter I should like to call attention to a point which was mooted, but I do not think satisfactorily solved, in the discussions that took place on the Excise

    1939
    Bill. It was assumed by the right hon. Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) that to the period of qualification of three months you necessarily add a period of five months more, because, as he said, the completion of the registration roll would not be over in the English case until September. I do not think that can be assumed at all. It depends to a certain extent upon phraseology, and we have had practical illustration of this in cases that have been actually decided in Scotland, because, as a matter of fact, in the older franchises there was a difference of phraseology used. If the phraseology used is that a period of three months up to a certain date is to qualify, then I take it to mean that a three months' residence up to that date will qualify. It does not matter if after that the man goes away; he will have a vote for all the ensuing year, even although during all the time the machinery for making up the register was going on he had left the place never intending to come back again. The qualifying period is, I think, too short. A real grievance we ought to recognise is this: that although you may prescribe that the qualifying period of residence shall be 12 months up to the 31st July, as before in Scotland, or some date in June as in England, if you have the Register only made up once a year you will get individual instances of men qualifying just after the time you made up the register, and when, instead of having to be resident one year, he has practically to be two before he gets his vote. That difficulty will always arise if you only make up the Register once a year, and it does seem that in order to get rid of the difficulty you swing the pendulum far too much the other way if you reduce the qualifying period to the small term of three months and then take no notice if a man goes away after three months and never comes back to the constituency at all. Something has been said about flooding constituencies. May I point out the extraordinary danger of this there would be in taking the dates as they exist in Scotland. My own constituency is a sea-side constituency. The rigours of winter may be enough to keep persons away for the English dates, but if the date is to he fixed for the 3rd September, every man in the West part of Scotland who goes down to the sea-side for summer lodgings will find
    1940
    himself a voter for that constituency. And in these pushing times when we are entreated to buy one article in an establishment by being told we shall be given another, I do not think it fair that a gentleman should find himself suddenly a voter of the constituency because he has given three months' continuous attention to a bathing machine. I do think the period of three months is too little, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether they are going to do something like transferring voter from one constituency and another—in Other words, going to introduce the principle of recurrent application to the registration authorities—whether there does not lie the true solution of the question by having a longer period than three months, and perhaps giving a second chance by allowing people who had been left out to come in some other period of the year if their period of six months had not exactly suited when the Roll was made up. The other points are more of detail. I forbear to speak of the question of successive occupation, because I should like to see precisely what the Bill provides. I do not propose to go into the question of dates or the proposal to have the lists put upon the post offices instead of the Church doors. I can only say when the right hon. Gentleman mentioned one-fifth I do not know where he got his figure from. I doubt if one-fifth of the population of Scotland goes to the post offices, and if he means that only one-fifth goes to the National Church, I deprecate that statement. But I think these matters may be left until we come to the details of the Bill. All I wish to make clear at present is this—that upon the question of a three months' qualification I, for one, think it necessary to make a decided stand.
    *MR. SIIIRESS WILLthought the speech they had just heard was an augury that the Bill would be received in a fair spirit by Gentlemen opposite. He gathered that they all felt that the anomalies in the present system of registration ought to be got rid of. The main feature of the Bill was first of all to reduce the period of residence; but the hon. and learned Gentleman who had last spoken objected to that on the ground that, if the period of qualification was made too short, people would go and, reside at

    1941
    sea-side places and qualify themselves. Perhaps there was something in that, but the hon. Gentleman forgot that there was another measure on the Notice Paper which, if passed into law, would prevent the exercise of a double qualification for electoral purposes. It was the working classes who were principally affected by the requirement of a long period of residence precedent to being placed on the register; which period sometimes extended to two years or even more. By the exigencies of their employment they were often compelled to move with their work, and thus it was impossible. for many of them to obtain a vote. Under these circumstances, it was considered that while the period of residence should be long enough to prevent gerrymandering or the influx of voters at the times of elections from one district to another for the purpose of disturbing, the balance of voters in a particular constituency, it should be short enough to enable people who were entitled to vote to be placed on the register, and accordingly three months had been fixed upon ins being sufficient for the purpose. Objection was taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was proposed by the Bill to do away with disqualification for non-payment of rates. But what was the purpose for which that provision as to the payment of ratites was introduced into the Reform Bill of 1832. Lord John Russell in February, 1832, stated that the object of that clause was not to encourage the payment of rates, but was entirely for the purpose of having evidence to prove that the person seeking to vote was a plan who had occupied as a £10 holder. They had done away with the £10 qualification, and now that they had got the household qualification these ratepaying restrictions should be removed entirely. Was there any reason why a man should be disqualified for not paying his rates when he was not disqualified for not paying his rent? One advantage in shortening the period of qualification was that those would get on the voters' roll who removed at Whitsuntide, which was the principal removing term. He rejoiced that there was to be another principle introduced into this Bill. At present when a man removed from one constituency to another he had to begin over again to qualify himself as a voter, and it might be he had to reside another two
    1942
    years in a place before he could become a voter. Why should that be so? Surely a man who moved from one county or borough to another did not cease to have an interest in Imperial politics or a stake in the country; and why should he therefore lose his right to vote for a Member to represent him in that House? He thought the measure went a long way in the desired direction, and he trusted the House would give the Bill a First Reading, and ultimately pass it into law.
    *SIR MARK STEWARTexpressed the hope that this would not be treated as a Party question, but would be dealt with in a fair and, straight forward spirit. He could not help thinking that the period of three months suggested in the Bill was far too short a term. He would be in favour of a period of six months, and for this reason: that they would get a large floating population corning suddenly, say to work on a railway; or take the case of a work like the Manchester Ship Canal. What did these men care about the local rates or the School Boards in that district. If a lot of navvies came to work in different districts they would all acquire votes. They would not care two farthings about School Board elections, and if they were whipped up to vote they would vote for whatever party got hold of them first. That was not a fair proceeding, and would operate prejudicially to the community and districts where such School Board elections were held, and it world operate equally prejudicially in Parliamentary contests, where, no doubt, the issues were broader and greater, but which did not affect the persons who were located in the district but for a very short time. There was another point which must strike hon. Members who had been in America. In America personation was extremely difficult to prove. The old story of "vote early and vote often" had been repeated over and over again as a warning to the House, but it was not the less true that that was tire system adopted in the American States. They could not identify people who were coming in hundreds or it might be thousands to some large city by a three months' qualification of residence. Therefore he did hope and trust that a longer period of residence would be substituted for that in the Bill. He quite agreed that the present tenure for qualification was far

    1943
    too long, and that many well deserving men who ought to he on the Register were debarred from being on. He did not know what the lodger qualification was to be, but some steps ought to be taken to secure that sons who worked in the same business as their fathers—and who therefore were not able to vote, although quite capable of an intelligent exercise of the franchise—should be allowed to get on the Register. As to voters' lists being placed on church doors, this was done because the churches were supposed to be on some highway, and formed some centre where the population gathered. Why was it now proposed to limit such posting of the lists to the post offices? There were many parishes in Scotland, miles and miles long, where there was perhaps only one post office, so that many people would never see the notices. If these lists were posted on every church door, every public-house door, or shops, or other public place in the parish, all t he parishioners would know what was going on, and would he able to challenge what vote they chose. He, for one, would endeavour to make the Bill an instrument for rendering noire perfect, more efficient, and cheaper, the system of registration for Scotland.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir George Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate, and the Solicitor General for Scotland.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 216.]

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.—(No. 118.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said: I shall ask the House to approve of an attempt to settle, on lines which are broad and simple, a long-standing controversy, in the adjustment of which both the employers and the wage-earning classes are equally interested. The Employers' Liability Act of 1880 was avowedly a compromise. We have now had 12 years' experience of its working, and hardly a single Session has passed without some attempt to amend its provisions and to place the law on a more logical
    1944
    and satisfactory footing. I do not at all agree with many of the criticisms passed upon the Act of 1880. Under the circumstances of the time and the state of opinion prevailing when it was passed, it marked a distinct step in advance, for though its value has not been great, measured simply by the number of actions brought and the amount of damages recovered for injuries sustained, there can be no question that the Act has had a most important and far-reaching effect in bringing about compromises and settlements on a just awl equitable basis between employers and workmen, and still more in promoting and establishing mutual insurance schemes which have in many cases, at any rate, been productive of the best results. Butt the workmen of this country have exhibited a great and a growing dissatisfaction with the principle of common employment, which that Act only modifies and does not abolish; and it is round that question—the question of the expediency and the scope of the doctrine of common employment—that controversy really rages. I have to ask the House to hear with me for a moment or two while I trace in the fewest possible sentences the history of the question. At Common Law the employer is liable both in England and in Scotland to his servants for injuries caused to them by his own negligence, and, according to a recent decision of the House of Lords, that is not confined merely to responsibility on the part of the employer for what I may call personal carelessness; he is bound to exercise care in the providing of machinery, in the selecting of servants, and in adopting proper methods and systems in his operations. That state of the law was sufficient as long as industry was carried on in this country upon a small scale. The employer was in direct personal relations with the workman; and it was a comparatively easy thing to prove the negligence of the employer in the case of injuries sustained by a workman in the course of his employment. But as time advanced, the scale of industry changed, and, in particular, we saw the growth of those great industrial corporations by which so large a part of the trade of this country is now organised and carried on, and the larger the scale the more difficult it became for the individual workman, injured in the course of his employment, to bring home to the

    1945
    person from whom he received his wages personal knowledge and personal responsibility for the loss which he had sustained. The consequence was that it became necessary for the workmen to consider whether they might not invoke in their favour another principle of our law—the principle that a master or principal is responsible for the acts of his agents or servants in the course and within the scope of their duty. When the Courts came to decide that question they decided that the case of a servant was an exception to the general rule. In England, not until 1837, and inn Scotland, so far, at any rate, as the higher tribunals are concerned, not until 1868, was it decided that the ordinary rule which makes a master liable for the acts of his servant is excluded in cases where the injury is sustained by a fellow-servant in the ordinary course of employment. The Courts invented—for it can only be described as an invention—an implied contract on the part of the workman to take upon himself all the risks of his employment, and amongst those risks the negligence of his fellow-servants. That principle, haying been once laid down, was applied from the top to the bottom of the industrial scale, and it was held that a workman occupying the lowest position in a factory or mine could not recover damages from his employer for injury sustained by him through the negligence of a foreman or manager at the other end of the scale. The exception has been defended mainly, if not exclusively, upon the ground or policy, on the ground, that is to say, that if the ordinary rule were enforced in such cases in the Courts of Law, it would operate to cheek the development of industry and the investment of capital. But the labouring classes of the country, and a large body of employers also, have never assented to this fictitious doctrine, and as soon as it comes to be examined the objections to it are manifold and overwhelming. In the first place, no such contract is ever, in fact, entered into between an employer and his workmen. The Common Law of this country does not, as a rule, imply contracts which are not expressed. It goes upon the sound and sensible principle that when two parties enter into an agreement they must he taken to have meant what they say, and that it is not the business of Judges to decide what they ought to have meant but did not say.
    1946
    In the second place, the doctrine of common employment places the servant in a worse position, as between himself and the employer, than any stranger. On a railway, to take a familiar instance, if a train is run off the line through the ignorance, inattention, or want of skill of the engine-driver, there is not a passenger in the train injured by the accident who cannot recover full compensation from the company; but the stoker and the guard travelling in the train are excluded from any remedy, because they and the engine-driver happen to be servants of the same master. Again, the rule works very unequally as between different classes of employers. The small employer who carries on his operations on a limited scale, and who personally supervises the operations of his Factory or workshop, can be made liable, because it is possible to bring home responsibility directly to him owing to his personal supervision. On the other hand, a large employer or a rich and powerful corporation which delegates its authority or supervision to others escapes that liability. Further, as the scaled industry is from time to lime enlarging, and as we all know its tendency awl direction in modern times is to increase in the magnitude of its operations, the employer is further and further removed from the individual workman, and his responsibility is proportionately diminished. And, lastly, the doctrine of common employment removes a great safeguard for carefulness on the part of the employer, and operates as a distinct temptation to him to neglect those precautions which his duty to his servants as well as to the public prescribes that he ought to take. On these grounds it soon came to be felt that some modification must be made in the law, and it was plain that the modification must take one or other of two forms. You must either, on the one hand, abolish the rule which makes the employer responsible to third persons for the acts of his servants, or, on the other hand, you must repeal or largely qualify the doctrine of common employment. The first was regarded, and, I believe, always will be regarded, as too heroic a remedy, and accordingly this House in 1880, after some preliminary inquiries and some abortive attempts at legislation, passed the Employers' Liability Act, which does not abolish, but makes considerable

    1947
    and substantial inroads upon the doctrine of common employment. I may remind the House that the Act of 1880 cuts to the root of the defence of common employment in five specified cases, but leaving out the special provisions made in the Act as regards railways these cases may, in substance, be reduced to two. Under that Act the master is, in the first place, liable to his workmen for injuries caused by negligence, just as he would be liable for them to a stranger, if the injuries were caused by defects in the plant or machinery, due to the negligence of the persons entrusted with the duty of keeping such machinery in proper condition; and, in the next place, the master is liable for any injury caused to a servant by the negligence of a superior in the same employment entrusted by the toaster with the duty of superintendence or the power of giving orders. Almost as soon as that Act was passed, or as soon as there had been time to obtain experience of its working, it gave rise not only to much litigation, but to a very considerable agitation for an amendment of the law. In 1886 a Select Committee of this House was appointed, and the Committee, after taking evidence, recommended that the definition of superintendent and superintendence in the Act of 1880 should be repealed. Superintendent had been defined in that Act as one whose principal duties were superintendence, and who was not ordinarily engaged in manual labour. Nothing was done at once to carryout the recommendations of the Select Committee; but in 1888, and again in 1890, the late Government brought forward Bills dealing with the matter, and carrying out (in this respect) the recommendations of the Select Committee. In both Bills the employer was liable for the negligence of the person to whom he had delegated the superintendence over that work, or, as they were amended by the Grand Committee on Law, for the negligence of a foreman or person in the like position. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. T. Burt), as representing the Trade Unions of the country, brought in year after year Bills of a more drastic character, proposing to abolish altogether the doctrine of common employment.
    *MR. STUART WORTLEY: He did not bring in any such Bill as that until 1888.
    MR. ASQUITH: That may be. That, shortly stated, is the history of the question up to the present time. I will now call attention to the provisions of the present measure, so far as they relate to, the question I have been dealing with. The Bill proposes in the first clause, following, if not the terms, at any rate the substance of the measure introduced by my hon. Friend, to abolish altogether the doctrine of common employment. We think that the general rule of law that a toaster ought to be liable for the acts or omissions of his servants within the course of employment is a good rule, and that it is a rule which can be applied on the same grounds of justice and expediency in the case of a workman as in the case of a stranger. We do not think that this fictitious contract, by which a workman is supposed on entering into service of an employer to abandon once and for all, and without any substantial consideration, the right which any third person would possess against that employer, is a contract which has any foundation in fact or any justification in policy. Experience has shown it to be impossible to draw any satisfactory line between the different classes of servants in the employment of a single master; and the negligence which results in injury to a workman is negligence for which the master ought to be equally responsible, whether the servant from whose act that negligence arises is a servant in a higher or a lower grade of employment. To, state the matter shortly, the principle on which our Bill is founded is this: where a person on his own responsibility, and for his own profit, sets in motion agencies which create risk for others, he ought to be civilly responsible for the consequences of what he does. It will be asked, are there any limitations proposed by the Government upon the obligations which we propose to cast on the employer? In the first place, it will undoubtedly be open to au employer, if this Bill passes. into law, just as it is, open to him now, to raise the defence of contributory negligence—that the workman, by his own act or omission, is a. contributory cause to the injury he sustained. If without that act or omission either the accident would not have occurred or would not have been attended with the injurious consequences which

    1949
    followed it, then it would not be fair, and the law would not;Wow, that the master should be held liable. But there is another defence which is sometimes raised to actions of this kind—the defence of "acquiescence," which is commonly expressed in the somewhat bar-barons legal maxim, volenti non fit injuria. A short time ago, in a case well known to lawyers—"Thomas v. Quartermain"—it was held by the Court of Appeal in this country that the continuance by a workman in the service of his employer, with a knowledge of defective plant or machinery involving risk, was evidence of voluntary acquiescence on the part of that servant in that state of things, and, therefore, disentitled him to recover damages for an injury arising from such defect. That decision produced a certain amount of consternation among the workmen, and it has been followed by a succession of cases in which an almost scholastic subtlety has been exhibited—if one may say so with out disrespect—by Her Majesty's Judges in ringing the changes upon the words volens and sciens; and in drawing an almost imperceptible line of demarcation between that amount of knowledge which constitutes evidence of acquiescence and that amount of knowledge from which no such inference could be drawn. I am glad to say, however, that in a recent case —"Smith v. Baker"—the House of Lords has brushed away, to a considerable extent, the cobwebs spun over this principle. That case decided, and all the Courts in this country will now regard it to be the law, that mere continuance upon the part of the servant in his employment, with knowledge of a defect in plant or machinery or the arrangements under which the employment is carried on, is not to be regarded as evidence that he has acquiesced in that dangerous state of things, and is not to prevent him from recovering from his employer in the event of subsequent injury. That being the state of the law, we have not deemed it necessary to insert any express provision in the Bill; but we have thought it necessary, by way of a proviso in the first section, to re-enact a clause, which is found in the Act of 1880, to this effect—that where the workman knows of the defect, and where, having the opportunity of bringing it to the notice of his em-
    1950
    ployer or some person superior to himself in that employment, he fails to do so, he ought to be regarded as not in a position to make the employer responsible. But that is subject to this exception—the omission of the workman to give notice to the employer is not to disentitle him to recover, if he knows that the employer is aware of the detect.
    MR. STCART WOWTLEY: The words of the Act are—"has failed without reasonable excuse."
    MR. ASQUITH: Yes, that is so.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote the words in the Act which refer to the knowledge of the employer—which state that if the employer know of the defect the workman is not responsible to report?
    MR. ASQUITH: I was quoting the words of the Act of 1880. The hon. Gentleman opposite has pointed out that the words "without reasonable excuse" have been substituted by us. I pass from that to the second question involved in this controversy, and which, I think, has perhaps given rise to as much feeling on the part of the workmen and to as strong a desire for a change in the law as the doctrine of common employment itself—it is the question whether, and within what limits, the workman ought to be permitted to contract himself out of the Act? The Act of 1880 did not forbid such contracts, and the Courts of Law decided that a contract whereby, for a good consideration, the workman relinquished his right to recover by the statutory remedy of the Act of 1880 was a valid contract, and could be enforced. The Select Committee of 1886, and the Bills introduced by the lute Government in 1888 and 1890, adopted a, middle course. They did not absolutely forbid a contract whereby this statutory right is taken away; but, on the other hand, they did not permit a contract under all circumstances, and for all purposes, and upon any terms by which that statutory right is abandoned. It was the recommendation of that Committee, and it was proposed in these Bills, that such contracts should not be valid unless some adequate consideration on the part of the employer were shown for the relinquishment by the workman of his statutory right. That consideration was defined, in some of these proposals at any rate, as

    1951
    being the contribution on the part of the employer to an insurance final. Very great difficulties arise, which must be apparent on a moment's consideration, in the interpretation and carrying out of such a provision as that. Who is to judge whether the consideration given by the employer is adequate or not? One proposal was that a Government Department—the Secretary of State or the President of the Board of Trade—should have the power to approve, as it were, in advance of contracts submitted to them on the part or employers and workmen, and to say that in their judgment such contracts were reasonable; and that the certificate of that Department should in any legal proceedings thereafter be considered conclusive evidence that the requirements of the Statute had been complied with. I do not hesitate to say that no Government Department possesses the knowledge or the machinery for discharging such duty; and it is impossible, in advance and without knowledge of the facts, upon a mere general survey of the conditions of a particular industry, for any Department, however intelligently officered, to give a judgment which would be satisfactory either to the persons concerned or to the public. The other proposal was that the question should be raised at the trial of the action in the Court which ultimately determined the workman's right to recover. That proposal is as objectionable as the other. No Court of Law, any more than a Government Deportment, has the requisite knowledge or the requisite power to determine whether a particular form of contract is reasonable, having regard to the infinitely complex conditions which regulate the relations between employers and workmen. There is no mode by which you can decide the question whether die contract was reasonable or not, or whether the consideration was adequate or insufficient, until you have actual litigation, and until the matter comes in to Court. The great object, in my judgment, of legislation of this kind should be on the one side to define clearly the statutory rights of employer and workmen, and on the other side, as far as possible, to prevent litigation. Well, Sir, so much for what I have called the middle course. Let me now ask the House, before I proceed to explain and vindicate the
    1952
    course the Government propose to adopt, to inquire how far workmen have, in fact, availed themselves of the Act of 1880. The investigation of the figures, which fluctuate considerably from year to year, shows that upon an average the amounts involved in the cases brought under the Act vary from £30,000 to £50,000 per annum.
    MR. MURRAY: Is that England alone?
    MR. ASQUITH: I am speaking of England alone. The amount actually recovered in the shape of damages in Court, speaking of a period of live or six years, if not longer, averages no more than £8,000 a year.
    MR. JACKSON: That does not include private arrangements.
    MR. ASQUITH: I am speaking only of the amounts recovered in Court. I was going to mention that we had no figures whatever to show how many claims are actually made against employers and settled without litigation. I am not for a moment saying that the utility of the Act, or the extent to which people have taken advantage of it, is to be measured by these figures. No doubt a vast number of notices given under the Act are dealt with amicably without litigation.
    MR. KNOWLES: Do the figures given include the compromises?
    MR. ASQUITH: The figures respecting the claims are taken from the plaints brought in the different county Courts and amount, as I have said, to from £:30,000 to £50,000. No doubt there would be a considerable number of compromises. I think the House will agree with me that the comparative smallness or these figures may be partly accounted for, first by the willingness of employers to settle without waiting for an action to be brought; secondly, by the fact that many compromises are effected in actions which are never brought into Court; and, thirdly, by the number of contracts entered into by workmen on going into the service of their employer—contracts whereby they relinquish their rights altogether under the Act. There is a fourth point, which I have not a shadow of doubt has a most deterrent effect in the use the working classes have made of this statutory remedy; I refer to the gross and indefensible technicalities which

    1953
    surround this action in the Courts. It is no exaggeration to say that au action under this Act in its present form consists of a series of pitfalls, into which the most wary may not infrequently fall. Then I come to the extent to which the power of contracting out of the Act has been taken advantage of. As a rule, the consideration for the contract has been an agreement by the employer to contribute to a mutual insurance fund. These insurance funds indemnify the persons insured in them, not only against accidents due to neglect, but against accidents arising from whatever cause. The evidence is very scanty, and I can only give the figures I have been able to ascertain. I take, first of all, the great industry of mining. The miners of England, at any rate, have as a rule not contracted themselves out of the Employers' Liability Act. The body called the Miners' National Association, which I am told has something like 200,000 members, objects to such contracts being made by its members. In Durham and Northumberland, where there are something like 100,000 miners, I am told that none have contracted themselves out of the Act. The men there have a Relief Society. The masters, as a rule, do not contribute to that society, but have a mutual insurance fund of their own. In Yorkshire again, where there are 60,000 miners, there is, as a rule, no contracting out of the Act; but, on the other hand, in Lancashire, and still more in South Wales, the practice among miners of contracting out of the Act is extremely common. In South Wales that may be due to the fact that the employers contribute as large a proportion as 25 per cent. of the miners' contribution to the Provident Societies in which the miners insure. I am told that something like one-half of the miners in South Wales contract themselves out of the Act. If we turn to the Railway Companies, we have among the great companies one remarkable instance in Which not only do men contract themselves out of the Act, but such contracting is made a necessary condition of their employment. I refer to vie London and North-Western Railway Company, which employs over. 50,000 men. The contribution of the Company to the insurance fund is on an extremely liberal scale indeed, amounting, as I am informed, to five-
    1954
    sixths of the men's contributions. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at that the men, who are undoubtedly in a better condition in 99 cases out of 100 when they rely upon the insurance fund than they would he if they brought an action at law, agree to the stipulation which the Railway Company insist upon. I do not go to other trades, as to which such information as I could give to the House would be both meagre and untrustworthy; but the general result of my inquiries, and such inquiries as have been made by the various Committees and by the Royal Commission on Labour, appears to me to be this: that there is a widespread objection on the part of the men to contract themselves omit of the Act, notwithstanding the superior chance Of compensation which, where the insurance fund is liberally contributed to by the employer, the men would possess if they id so. The cases in which employers have insisted as a condition of entering their service that their men should abandon, their statutory right are also comparatively rare. The conclusion which the Government have come to en a review both of these facts and of the general considerations of policy affecting the case is this: that for the future a general prospective agreement by which a workman contracts himself out of his statutory rights ought to be prohibited. I do not myself attach very great importance, to the language sometimes used about men being coerced into contracts against their will. I think that possibly that language sometimes savours of exaggeration. At the same time, I have not the least doubt—the experience of many of my hon. Friends will bear me out in this matter—that there are cases in which the men are not free agents, and in which advantage is taken, I will not say with improper motives, of the comparatively superior position the employers enjoy to persuade them to enter into a bargain from which otherwise they would shrink. But I confess I think that if the House believes that the right and the remedy given by the Act ale required upon the ground of justice and piddle policy, we shall be only acting in accordance with the spirit and method of our legislation for many years past if we make the right inalienable and indefeasible. I entirely agree that, where Parliament confers on all individual or

    1955
    class a particular pecuniary benefit for their own interest alone, there is much to be said for giving them, at the same time, for good consideration the right of abandoning that which has been conferred upon them. But there appears to me to be a broad line of distinction between cases of ant kind and cases where the Legislature interferes in the public interest and upon grounds of public safety and public policy. Where on such grounds Parliament has declared that a certain obligation should exist, I think it ought not to be placed in the power of individuals by a private bargain between themselves to destroy in a particular case a safeguard which Parliament has enacted, not in their interests alone, but in the interest of the community. In our view, this is a case which comes within that category. While we prohibit any contract whereby a workman prospectively relinquishes his right under the Act, at the same time we are fully sensible of the importance of not doing anything to discourage the growth of those insurance funds to which I have referred, or to remove the inducement to the employer to contribute to them. For it must be observed that such funds can be resorted to in most cases, whatever be the cause of the accident; so that the workman can receive his share out of the fund without there being any necessity for a particular inquiry into the circumstances of the case—there is no need for what may prove an elaborate and costly investigation into the causes of the accident, and thereby delay and expense are saved. In the case of many of these funds the sum payable to the injured workman is considerably more generous, besides being far more promptly paid, than any damages he could recover in an action. While, therefore, we forbid the workman from prospectively abandoning the statutory right once for all, we permit, in those cases where there is a fund to which workman and employer have contributed, the workman either to resort to the fund or to bring his action. We permit him to take his choice. [Opposition laughter.] I should like to hear what hon. Members have to say against this proposal. We are going at least as far as justice requires in protecting the interests of the employer. As I have said, the workman may take his choice; he may pursue his
    1956
    remedy under the Act, if he pleases. If he does so, it is only fair and right that the employer should be entitled to be indemnified as far as possible out of the fund to which he, as well as the workman, has contributed. Here I ought to point out that there has been an error of omission in drawing the 3rd clause—an error for which I am afraid I am responsible. The limiting words have been omitted, and the employer will be entitled to be indemnified out of the fund to the extent of the damages recovered.
    MR. KNOWLES: Will he be entitled to costs out of the fund?
    MR. ASQUITH: That is a question which, in my judgment, does not admit of a categorical answer. It might very likely happen that actions were most unjustifiably defended, and where the costs to which the workman was put in pursuance of his statutory remedy were not reasonably incurred. It is, I think, open to consideration whether the employer is to be indemnified to that extent. However, that is a matter I shall be very happy to discuss on the Committee stage. This brings me to say one or two words with reference to an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West (Mr. Chamberlain) has put on the Paper. My right hon. Friend asks the House to assert—
    "That no amendment of the Law relating to Employers' Liability will be final or satisfactory which does not provide compensation to workmen for all injuries sustained in the ordinary course of their employment, and not caused by their own acts or default."
    The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), with a more severely logically mind, proposes to omit from my right hon. Friend's Amendment the concluding words, and asks the House to declare that no amendment of the law will be final or satisfactory which does not provide compensation to workmen for all injuries sustained in the ordinary course of their employment, whatever the cause. In whichever of the two forms this proposal is ultimately presented to the House its effect, if adopted, would be to substitute for the law of employers' liability, a law of industrial insurance. It is obvious that if the employer is to be made liable to workmen for all injuries sustained in the course of their employment, whether due to neglect of the employer or any other cause, he must pro-

    1957
    tect himself by insurance, and that it is only by a system of universal industrial insurance that such a proposal could be made consistent with justice. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment comes to this—I do not know whether he is going to press it to a Division; but if he does press it to a Division, he is asking the House to reject this Bill—that is to say, to postpone giving to the workmen of this country two amendments of the law upon which they are all united, and in support of which they have behind them a vast and preponderating body of public opinion until in course of time—it may be five or ten years hence—some statesman of ingenuity has succeeded in devising a system of industrial insurance. So far as my memory serves me, my right hon. Friend did not raise this question either by way of amendment to the Second Reading or in Committee to the extremely mild and tentative measure brought forward in 1888. It is only now, when we are abolishing the doctrine of common employment, when we are prohibiting contracting out of the Act, and are giving something substantial and practical to the working classes of this country, that toy right hon. Friend intervenes with his dilatory proposal. Why, if my memory serves me again, I seem to bear in mind how my right hon. Friend denounced the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and certainly Mr. Broadhurst, for having insisted upon the abolition of the doctrine of common employment, and so defeating the beneficent scheme of the late Government in relation to this subject. But my objection to this proposal does not take the form of au argumentum ad hominem. I am not prepared to deny that in the last resort the ultimate remedy for the deplorable liability of our industrial population to injury front accidents for which they themselves are not responsible will be found in some system of insurance. I think very probably that may turn out to be the case, but I must point,out—and I trust my right hon. Friend when he comes to move his Amendment will not fail to deal with this point—that while a general system of insurance against accidents of all kinds has a great many things to recommend it, yet it has this great drawback: that it affords no security and no incentive for the exercise
    1958
    of care on the part of the employer. A system of industrial insurance, unless it is supplemented and safeguarded by an ancillary law making the employer liable—I do not say whether by criminal or civil proceedings—for accidents due to his own negligence, would be rather a retrograde than a progressive measure. Again, I must point out that this matter of industrial insurance, as a remedy for the evils with which we have to deal, is one upon which the evidence is extremely scanty and conflicting. There is one great European country—the Empire of Germany—in which for the last nine years such a system has been in force.
    An hon. MEMBER: In Austria also it is in force.
    MR. ASQUITH: Yes, in Austria also it is in force, but I am referring more particularly to Germany. Germany the law applies, as I understand it, only to industries declared to be dangerous—that is to say, that involve some risk in their ordinary operations. But undoubtedly it includes something like 10,000,000 of the labouring population. The German law applies to all accidents of any kind. There is no contracting out of it on the part either of workman or employer. The compensation payable is according to a tariff—a fixed tariff with a prescribed scale varying according to wages and the degree of disablement received. And lastly, all employers in a particular trade are compulsorily rated under this law to a Mutual Insurance Fund in proportion to the amount of wages paid by them to their workmen. That in outline is the system that prevails in Germany. The financial effect of that system is extremely doubtful, and some of its most intelligent critics believe that, from an actuarial point of view, it is in an extremely unsound position. It involves an amount of official interference upon the part of the State—Inspectors, Registrars, and clerks—that I do not think either the employers or workmen of this country could be readily brought to tolerate. It is exposed to all manner of difficulties where, as is often the case, the industrial population is of migratory habits. A workman may be for six months in the service of a particular employer; he may then go for three months into the service of another employer,

    1959
    and he may then go into the service of a third employer, and the difficulty of tracing him from one employer to another, and of finding out which employer is liable, is very considerable. The experience gained by this system, so far as it has yet been in operation, is certainly not of such a kind that any responsible politician would venture to embody it, in a Bill which he would ask this House to adopt. Therefore, I say the choice, so fur as the Amendment on the Paper is concerned, lies between adopting a plan which is practicable, which can come into operation at once, which would give the workmen the two remedies they desire, and expressing, on the other hand, an academic opinion in favour of a general system of industrial insurance, which nobody is prepared to put down upon paper, and which cannot come into operation for years to come. Under the circumstances, I do not think the House can hesitate as to what course to adopt. I will not detain the House more than a minute or two longer. There are only one or two subsidiary points to mention to complete my account of the measure as to the class of persons to whom it will apply. The Bill will be found to contain a new detinition—though the difference is not very substantial—of the word "workman," new as compared with the Act of 1880, but not substantially different from the definition in the Bills of the late Government. The difference is in the definition of the word "seamen." We have included seamen in British ships. I am aware that is a proposal which will give rise to considerable difference of opinion and some hostility on the part of ship owners. For my own part, I do not see that the liability which the Bill will impose upon ship owners is substantially different from, or greater than, that which will be imposed by this Bill on mine owners and persons in a similar position, or that the argument which is used that, a ship is often at a distance from an owner and from his control is an argument that is of much weight now with the largely-extended means of telegraphic communication. Nor can I in the least degree admit that the liability of the shipowner ought to be confined, as in the proposal of the late Government, to the defects of a ship at, the time when she leaves a British port. Take a simple but
    1960
    at the same time a common case. A ship is sent from here to Australia, and while she is in the Port of Sydney she takes on board a return cargo, and the master discharges some of the old hands and takes on new ones. If the ship starts from that port in a defective state of equipment, due to the negligence of the master or the failure to take proper precautions in the selection of the crew, I say the shipowner ought to be made liable for the injuries which thereby occur to any of the men on board. I shall be prepared in Committee to receive any suggestions that shipowners may wish to make to the Government on the subject. If they can satisfy us that by the Bill we are going substantially beyond that which justice or policy requires, we shall do our best to meet all reasonable objections. Now, Sir, lastly I will call attention to the great changes the Bill makes in the procedure for the recovery of damages. It abolishes notice of injury as a condition precedent to an action; it abolishes the limit of time within which under the old law an action could be brought; it abolishes the limitation of the amount of Wattages that may be recovered; in short, it assimilates an action in all respects to an ordinary County Court action; and it gives the right to bring an action in the County Court, and providing the damages claimed do not exceed £100, there is no power to remove it elsewhere. I notice indications of opinion that the figure named is too low, and I shall be happy to entertain suggestions that hon. Members may make, provided it turns out that the figure can be properly raised. I have explained to the House, necessarily I fear, at some length the provisions of this Bill. I have only to say, in concluding my remarks, that in the view of the Government the Bill contains three vital principles: The first is, that it abolishes the doctrine of common employment; the second is, that it prohibits contracts by a workman renouncing his statutory rights; and, thirdly, it simplifies the procedure by means of which the workman Call seek his statutory remedy. These are vital principles. The other provisions are more or less matters of detail on which we hope to arrive at a common agreement in all parts of the House, and so to reach the satisfactory solution of a question which, I hope, is now removed beyond the range of Party controversy,

    1961
    and in the settlement of which all Parties are equally interested. I move the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, anti Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Asquith.)
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINrose to move the following Amendment, which he had placed on the Paper:—
    "That no amendment of the Law relating to Employers' Liability will be final or satisfactory which does nut provide compensation to workmen for all injuries sustained in the ordinary course of their employment, and not caused by their own acts or default."
    MR KNOXI wish, Mr. Speaker, to ask you a question on a point of Order. It is this: Whether the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman can he moved on the present stage of the Bill? An Amendment on a Second Reading would, in the ordinary course, if carried, be fatal to the principle of a Bill, and I venture respectfully to ask whether, as the object which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to attain can be achieved by an Amendment moved in Committee, that is not the proper course to adopt?
    *MR. SPEAKER: I see no objection to the Amendment, on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman must take the responsibility of it.
    *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL,): I should like, as a point of Order in this connection, to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, if this Amendment be carried, it does not prevent the Second Reading of the Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: Of course, it traverses the Second Reading of the Bill.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the House is very much indebted to my right hon. Friend for his lucid exposition of the principles of the and also for his explanations of the objections to the present state of the law which have induced the Government to bring in the Bill. My right hon. Friend would hardly have been himself if he had not, in referring to me, made use of the argumentum ad hominem. As he himself has said, he does not rely upon it in criticism; and as I imagine toy conduct is not before the House, I also, I think, may pass it by. He is curious to know whether I propose to carry this Amend-
    1962
    ment to a Division. And my right Friend below me is anxious to know what the effect of my doing so would be if I were to secure a majority of the House. I will tell my right hon. Friend why I put the Amendment down, put down the Amendment chiefly with a view of explaining to the house an alternative proposal which I think would more satisfactorily settle the question. Whether I carry it to a Division or not depends, in some part, upon the course of the Debate. If my right hon. Friend is prepared to say that when this Bill goes into Committee he will give impartial consideration to any Amendment to carry out the views which have put on the Paper, then I agree that it would be better to reserve any Division to that period of the Debate. It be says that the Government hold it to be a vital part of their proposal that, any Amendment of that kind should be resisted at any stage of die Rill, then, its the object of a. Division would be to put on record the names of hon. Gentlemen in recording their opinions on this matter, it might, perhaps, be convenient to the house to take a Division at this stage. There are questions raised this House where there is no hope of taking away the majority of the House, and no one expects, in these circumstances, to be successful in a Division to reduce the normal majority of the Party that proposes the measure. At the same time, in many of these cases it is desirable and interesting, as a matter of record, to have the names of hon. Members on both sides who are in favour or who are against the proposition; and I imagine that this is not, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, a Party question. I, therefore, can imagine that on all sides of the House there might be some division of opinion in reference to these matters. The right hon. Gentleman said that my Amendment was in reality a proposal to substitute industrial assurance for employers' liability. I do not entirely accept Ids language. In the first place. I do not call mine a proposal for industrial assurance. I may here state that one of the serious objections which applied to the difficulty of raising contributions from the workmen of the migratory class does Hot apply in the least to my proposal. I proposed that the compensation to which they are entitled should be

    1963
    paid to them through the channel of the employer without their making any contribution to the same themselves. Therefore, that objection does not apply, and the words "industrial assurance" do not quite correctly express my meaning. I should prefer "industrial compensation." I am not proposing to substitute anything for employers' liability; I am adding. industrial compensation to employers' liability. I object to the proposal of the Government on this ground: that it is not a proposal which would settle on lines broad and simple a long-standing controversy, and would place the law on a logical footing. That is precisely what the proposal does not do. It neither settles a long-standing controversy, nor does it putt the law en a logical footing. In the present law there are many anomalies; and a new law would only add a new crop of anomalies and give rise to difficulties more serious than any we have had to deal with. That is my position, which I shall endeavour to prove to the House. There are two principles in connection with the subject which may be put in operation concurrently, or which nutty be treated separately. They are: This principle of employers' liability—that is to say, the principle of the responsibility of employers for accidents which are directly or indirectly due to their own misconduct or neglect. That is the principle of the existing law. Under the existing law, if an accident occurs either owing to the direct neglect or lashes of the employer, owing to the faults of machinery of which he ought to have been aware, owing to misconduct or neglect of superintendence, the employer is held to be liable, and is, as it were, penalised for the consequences of his misconduct. But in the case of the present law what I may call the moral liability of the employer is the same as his legal liability. That is the principle of the law, and it is, to my mind, a perfectly logical and consistent principle. The Bill goes beyond that; and for the first time it proposes to make an employer liable in cases in which no one can say that he has any moral liability. He is to be legally liable in pocket for matters over which he cannot possibly exercise any practical control. Take one or two cases. The simplest case is that of an accident in a mine Under existing circumstances, if an accident in a mine
    1964
    takes place owing to defects in the ventilation which the employer ought to have prevented, he is liable for all the consequences of those defects; but in the Bill, if an explosion were to take place in a mine owing to the stupidity or misconduct, of a workman who had struck it light in a place where was an outlet of gas, and by that carelessness 200 or 300 workmen were killed or injured, the employer would be pecuniarly liable to the representatives of these men. You have entered on a new principle. You are no longer punishing an employer for a matter in which he is morally liable, but you are fining him in order to provide compensation in the case of deaths or injury of people where he has had no moral liability whatever. Take, again, the case of a ship at sea. You may easily suppose accidents which are distinctly due to the misconduct of the employer. He may have overloaded his ship, and sent her to the bottom as completely as if he had scuttled her in the deep sea, or he may not have taken proper care to have proper rigging. In all these cases by all means penalise the employer for his misconduct. But suppose when at sea a sailor who has gone up the rigging lets a pulley drop on the head of a sailor below, can it be pretended that the shipowner, perhaps thousands of miles away, is in any sense, directly or indirectly, answerable for the conduct of that sailor who lets the pulley drop on the head of his fellow sailor? That, again, is an illustration in which undoubtedly you have given up all idea of moral liability. I might put as a third case that of an engine-driver on the railway, who starts his engine while his mate is oiling the wheel. His mate is injured; you can hardly say that there was carelessness on the part of the engine-driver; the accident might have been purely accidental; but, in any circumstances, you cannot pretend that that accident was due to the fault of the Railway Company or that they ought to be held morally responsible for the consequences. Therefore, I say if you adopt the principle of the Bill you give up the idea of moral responsibility, and you take the ground of expediency. You say that when a luau is injured it is right that he should have compensation, and you are making the employer the channel for the payment of that compensation. That is my principle; but

    1965
    that is not adopted in its entirety by the right hon. Gentleman, becauses he only uses the employer for the purpose of paying compensation in those cases in which a fellow-workman is the cause of the injury, and thereby he leaves untouched more than a half of the whole of the accidents which occur in the United Kingdom. For my part, in this matter the persons whom the House ought to think are the injured persons are the family of the person who is injured or killed; and I do hold it to be the moral obligation of the House to provide in every such case that these persons should be compensated as far as pecuniary compensation can be afforded. That does not touch my equal conviction that you should maintain and preserve and, if necessary, extend and render more stringent, all those provisions of the law which are necessary to make the employer properly careful in all matters that are within his proper obligations. Therefore, do not let it be said that in proposing to extend this Bill I have the slightest idea of putting forward universal compensation for accidents. Wherever you can show that an employer is morally liable, by all means penalize him. I say that this Bill is incomplete, as it deals only with the minority of the questions with which we have to grapple. I am afraid that in this country we have no satisfactory statistics dealing with the subject, but the German official statistics are exceedingly complete, and, dealing as they do with an enormous mass of trade, they may be relied upon as accurate. According to the German statistics, of all the accidents that take place in all trades subject to the German law, 19·26 per cent.—that is, only 20 per cent.—are held to be due to the conduct or neglect of the employers; 7·73 per cent. are partly due to the conduct of the workmen and employers—that is, the statistics are unable to separate them accurately as between the two; 25·64 per cent. are entirely due to the fault of workmen; and that leaves 43·40 per cent., which I can only describe as accidents due to what we call the acts of God—that is, accidents which cannot be attributed to the personal action of workmen or employers. That leaves 3 per cent. unaccounted for. It follows from this that if you are able by law, as my right hon. Friend desires to do, to protect persons
    1966
    suffering from accidents caused by the employer's conduct or that of fellow-workmen, you would still leave over 40 per cent. absolutely unprovided for. Let me take the case of a mine explosion, which is probably caused either by the carelessness of the employer or the negligence of the workmen; but there are many other accidents in mines which cannot be attributed to any personal intervention. There are occasionally falls of roof, which are as unaccountable as an earthquake itself. I will next take the case of losses at sea, in which I have a special and rather exceptional interest. It is hardly ever possible to say the cause of a ship's foundering. You may attribute it to the misconduct of the employer or to carelessness on the part of the seamen or officers of the ship, but hardly in any case have you evidence to go upon, and in a great many cases it may be fairly assumed that the foundering, took place under circumstances which are practically beyond human control. These are among some of the most distressing of the cases that occur, and yet these are eases which are to be wholly unprovided for by this Bill. I would take the ordinary case of a factory boiler explosion. There is almost always an inquiry, and I am sure the President of the Board of Trade will bear me out that in the vast number of cases no explanation is given. In a great many cases it remains a mystery to the end of time how the explosion occurred. The present law provides for 20 per cent—that is, one-fifth of the total accidents which take place. The new law proposes to provide for one-third of the total—33 per cent.—and thus you have 53 per cent. provided for and 47 per cent. entirely left without any provision whatever. Now I come to point out a deliberate omission, for which my right hon. Friend has given no reason and no explanation. In the first place, under the Bill all cases will be taken out of compensation where the workman knew of the negligence which had caused the accident and did not within a reasonable time give information to his employer or some superior in his employ. So that the workman would have no ground of action unless he informed the employer of the defect he had discovered. I say that that is very hard on the workman. In the vast number of cases the workman will not dare to

    1967
    give information to the employer, knowing that he would cause expense to his employer, and that he would be looked upon probably as a troublesome fellow. I remember a case which happened when I was President of the Board of Trade, when a captain of a ship went out to sea and his ship foundered, under what circumstances nobody ever knew. But it did happen that after the ship foundered with the loss of the captain and 23 of the crew a letter was produced, written by the captain previous to starting on his last voyage to his wife. In that letter he said that the ship was so overloaded, and so ill-found, that he felt he was going to his death, but that he could not complain, for if he did so he would be a marked man. I do not say whether he was wrong or right, but that is a feature which must be taken into account. A great many workmen will not acquaint their employers with defects, and, therefore, I say that if this clause remains in the Bill, it is perfectly certain that a large number of persons for whom the Bill is intended to provide will not be provided for. That is one deduction, therefore, that has to be made from the 53 per cent, for which the Bill proposes to provide. You have to prove negligence, and how are you to do it? It is the workman who has to prove the negligence. Whence is the evidence to come? From his fellow-workmen, who depend for their employment on the continued good opinion of their employer? When a workman has to rely upon evidence of that kind, and the scene of the accident is in the possession of his employer, the difficulties which threaten to come his way will be almost insurmountable. There will be a number of cases under this Bill in which, although t he accident is due to negligence of one kind or another, it will be impossible for the workman to supply sufficient proof when the matter is brought to trial. My right hon. Friend said that his object in preparing this Bill was to prevent the possibility of litigation. Why, the Bill will make litigation certain in a vast number of cases, and will increase enormously the difficulties of the workman. What is the case now? Whenever there is litigation the workman who succeeds and recovers compensation has practically nothing left for himself, for
    1968
    what he recovers is absorbed in costs; and I am certain that under this Bill the expense of proving his case will be so great that when compensation is awarded to a workman it will be illusory compensation. There is another most curious limitation in the Bill. I use the word "curious," having regard to the intentions of my right hon. Friend to found his measure on a logical basis. The application of the Bill is confined under Sub-section A of Clause 6 to "every person engaged in manual labour." Why is this done? I cannot see why from the beneficent provisions of this Bill such persons as clerks, foremen, and managers should be wholly excluded. Is it because they have no Trade Unions to represent them? Men engaged in clerical work, which is often less highly remunerated than manual labour, may and sometimes do suffer when an accident occurs. Take the case of a boiler explosion. I have known clerks to be killed in their office at the same time that workmen have been killed in the mill. Why are clerks not to be compensated? The Bill shows a want of logical principle. In Sub-section B of Clause 6 the Bill is made to apply to every railway servant. This includes, I suppose, stationmasters and other people not actually engaged in manual labour. Why are such persons engaged under a Railway Company to be entitled to compensation when, if they left the railway and took other employment, they would not be entitled to it? Sub-section D includes every person employed on board a ship—the waiters in a passenger ship, the captain himself, the inferior officers, the boatswain, &c. All these persons holding positions which are not the positions of persons doing manual labour will be compensated for accidents, but persons holding analogous positions on land will not be compensated. When you have made all these deductions you will not be dealing with 53 per cent. of the total accident cases. I very much doubt whether you will be dealing with more than 40 per cent. There is one other exclusion. Why are domestic servants who are engaged in manual labour and who are at least as deserving of consideration as any other class of persons? Why are they left outside the purview of the Bill? As long as they are excluded you exclude the largest class of those who are engaged in manual

    1969
    labour. Having shown what is the state of the case under the Bill, I turn to the alternative which I propose. I take the principle of t he German law, and I. hold that the right to compensation of any person injured in the ordinary course of his employment is a public right and a natural obligation, and, therefore, I would provide that in every case of accident, with one exception, the person injured or his representative should receive compensation. The one case excepted is the case of a man's own act or default. It does not seem to me reasonable and logical that an exception should be made in that particular case; for if you give compensation to a man whose accident has resulted from his own act or default, you take away one very strong ground for precaution and carefulenss on the part of workmen. It would be monstrously illogical to say that you ought to punish the employer in order to make him careful, and that you ought to reward the workman who is not careful. With that exception my Amendment would provide for every case. By its adoption you would get rid of litigation. All a workman would have to do would be to show that the accident was not the result of his own negligence. If it was not the result of such negligence he would have an indefeasible right to compensation in whatever way the accident occurred. Now I have to deal with the position of the employer in this matter. In dealing with compensation, I should he inclined to treat the employer merely as a convenient channel through which the compensation should be paid. I should expect that, if the liability to pay compensation were made universal, every employer would insure, and I should not object to the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow, which seeks to make it the duty of the employer to insure his men. Let me deal with the matter from the point of view of the employer. It may be interesting to the House to know that an old Member of the House, now dead—Mr. Knowles—who was noted for the intense interest he took in these questions, and who certainly understood the case of the employer, although he would have been opposed to many provisions of this Bill, he was prepared to accept this universal liability, and he was of opinion that it would be
    1970
    the only thoroughly satisfactory settlement of the question. He foresaw that the case would be met by universal insurance, and that the insurance, if extended over the whole country, and over every trade, would only be a very small matter indeed. I have made a calculation as to what the cost would be to the Coal-Mining Associations, and I find that the cost of providing for every accident to every miner throughout the country would be 595 of a penny, or little more than halfpenny a ton of coal. But then I have to deal with objections on the part of the workpeople to the principle of insurance. Under the present system there is nothing to prevent insurance, and under the Bill of my right hon. Friend there is nothing to prevent insurance. In fact, he has made insurance an absolute necessity. I am not proposing any alteration in the law as it stands, nor do I believe that any way by which insurance could be effectively prohibited could be discovered. The objection to insurance that workmen take is twofold. They object that in the long run it would be deducted from their wages. To that I answer that the employer now insures his machinery and his buildings, and am I to be told that that comes out of the wages of his work-people? If it does not, why should the insurance of his men against accident come out of their wages? At any rate, if everything else comes out of the wages, this would not make any practical difference, seeing, as I have shown, that the cost of providing against accident in coal mines would only be ½d. per ton, and that it would all go back to the workmen as compensation. Therefore, I do not treat that as a serious objection. But what I do treat as a serious objection on the part of the workmen is, that if you refrain from penalising the employer you remove the pressure upon him to take proper care and precaution. In answer to that objection, I would say that almost every accident is already the subject of loss to the employer. It cannot be possible for an accident involving the loss of life or limb to take place without pecuniary loss to the employer, and the fear of that pecuniary loss is, I think, sufficient to promote carefulness on the part of the employer. But, if you disagree with me in that, I am willing to go with you in

    1971
    any provision for penalising the employer who is found guilty of negligence. What would be the effect if you could prevent insurance? Take a case which might happen under the Bill of my right hon. Friend, the case of a mine explosion. In such an explosion, caused, as I imagine, by the negligence of a workman, 200 or 300 workmen are killed. The compensation due to the families of those men under this Bill would amount to an enormous sum, and I venture to say that no capitalist after this Bill would go into mining and undertake that risk without either insuring against it or taking measures to turn his business into a Limited Liability Company. Of cases in which there is no insurance von will find a large proportion in which the firm or employer will he unable to meet these charges. The employer becomes bankrupt, if you like; but what advantage is that to the family of the injured workman? They have no redress, because by the Bill you will have created a lot of needy employers who will be totally unable to bear the expense of compensation. Now, I think I have gone through all the points. At all events, I am content to have stated my alternative case to the House. If the House were disposed to deal with it in a favourable sense, I am quite prepared to agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be most desirable that this Bill should be the vehicle for the reform, and I should be content if it were amended in Committee. Meantime, I beg the House to consider whether it is worth while to deal with this subject in a partial way, and whether it would not be better once for all to settle the right of every workman to compensation. You could do it at a very small cost, and the law would he placed on that logical and satisfactory basis which it is the desire of my right hon. Friend to attain.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Bousfield.)
    MR. GOSCHEN: Will this Bill be taken first on Thursday? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will inform us.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I am afraid I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any undertaking that the
    1972
    Bill will be the first Order on Thursday. The Government hope it will not be treated as a contentious measure, and that when it is again taken up it will be pushed forward and disposed of by hon. Gentlemen.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I may inform the right hon. Gentleman that there is immense interest in the measure on both sides of the House, and we should like to know when it is again to come on.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot give any undertaking at the moment; but I will consider the point, and see what can be done.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Thursday.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR) BILL.—(No. 165.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill. It is a measure on all fours with the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat on the subject of Hours of Labour for Railway Servants, and over which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir M. Hicks Beach) presided. I hope the House will consent to the Second Reading. The matter has been before the House for a considerable time, and I trust it will not be necessary to delay this stage.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Mundella.)
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the House had never had au opportunity of considering the Report of the Select Committee. They ought to discuss that Report before advancing the Bill.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: As I understand from the statement, which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, this Bill is identical with the recommendations of the Select Committee over which I had the honour to preside. If that be so, and if I filled the office now held by the right

    1973
    hon. Gentleman, I should have no objection to the course he is now pursuing. Indeed, I would adopt it without hesitation. I trust, then that the Bill will be read a second time. If Members wish to discuss it the Government would probably consent that it should be sent before a Grand Committee.
    *MR. BARTLEYsaid, neither of the two Front Benches had explained the provisions of the Bill, and he thought they ought to protest against Bills being advanced in this way. It seemed to him that a Bill might pass into law without the House knowing anything about it at all. If the late Government had brought in measures of this class that were considered essential to the government of the country, they would have been opposed by those who were now Her Majesty's Ministers. He did not think it was fair, or in the public interest, that they should be required to proceed with this measure at the present time, and he accordingly moved that the Debate stand adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Bartley),—put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    It being after Midnight, Mr. Speaker proceeded to interrupt the Business.
    Mr. MUNDELLArose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    *MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman who moves that the Question be now put that the discussion of this Bill has lasted little more than five minutes. There are circumstances which no doubt seem quite to justify the right hon. Gentleman in making the Motion. But my responsibility is to consider the claims of a minority who may wish to further discuss a Bill. I have had an indication that hon. Members do wish for further discussion; therefore I am compelled to decline to put the Question.
    The Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 96.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. T. M. HEALYmoved to report Progress. He had no objection to the Bill; but when measures which were equally unobjectionable were moved from those Benches distinguished gentlemen of the Opposition—generally a Lord or a right hon.—got up and "objected." He believed this was an admirable Bill, perfect in all its parts, and it was with the greatest reluctance that he offered opposition to it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    SIR F. POWELLhoped they would be allowed to go on with the Bill which had received support from all parts of the House.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: If the Tory Members who "object" to my Bill—New Licences (Ireland) Bill—will give me an assurance that they will not obstruct that measure, I will withdraw my opposition to the present Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  REGIMENTAL DEBTS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.—(No. 116.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  POLICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 105.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL. (No. 91.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday 31st May.

  POST OFFICE (ACQUISITION OF SITES) [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any sums with respect to the purchase and acquisition of lands payable under any Act of the present Session to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to acquire lands in London, Liverpool, and Leeds for the Public Service, and of all expenses connected with carrying into effect the provisions of such Act.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.

  COINAGE [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of a sum not exceeding £250,000, and to apply any interest thereon, towards meeting the expenses incurred in pursuance of "The Coinage Act, 1891."
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Leng, Bill to establish Limited Partnerships, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Leng, Sir Albert Rollitt, and Mr. Jacoby.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 217.]

  COMMONS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every Report made by the Board of Agriculture, certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the enclosure or regulation of a Common, and presented to the House during the last or present Sessions, before a Bill be brought in for the confirmation of such Order.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power in respect of each such Provisional Order, to inquire and Report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament; and, if so, whether with
  1976
  or without modification, and, in the event of their being of opinion that the same should not be confirmed, except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly with a view to such Provisional Order being remitted to the Board of Agriculture.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twelve Members, Seven to be nominated by the House, and Five by the Committee of Selection.
  Dr. Ambrose, Viscount Curzon, Sir Arthur Hayter, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Illingworth, Mr. Jeffreys, and Mr. Taylor were accordingly nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  Ordered. That the Committee of Public Accounts do consist of Fifteen Members:—Mr. Bartley, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Fenwick, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Hanbury, Sir Arthur Hayter, Sir John Hibbert, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Mowbray, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. Philip Stanhope, Sir Richard Temple, Mr. Arthur Williams, Mr. Webb, awl Mr. Wodehouse.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir John Hibbert.)

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS DISTRIBUTION.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in superintending the form and regulating the Distribution of Parliamentary Papers.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. Bartley, Mr. Causton, Mr. Cavendish, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Howell, Sir Herbert Maxwell, and Mr. Francis Stevenson.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Causton.)

  PARLIAMENT (DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Contract, dated the 8th day of December, 1892, entered into with Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode for printing and publishing Reports of Debates and Proceedings in Parliament."—(Sir John Hibbert).
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 78.]
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
SHERIFFS IN IRELAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYcalled attention to the refusal of the Executive in Ireland to grant police protection to Sheriffs at night in the execution of Judgments of the Superior Courts; and to the Judgment of the Queen's Bench Division holding such refusal illegal. He said: My Lords, I am somewhat uncertain as to the course I should pursue on the present occasion. When I placed on the Paper the notice which stands in my name I was unaware that a question was to be asked in another place on the subject. The answer of the Chief Secretary places me in a somewhat difficult position, for I gather from that answer that he is yet uncertain as to whether he will appeal to your Lordships to reverse the decisions of the Two Courts in Dublin to which he has already appealed. Under those circumnstances, I think I am justified in asking the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether he is in a position to state to your Lordships the course which the Irish Executive propose to take? I need not say, in raising the question in your Lordships' House, that I think it is one of great importance not only to Ireland, but to England, and it is one which I think should be fully debated in this House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCITELL): My Lords, I am afraid I cannot make, in reply to the noble Marquess, any definite and conclusive statement as to what the Irish Courts will do in this matter. There is no doubt that the question is of very great importance. Two of the learned Judges who sat in the Court of Appeal expressed their regret that their view of the law prevented their dealing with the case on its merits, and they
  1838
  decided it simply on the ground of jurisdiction. They stated that the matter was well deserving the consideration of the highest tribunal—namely, your Lordships' House. The Chief Secretary stated in the other House that the Government are desirous of taking the decision of your Lordships' House if it were possible on the question, and I gather that the question whether there should be an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal is still under consideration. It may be that the conclusion will be arrived at to appeal on the ground that the Court below had jurisdiction, and therefore that your Lordships' House has jurisdiction, and so to obtain the opinion of this House upon the substantive question; or it may be seen that there is some other way in which the opinion of the Court of Appeal and of this House may be taken by raising the question in such a way as that it could be made the subject of appeal, and that the appeal might not be precluded by reason of its being a criminal cause or matter. Of course, that would have to be considered as well as the question whether there should he an appeal from the decision, because the Court of Appeal might in the end be affirmed by your Lordships' House simply on the point of jurisdiction, and there would be an obvious advantage in adopting, if possible, some other mode of raising the question upon the merits. Of course, the noble Marquess will readily understand it is absolutely impossible for me to express any opinion upon the question of law, as the matter may probably come before your Lordships' House on appeal, and I should not think it right, as I might in that case have to hear arguments and to determine the question to express any opinion upon it now. That is the position in which I am placed, and I should think that noble and learned Lords in a similar position would feel the same difficulty.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I feel it somewhat difficult to understand exactly the advice given by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord is under a misapprehension. I simply answered the question put to me. I did not intend to give any advice at all in the matter.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Well, then, the opinion ought to be conveyed to your Lordships by my noble and learned Friend. It is obvious that this is a matter of the deepest importance, and it is not reasonable to tie up the discussion in either House of Parliament by a suggestion that there may or may not conceivably be an appeal under every sort of hypothetical circumstances that may exist. The position of the matter is this: A discussion was raised some months ago in the newspapers and otherwise in reference to the validity of the instructions given by the Irish Executive in regard to night seizures and the protection to be given to Sheriff's. Mr. Morley stated they were only with the object of making those which he found in existence when he came into Office more intelligible. The matter came to be considered legally in reference to the Sheriff's of Kerry, and to circumstances which led to his insisting upon the right of protection as well as to the action of the Government in regard to the whole matter, before the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin. That Court, after an argument lasting several days, in which the Law Officers of the Crown were heard at length, after hearing all the grounds and reasons put forward on behalf of the Crown, unanimously came to the conclusion—the Lord Chief Justice, assisted by three other distinguished Judges of that Court—that the Sheriff was right in his contention, and that the suggested doubts on the part of the Executive were unfounded. That was the position upon the decision of the Queen's Bench Division. Mr. Morley stated in the other House that he had given instructions for an appeal from any adverse decision of the Queen's Bench Division; and as soon as the decision was annouced an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeal in Dublin. The Court of Appeal in Dublin consisted of four distinguished Judges—the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Baron, and Lord Justices Fitzgibbon and Barry. They did not go into the matters discussed by the Court of Queen's Bench, but took the view that it being a criminal matter no appeal lay; and, as I understand, all that Mr. Morley suggested in the answer which was given on Friday last and reported in Saturday's papers, came to this: that he would consider
  1840
  whether he could test the validity of that decision of the Court of Appeal—that is, whether au appeal lay or not by taking it farther to your Lordships' House; or whether, he went on to say, he would present the matter for the consideration of Parliament by Bill. The point is a narrow one, and it must have been considered definitely and conclusively by the Law Officers from time to time since this controversy arose. It s a question which is familiar to all lawyers; there is nothing new or strange about it, and I think we are entitled to know whether the Law Officers have under their hands suggested that there is any ground for questioning in your Lordships' House the decision of the Court of Appeal. My noble and learned Friend has intimated that there may be some other process of law started, and that after it has gone through various phases in the Irish Courts that in some inconceivable and hypothetical manner this new and unnamed process may ultimately find its way into your Lordships' House. But your Lordships will agree that it is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter, tieing it up in this way from definite decision and debate. It is quite obvious that the answer of my noble and learned Friend not giving the House the benefit of his great and authoritative legal opinion is hardly as satisfactory as it otherwise might have been, and, therefore, I hope we shall be told by some Member of the Government whether as a fact their Law Officers in Ireland have been in a position to give any opinion as to casting a sufficient doubt upon the decision of the Court of Appeal to justify an appeal to your Lordships' House. That is a matter of considerable importance. I think we are also entitled to view the matter in this alternative which Mr. Morley himself put the other day, and to ask whether he has made up his mind, in view of the advice which he has no doubt got from his Law Officers about presenting the matter to Parliament and asking Parliament to review the matter, and if necessary to keep things right, to amend the law. I do not think it is reasonable indefinitely to postpone Debate in your Lordships' House on this subject, and I think we are entitled to some expression of opinion as to the exact position and circumstances in which the Government stand at present.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to say a word in explanation, because my noble and learned Friend seems to have misunderstood, and he has misrepresented, of course unintentionally, the exact position of this matter. I answered the question which the noble Marquess put to me; I did not invite or deprecate discussion upon it. It is entirely for the noble Marquess or the noble and learned Lord to determine whether they think discussion at this moment either desirable or expedient. If they think so, I have no desire to stop it. I merely answered the noble Marquess's question as to how, in my opinion, the matter stands; and as the noble and learned Lord says it is time we had made up our minds what to do, I may remind him that the Judgment of the Court of Appeal was only given on the 16th, and we are only to-day at the 20th February, and, therefore, there has not been a very long space of time for determining the course to be taken.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, after the remarks of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I think it is evident that the Chief Secretary has not yet made up his mind as to whether he will bring this case before your Lordships' House, and as it is, therefore, not sub judice, it is impossible to see why Members of this House are not at perfect liberty to discuss it. I venture to do so, because I consider it a matter of so much importance that I think its details should be thoroughly understood by the people of England at large, and that they should be allowed to form their own opinion as to whether the conduct of the Chief Secretary merits their unbounded approval or not. The position of this matter at the present moment is unparalleled in the annals of any country or Government. It is the first time we have seen a serious breach of the law perpetrated by a Cabinet Minister responsible for the government of the country, and that Cabinet Minister no other than the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Some Members of your Lordships' House may consider this a somewhat bold assertion; but I am confident when I state the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it
  1842
  will be admitted I have not overstated the case. It is a very simple one. A farmer named Kissane borrowed a sum of money from the Local Government Board in Ireland for the purpose of improving his farm; he failed to pay the interest on the money he had borrowed, and, consequently, the Attorney General for Ireland, in the course of his duty, instituted proceedings. Judgment was issued from the Superior Courts, and a writ of seizure was directed to the Sheriff to levy the amount due. Now, many Members of your Lordships' House, with all deference to them, had no idea of the difficulties which surround a Sheriff in pursuing his duty of levying upon farms in some parts of the South-West of Ireland, and especially in Kerry. So well has the system of what I may call silent resistance to the Sheriffs in carrying out their duties been organised by the National League in that part of the country that when the bailiffs appear for the purpose of levying, horns are blown by scouts placed on the hill-tops to give warning, and the cattle are driven from the farm on which they are to be levied on to other farms where they are mixed with other cattle, and it is impossible to identify and seize them. That, it was stated by the under-Sheriff on affidavit, happened in the present case. His statement was that his bailiff, James Brown, attended on the defendant's lands to execute the writ on Wednesday, December 7, 1892; that he found not goods on the land, but saw fresh signs of cattle, showing that they had been driven off on the approach of the bailiff's party. In order to prevent the writ of the Superior Courts from becoming absolutely abortive, the Sheriff considered it his duty to endeavour to levy by night. Knowing well that there were certain dangers and difficulties likely to beset him, the Sheriff appealed to the County Inspector to furnish him with sufficient police to protect the lives of the bailiffs in the discharge of their duty. The County Inspector, acting under the orders of Dublin Castle, refused the protection asked for. I say Dublin Castle advisedly, for I find that a Circular was issued from Dublin Castle which stated that the Government (which meant the Chief Secretary), as they were advised, were within their rights in declining to afford protection for the actual execution of

  1843
  the writ at a time which they regarded as dangerous and unreasonable during the darkness of the night. I would ask the Government why, when it is notorious that in the South-West of Ireland levying by day is absolutely impossible on account of the reasons I have given, the Irish Executive should forbid levying by night, which could be made serviceable. I can only attribute it to one reason—the desire which has been manifested by the Chief Secretary in Ireland during the last six months to try and appease the law-breaking section of their followers. Proceedings were naturally instituted by the Sheriff against the County Inspector, with the result that that officer was mulcted in costs. In delivering Judgment the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, supported by the other Judges who sat with him, stated that the Circular of December 7 was, in his opinion, unconstitutional and illegal, as in effect it denied to the Sheriff the right, power, and discretion which the law allowed him, and was calculated to frustrate the Judgment of the Court. The Judges did not think fit to visit with punishment the County Inspector; but if he had been adjudged the punishment which evidently was his due, the punishment should not have been borne by that officer. A subordinate has only to carry out the instructions of his superior; and if his superior gives him instructions which brings the Inspector under the notice of the Judges, that punishment should be visited on the shoulders of the man's superiors. The case, as the noble and learned Lord has stated, was carried to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed it. I would call attention to a letter which appeared in The Times from the late Solicitor General for Ireland with regard to the Judgment of the Lord Chief Baron. The Chief Secretary, referring in another place to the Judgment of the Lord Chief Baron, stated that the Judge, in giving Judgment, was reported to have said that he was personally desirous that some mode should he devised which would involve a decision in the House of Lords on the question. But the right hon. Gentleman left out the preceding words of the Lord Chief Baron, which I consider very important—
  "He did not desire," the Lord Chief Baron said, "to reflect in the slightest degree on the decision of any of the distinguished Judges
  1844
  who tried the case in the Queen's Bench Division."
  Therefore, I maintain that those words of the Lord Chief Baron conclusively prove that he concurred with the Judgment of his colleagues. I do not intend to, trespass longer upon your Lordships' time in this matter. I have endeavoured in a fair and impartial manner to place it before you. I cannot help feeling that the maintenance of the supremacy of our Courts of Law should be placed before Party considerations, and, therefore, it is that I should not attempt to make political capital out of such a matter. I will only, in conclusion, ask Her Majesty's Government, Do they or do they not endorse the action of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in his endeavour to weaken and paralyse the action of the Superior Courts in Dublin? That question, my Lords, I think I have a right to ask and to obtain a direct reply.
  *LORD ACTON: My Lords, the facts are these: Down to 1860 the constabulary were not authorised to give what I may call moonlight assistance. Then they were required to do so in cases of Judgments of the Superior Courts, and this came to be extended to decrees of the County Courts. That was the rule when the present Government came into Office. They found that the rule, so extended as to cover execution of decrees of the Inferior Courts, was illegal; that such execution by night was a misdemeanour, and that permanent injustice was being done. It became their duty at once to put an end to the injustice and to alter the offending regulation. But it would appear, as the noble Marquess has justly said, that in their manner of doing it they also fell into error. Theirs was an error against which new Governments cannot be too much on their guard, the amiable and seductive error of undue deference to their predecessors. It had been considered that the acts of Superior and Inferior Courts should be treated alike. In changing the practice they maintained the principle. Seeing that distress for rent cannot be made by night, that ejectments cannot be executed at night, that it is an act punishable by fine and imprisonment to carry away goods or cattle by night, under a decree of the

  1845
  parity of reasoning, by analogy, and by the evident policy of the law, they resolved to put an end to protection in the night surprises; even for executions,ordered by the Superior Courts. They advised that the legality of this prohibition should be tested in a Court of Law where it was decided against them. They desired an authoritative opinion and have not been able to obtain it. They will at once amend their regulation in conformity with the law as now declared. Whether things can be allowed to rest there I do not know. The Judges of the Court of Appeal seemed to consider it extremely doubtful. One of them, the Lord Chief Baron, has spoken as follows:—
  "Having been himself the Judge who for the first time in the present half-century, had considered it necessary to call attention to the law which regulated the relations between the High Court and the Royal Irish Constabulary in reference to writs of execution, he did not desire to reflect in the slightest degree on the decision of any of the distinguished Judges who tried the case in the Queen's Bench Division when he said that personally he was desirous that some mode could be devised which would involve a decision of the House of Lords in the matter. He could not conceive any matter more worthy of the consideration of that high tribunal Judges, however, had to administer the law—they could not make it—and if according to law an appeal in the present case did not lie, they could not do more than decline to enter on its consideration, leaving the appellant to appeal to the House of Lords to review their decision, if an appeal lay from that decision, or to the Legislature, if they thought fit to alter the law."
  Lord Justice Barry, in the fullest report I have seen, said—
  "He regretted, in common with the other Members of the Court, that they were not in a position to give an authoritative, as it was called, opinion upon the question involved the decision of the Queen's Bench."
  The Government have not resolved upon further steps beyond what I have stated. This is the whole matter, reduced to its shortest expression so far as I can reduce it. Whether this basis of fact supports the fallacious superstructure which the noble Marquess has raised upon it your Lordships from the authentic information which I have put before you will be able to judge.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it occurs to me that in making the statement which the noble Lord has just done he is not following on parallel lines with the information given in the House of Commons, at least as far
  1846
  as my recollection goes. I understood that it had been clearly established in the House of Commons that there was no case in which a civil bill decree had been executed by the constabulary by distress during the night. What had been done was that the forces were assembled for that purpose in the night, and brought upon the ground—a proceeding which was absolutely necessary in order to avoid conspiracy for evading the law, which is common in these places—but that the actual seizure of the cattle had never taken place under the authority of the constabulary at night. The noble Lord passed over that question altogether, though in another place it was raised in considerable detail. Of course, if the noble Lord has further information which I have not got, I should be glad to receive it; but, failing any such further statement, I think I must demur to his explanation of the facts, and say that he has not drawn a sufficient distinction between what was done by the constabulary and what was imputed to them. I understand that what it was Mr. Morley in a first hasty speech imputed to them was that they had undoubtedly committed a breach of the law. What it turns out upon more careful examination that they had done was not to commit a breach of the law, but simply to take an additional precaution which the circumstances of the district demanded. He never produced any instance of actual illegality. With respect to the Main Question, I understand the noble Lord to give a pledge that the recent decision of the Court shall be the rule of the Government in any future action. With that assurance I have no cause to complain; but it seems to use a grievous thing for the subject, if the Government should have the power, by refusing the assistance of the Executive, to practically exercise a dispensing power, and thus make the rights of private persons of no avail. If such a thing were done and sustained it would be the worst possible augury for the future, and it would have the effect of opening an easy way of making all private rights worthless in Ireland. However, we now have the assurance of the noble Lord that, pending further action, at all events the Government have no intention of repeating what they had done and contravening the decision of the

  1847
  Court. Whether they shall proceed for a further examination of the law by way of appeal to this House, or whether they shall apply to Parliament for a modification of the law, or whether they stall leave matters as the Court has now left them, are questions on which, as I understand, they have not as yet come to any determination.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, I do not wish to discuss the subject at any length after the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to the possibility of the merits of this case coming before your House; but I do wish to disclaim the action which the noble Marquess has just attributed to Her Majesty's Government, who have had no intention whatever of using a dispensing power. They have done no such thing. What I understand to have taken place is that when the Chief Secretary looked into the matter he found that the regulations, in his belief and in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, were not consistent with the law, and in order to make them consistent he caused the alterations referred to to be made. I am not aware whether in the past the constabulary have broken the law by affording protection to Sheriffs in seizing cattle at night, which would be strictly illegal; but it was found that the Regulations gave the constabulary permission to assist a Sheriff if the Sheriff asked them to do so in an emergency. That was clearly not legal, and therefore the refusal was not illegal; no one disputes that; it was because my right hon. Friend thought the details in reference to decrees of the Superior Courts must be the same in both cases, that he revised the regulations with the object of stopping what he thought to be improper and illegal action. The noble Marquess said he approached the subject in a perfectly impartial manner; but he soon threw his impartiality to the winds, because he used very strong language with regard to the Government, which I feel bound entirely to repudiate. The noble Marquess said this was an instance of the Government wishing to support the breakers of the law. On the part of the Government, I entirely repudiate such a doctrine; the Government do not wish in any way to break the law or to sup-
  1848
  port those who break the law, and it was in order to maintain what he considered to be the law that the Chief Secretary made this regulation. The noble Marquess ought to be more careful in using language of this sort. So far from desiring to weaken the force of the law in Ireland, the Government desire to support the law and to make it respected. That is as much the basis of the policy of the Government as it is of the policy of noble Lords opposite.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, it is of no use arguing the question on mere terms. The noble Earl has spoken of dispensing power. There is a dispensation without power. The Chief Secretary in Ireland, as a matter of fact, dispensed with the law—ignorantly, I dare say—and it was found he was mistaken in the course he took, and it seems to me he ought immediately to retire from the position he has taken up. That is the course he should have adopted, and it is the only justifiable one.
  EARL SPENCER: He has.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: He has and he has not. We heard at the beginning of this discussion that the question was still open for appeal or for discussion in Parliament. If at this moment the Chief Secretary has made up his mind and admits that in thus dispensing With the law in Kerry he was acting wrongfully, we have no more to say. He has Withdrawn front that position, and I trust the law will now be allowed to operate as it ought to do.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, it is very convenient to say this is a question of words. The noble Lord has again adopted the noble Marquess's assertion with regard to dispensing power. There is nothing of the kind. A dispensing power means that, knowing what the law is, the Executive Government put the law aside. My right hon. Friend was advised wrongly with regard to the law, and he made a mistake. Undoubtedly the regulation which he issued was not in accordance with the law, but he did not arrogate to himself the right of dispensing with the law when it was ascertained. The noble Earl says there was nothing left for my right hon. Friend but to beat

  1849
  a retreat. I quite agree—after it was discovered by the Judgment of the Queen's Bench that what my right hon. Friend had done was not in accordance with the law as decided by that Court at present — undoubtedly, as an officer of Her Majesty administering the law, he was bound to conform to the law as expounded by the Courts, and my noble Friends have been told that the regulation will he altered accordingly. But is that to be alleged as a reason for not appealing? Supposing the Court should itself say my right hon. Friend is entirely within his rights and suppose that Her Majesty's Government have a right if the means exist to try the question—
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: That is the very point.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If there does lie any appeal, it seems to me the proper course for the Government to take is to ascertain distinctly what the law is. If there lies no appeal, and if this decision is not questioned, undoubtedly as long as it remains it must be conformed to by all who administer the Government. The noble Earl finds it convenient to seek to mystify the matter by talking of the dispensing power; but I maintain that is merely a convenient word to use in opposition which has not the slightest application to the case.

  LAW OF INHERITANCE AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law of inheritance to real property —Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; real 1a and to be printed. (No. 17.)
  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law of evidence—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read.1a; and to be printed. (No. 18.)
  ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law as to the endowment of the Archdeaconry of Cornwall—Was presented by the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 19.)

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the Committee have added the Lord Bishop of Durham and the Lord Bishop of Llandaff to the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.