Sitting of 26 November 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petition from Durham, against alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACT.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 16th November, 1906, sanctioning the payment of Greenwich Hospital Special Pensions to persons residing in His Majesty's Dominions abroad in the same way as if they resided in the United Kingdom [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1878.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 16th November, 1906, approving certain new denominations of Standard Measures of Length [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (BRITISH TROOPS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 24th July; Mr. Henry J. Wilson]; to lie upon the Table.

  POSTAL AGREEMENT (SERVIA).
  Copy presented, of Postal Agreement for an exchange of Money Orders between
  1190
  the Post Office of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of Servia, dated the 3rd April, 20th October, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Re-conversion of H.M.S. "Renown."
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the work of re-converting the "Renown" into a battleship has now been taken in hand; if not, when the work may be expected to be begun; and whether the vessel is still officially classed as a first-class battleship.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The "Renown" has not ceased to be a battleship or to be classed as such; but the date on which some of the secondary armament will be replaced, a matter of a few days, has not been decided.

  Expenditure on Repairs to Battleships.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the sums expended during each of the last three years respectively on repairs to the following battleships: "Ramillies," "Repulse," "Resolution," "Royal Oak," "Barfleur," "Centurion," "Revenge," "Empress of India," "Hood," "Nile," "Trafalgar," and "Vengeance; "and whether the Admiralty have official Reports showing that these battleships, or which of them, are at the present time in a fit condition to take part, if required, in a fleet action.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Including incidental charge, which for 1905–06 are approximate, the information asked for is as follows:—

  1191

  Ship.

  1903–1904.

  1904–1905.

  1905–1906.

  £

  £

  £

  Ramillies

  93,464

  11,306

  4,660

  Repulse

  33,567

  68,496

  3,858

  Resolution

  44,923

  13,870

  6,613

  Royal Oak

  7,517

  15,849

  37,714

  Barfleur

  100,449

  9,214

  4,935

  Centurion

  44,780

  1,867

  1,964

  Revenge

  4,566

  14,386

  3,708

  Empress of India

  16,480

  10,552

  21,465

  Hood

  8,358

  5,305

  4,364

  Nile

  10,243

  55,557

  1,512

  Trafalgar

  3,897

  61,499

  7,444

  Vengeance

  5,359

  6,109

  49,697

  There are no Reports in the Admiralty to indicate that these ships are not in a proper fighting condition.

  Civil Servants—Ill-health and Resignation.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a recognised practice in the public service to require an official, whose attendance through ill-health or otherwise has been irregular, to place his resignation in the hands of his superior or head of his department, such resignation being held over for an indefinite period, and accepted or rejected as the heads of such departments may deem expedient; whether he will cause inquiry to be made if such a practice obtains in the Congested Districts Board; and if he is aware that in one case a resignation so obtained was acted upon after the lapse of several months from its receipt; and the official concerned compulsorily retired without medical examination; whether there are similar resignations at present in the hauls of the Secretary of the Congested
  1192
  Districts Board; and, if so, can he give particulars.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am not aware whether there is a recognised practice in the public service to the effect slated in the Question. In the particular case alluded to, the Congested Districts Board adopted the course which they considered to be the most lenient towards the officer in question, having regard to the fact that he had become most inefficient owing to repeated absences from duty, only partly accounted for by sickness, during a period of more than six years. When called upon to send in his resignation this officer was informed that it would be acted upon if there were any recurrence of default in the discharge of his duties. During the succeeding nine months his attendance was more irregular than before, and the Board decided that they could not retain him in their service. It was open to this officer to retire on the ground of ill-health if he could have furnished a medical certificate showing that his health prevented the proper discharge of his duties. In another case

  1193
  the Board have had to require an officer of similar rank to send in his resignation.

  Uganda Railway Accounts.
  SIR C. HILL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to publish the accounts of the Uganda Railway for the year 1905–6 and whether he can state what profits have been earned by its working since the close of the last financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State does not consider it necessary in future to incur the expense of publishing the information in a separate form, but most of it will be incorporated in the Annual Report of the East Africa Protictorate. Copies of the Annual Railway Report have been placed in the Library of the House. The profits on the working of the line for the half year ended the 30th of September were estimated at the beginning of October at £40,000.

  Clerks in Irish Government Offices- Deductions from Salaries.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many temporary clerks in Irish Government Departments have been appointed to the class of abstractors or assistant clerks since November, 1902, whose salaries as temporary clerks on such appointment were reduced by 10 per cent, for pension purposes, and how many whose salaries were not similarly reduced; and if he can see his way, since the number of the former is comparatively insignificant, to direct that the deductions be refunded and the present salaries of these officers increased by the amount deducted for the purposes aforesaid.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Seven clerks have been promoted in the period and the departments specified by the hon. Member, and of this three were subjected to the 10 per cent, deduction. Each case was considered on its merits, It has been decided that promotions of this kind are only to be made in very exceptional circumstances, and the 10 per cent, deduction rule is now always applied. The fact that the deduction
  1194
  was not enforced in all cases in the past cannot be admitted as an argument for improving the position of others who have received normal treatment.

  Wages of Dockyard Workmen.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in connection with the promised reorganisation scheme in His Majesty's Dock yards, whether he can see his way to grant an all-round increase in wages of 2s. per week to all dockyard workmen with an extra increase for chargemen; and whether he will make the retiring age fifty-five instead of sixty, without reducing amount of pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Admiralty are unable to make any statement on the subject at present.

  Railway Facilities at Hastings.
  MR. DU CROS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that in December, 1903, memorials were submitted to the Board from the Corporation of Hastings, and nearly 4,000 inhabitants of Hastings and St. Leonards, with reference to the disadvantage under which the borough was placed owing to the inadequate railway facilities provided by the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Companies Managing Committee, in respect of the inferiority in regard to permanent way, station accommodation, quick and punctual service of trains, and general traffic arrangements and the highness of fares; that it was not until the 24th August, 1906, that the Corporation received any definite reply from the Board. and that, in the result, matters practically remain in statu quo; whether it is usual for such delay to take place in dealing with similar memorials to the Board, and for the Board's representations to be practically ignored by railway authorities; and, if so, whether he will take steps with a view of ob viating such delay in the Departme in the future, and of strengthening the position of the Board in relation to the failure by railway authorities to provide adequate railway facilities.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I regret the long delay which has taken

  1195
  place in this matter. For this delay the Board of Trade are in no way responsible. I am informed that the Managing Committee of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway felt unable to deal with all the points raised in the memorials until they had carried out such alterations in the permanent way in the Bopeep Tunnel as would enable them safely to resume double-line working in that tunnel. This resumption took place on 1st June last and thus met one of the three points on which the memorialists laid stress. I am sorry if in other respects the memorialists are not satisfied, but I may remind the hon. Member that, as the memorialists were informed when their representations were originally made, the Board of Trade have no statutory power to require railway companies to improve railway facilities, and that the only body which has this power is the Railway and Canal Commission to which the memorialists, if they are still dissatisfied, have access.

  Sub-Post Offices—Hours of Closing.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that closing sub-post offices for the sale of stamps at 8 p.m. is a cause of inconvenience in many places; and whether he can see his way to allow stamps to be sold after 8 p.m. in those sub-post offices which are attached to shops remaining open after 8 p.m.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not aware that the closing of sub-post offices for the sale of stamps at 8 p.m. is a cause of inconvenience in many places, and very few complaints have reached me. While I do not see my way to make it a rule that any sub-postmaster who keeps his private business open after 8 p.m. should sell stamps, I do not propose to place any obstacle in the way of a sub-postmaster who elects to do so. I should, perhaps, add that the Post Office endeavours to meet the convenience of the public by recommending the Inland Revenue to issue licences, wherever a case is shown for the sale of postage stamps, to tradesmen who frequently keep their shops open late at night.

  Volunteer Artillery—Conversion of Field Guns.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with the conversion of the field gun which is to be placed in the hands of the Volunteers; how many guns have been completed; and under what head of the Estimates does the cost of the conversion appear.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The trials are not yet completed. Alterations of the trial gun were found to be necessary and are now in hand. Moreover, a good deal of organisation is essential before the guns could be used.

  Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
  MR. MOND: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies of what crimes the 419 Chinese coolies who were deported in October had been convicted; and what number have been repatriated for immorality since 1st August, 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) My hon. friend is not able to state the precise crimes of which these 419 coolies were convicted, but he will inquire. The number of cases repatriated since August last of those suspected of immorality is 107.

  The Press and Mr. Bucknill's Report.
  MR. RAWLINSON: To ask the Prime Minister whether any, and what inquiries have been made, and with what results, as to the source from, which certain newspapers obtained extracts from a confidential document dealing with crime among Chinese coolies in South Africa; and whether, if no such inquiries have been made, he will institute them forthwith.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) No, Sir; the Answer to both paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

  Education (England and Wales) Bill— Equivalent Grant to Scotland.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: To ask the

  1197
  Secretary for Scotland, whether the representation, which he has made to the Treasury in regard to an equivalent grant for Scotland specified any definite amount as due to Scotland, in view of the grant of £1,000,000 assigned to England and Wales in the Education Bill, or proposed any principle upon which such an amount should be calculated in the event of the amount required for England and Wales exceeding £1,000,000.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) Negotiations with the Treasury are still proceeding, and I am not prepared meanwhile to make any statement on the subject. Announcement of any result arrived at will be made in due course.

  The Crown and the Page Estates.
  MR. J. WARD: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the facts connected with an escheat in the case of what is known as the Page Estates, and what action he proposes to take to protect and assist the privileges of the Crown in relation thereto.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) The circumstances of this case, in which it is alleged that there has been an escheat of certain real estate to the Crown, were, in or about the year 1870, and have been repeatedly since that date, brought to the notice of the Treasury, with the result that that Department, acting under legal advice, has declined again and again, and still declines, to take any action.

  Delay in delivery of Letters addressed in Irish.
  MR. COGAN: To ask the Postmaster-General why it takes forty-eight hours to deliver a letter addressed in the Irish language and posted in one side of the city, about half a mile from the General Post Office, Dublin, to another portion of the city, within about a mile of the General Post Office; whether it takes this time for the officials to translate the address, or is it due to the want of knowledge by the sorting staff of their native language; and will he take the necessary steps to ensure prompt delivery of letters in future.
  1198
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Correspondence addressed in Irish is necessarily subject to delay, when, as is often the case, it is dealt with by officers who cannot decipher the address. While I regret any inconvenience so caused, I would observe that in almost every case of the kind the remedy is in the hands of the sender of the letter who voluntarily chooses such a mode of address. If, however, the hon. Member will give me particulars of the letter to which he refers I will have inquiry made as to its treatment in the post.

  Postal Bates to Canada of British Periodicals and Newspapers.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to a speech by Mr. Lemieux, the Canadian Postmaster-General, at Ottawa, on the 20th November, announcing that it would be his privilege before long to give British periodicals and newspapers from this country to Canada preference over similar United States publications by granting them a cheaper rate of postage; and whether he can make any statement on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I read with satisfaction the short summary of the speech of Mr. Lemieux in reference to the question of the position of British periodicals, magazines, and newspapers in Canada. It is a question to which, as the hon. Gentleman is, I think, aware, I have given a good deal of attention. Some months ago I made certain proposals to the Dominion Government with the object of placing British periodicals, magazines, and newspapers on a more satisfactory basis in Canada than they now enjoy as compared with those coming from the United States. Under the present system, and under the existing rates of postage, they are practically driven out of the market by their American rivals, to the detriment of the imperial and commercial connection. The proposals which I made, but which t am not at present at liberty to state publicly, have been met in a very friendly spirit by the Dominion Government and by Mr. Lemieux, who, I know, is as anxious as I am myself to bring about

  1199
  a satisfactory solution. I am afraid I cannot add more at the present moment.

  Cost of Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
  MAJOR SEELY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the maximum sum estimated to be required during the present year for the repatriation of Chinese coolies at their own request, and how much has been spent for this purpose up to the present time.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) No provision for this service was made on the Estimates for this year. A sum of £10,000 was paid over from Imperial funds on 27th September, and a further sum of £6,050 on 1st October. On Saturday application was made to the Treasury for a further payment of £5,000, making a total expenditure of £21,050. The probable future requirements for this service cannot at present be estimated.

  Retiring Allowance to Mr. C. McGonagall, Managing Clerk, Roorkie Workshops.
  MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. Charles McGonagall, managing clerk, Roorkie workshops, was prematurely and ir-regularly retired from the public service; that Mr. McGonagall was, up to 1877, in permanent employment in the accounts branch of the Public Works Department, and was transferred, in the interests of the Government, as managing clerk in Roorkie workshop on the understanding that the appointment was permanent and pensionable like the one he was leaving; that in 1897 Mr. McGonagall was dismissed and the office abolished; that, after a considerable delay, he secured a pension of Rs. 129; and whether, seeing that, if his service had been allowed to continue and he had been retired in the ordinary way, his pension would be Rs. 250, and as, by his unexpected dismissal, he was deprived of the salary for the seven years necessary to complete his service and qualify him for full pension he lost Rs. 20,500, the Government will grant Mr. McGonagall full pension and refund to him the
  1200
  difference between what he has received, Rs. 129, and Rs. 250, which he would be entitled to but for his enforced retirement.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) In 1898 the Secretary of State for India in Council, on the recommendation of the Government of India, sanctioned the grant to Mr. McGonagall, from the date of his retirement, of the pension of Rs. 250 a month which the hon. Member now asks the Government to grant to him.

  Indian Magistrates and Political Demonstrations.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that at Madaripore and at Serajgunge, in the newly-created province of Eastern Bengal, the deputy magistrates in charge of these subdivisions have been taking an active part in demonstrations in favour of maintaining the present scheme of partition; whether he is aware that popular irritation has been caused thereby; and seeing that it is against Government rules for a Government officer to take sides in a political controversy, and that the rule has been rigidly enforced in the case of anti-partition demonstrations, will he take steps to prevent a recurrence of such incidents.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have no information as to the facts of the cases mentioned, but I have no doubt the local government will take whatever steps may be necessary to enforce, in all cases, the rule to which the Question refers.

  Irish Land Purchase-Redemption of Existing Annuities.
  MR. POWER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners state that they are bound by a statutory provision to redeem an existing annuity in respect of purchased land acquired by them before they can make a further advance for any purpose in connection with the same; whether this entails loss

  1201
  while land stock has to be issued at a considerable discount; what amount is required to redeem an annuity of £32 10s. created under the Land Act of 1903; and whether, to facilitate the purchase of land for evicted tenants and for other purposes where no untenanted lands are available, the law will be amended on this point.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that it was decided by Mr. Justice Meredith that, having regard to the provisions of Section 9 (4) of the Purchase Act of 1891, an advance cannot be made under the Land Purchase Acts for the purchase of any holding which is already charged with an annuity in respect of an advance under the Acts. It is presumed that this is the provision to which the hon. Member refers. An advance raised by means of land stock cannot legally be made to redeem the existing annuity, and the loss referred to in the Question is not, therefore, incurred. A holding purchased under the former Purchase Acts may, however, be transferred subject to the existing annuity. An annuity of £32 10s. represents an advance under the Act of 1903 for £1,000. That annuity, if created in January, 1904, could now be redeemed for £985.

  Irish Educational Development Grant.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the development grant for purposes of education in Ireland has been largely sequestrated to other purposes quite distinct from education, and that as a result school building and improvement schemes have been greatly hindered; and whether he proposes to place upon the Estimates a sum of money sufficient to bring the standard of education in Ireland up to the level of England and Scotland.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) If my hon. friend will refer to the Ireland Development Grant Act, 1903, he will see that any portion of the grant not required for purposes connected with land purchase is to be applied (a) for the purpose of education, (b) for the promotion of the
  1202
  economic development and transit facilities of Ireland. The Irish Land Act of the same session imposed charges to a considerable amount upon the grant, including the liability of making good the loss upon the flotation of land stock at a discount, which has made very heavy drains on the fund. It is the case that up to the present considerable sums have been devoted to the purposes other than education provided by the Act,. but the Ireland Development Grant Estimate for the current year shows that some provision has also been made for educational purposes, including school building. The question of the Ireland Development Estimate for next year is now under consideration, as also the Estimate for national education.

  Police and Public at Drumkeerin, County Leitrim.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state by what authority the sergeant of police at Drumkeerin threatened to fire on a crowd of people who were proceeding; along the public road accompanied by two bands, on or about the 12th of August, in the neighbourhood of Drumkeerin, county Leitrim.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that no threat to fire upon the people was used by the police sergeant on the occasion referred to. The police had received instructions to prevent the intimidation of certain persons, and, in pursuance of these instructions, they prevented a crowd of 400 persons, accompanied by four bands, from approaching the house of one of these persons. Anything said by the sergeant on the occasion was, I am informed, in the nature of dissuasion, and it appears to have produced the desired effect, for no disturbance took place.

  Demands for Payment of Rent from Tenants on the De Freyne Estate.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the object of the Congested Districts Board in purchasing the

  1203
  De Freyne Estate was to secure an improvement in the position of the tenantry; and, if so, will he say why the tenants have been forced to pay two years rent within eleven months while the payment of a third years rent has been demanded within the following six months, making three years rent in eighteen months; whether he is aware that in enforcing the payment of some of these amounts the Board has laid a further burden upon the people of 20 per cent. for law costs; and whether, seeing that even under Lord De Freyne the tenants were never asked to pay two years rent in one year, he will ask the Board to adopt some other method in dealing with these victims of the Irish land system; and whether he will further ask the Board to furnish the tenants with the terms of sale without any more loss of time.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to his previous Question on the 19th instant,† in which the facts as to the payment of rent on the De Freyne estate are fully stated. It is true that the Congested Districts Board were (obliged to demand from certain of the tenants three years rent within eighteen months, but this was due to the fact that these tenants had failed to pay at the proper time. No tenant has been asked to pay more than one year's rent for each year since November, 1903, and in those three years none have paid more than a total of three years rent. Out of a total of 1,752 tenants, decrees for rent have been obtained by the Board in sixty-six cases. In a few of these sixty-six cases the costs would amount to 20 per cent. on the debt, but in many cases they would amount to only 2½ per cent. As I have already indicated, the Congested Districts Board propose to sell the estate to the tenants before another year's rent falls due in November next.

  Irish Architects and Irish Labourers Cottages.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Irish Local Government Board has advertised in
  † See Col. 410.
  1204
  English newspapers inviting designs from English architects for labourers cottages to be built in Ireland, which plans are intended to be stereotyped for use throughout Ireland; and whether, seeing that there are many architects in Ireland who are fully qualified and who have already built many labourers cottages under former Acts, he will take steps to secure that no outsiders will be imported to do work of this kind whilst there are qualified men to be had in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The advertisement to which the hon. Member refers invited from architects the submission of designs suitable for labourers cottages to be erected under the Labourers Acts. The advertisement did not specifically invite designs from English architects. It was inserted in thirteen Irish and three English newspapers, the latter being identified solely with the building trade and circulating in Ireland.

  Refusal of Gun Licence to Mr. Thomas Keighrey, of Loughrea.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Keighrey, of Closetoken, Loughrea, is a tenant purchaser of £40 worth of land yearly, a district councillor, a miller, and a large employer of labour; whether he is aware that Mr. Keighrey's farm is haunted by flocks of crows, magpies, and other vermin; and whether his application to carry a gun on his own holding for the protection of his crops was granted; and, if not, will he explain the reason.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to the similar Question put by the hon. Member for East Galway on Thursday last,‡ in which I stated that the Irish Government did not think that the matter was one which required the interference of the Irish Government.

  Purchase of Mr. Churcher's Estate, County Galway.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether agreements have
  ‡See Col. 978.

  1205
  been signed to purchase Mr. Churcher's estate, county Galway; whether a grass farm of about 200 acres upon this estate is held by a non-resident tenant named Henry; and, if so, in view of the fact that nine of the tenants adjoining live upon holdings with an average rental of £2, will the Commissioners refuse to sanction the sale unless grass land is distributed amongst tenants of uneconomic holdings upon the estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of the estate mentioned have been instituted before them, and they have no information in regard to the estate.

  Holding for Mr. James Broderick, of Loughrea.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the performance of the promise made to Mr. James Broderick, Donirg, Loughrea, is to be fulfilled, namely, that he would be provided with a holding in lieu of the one out of which he was evicted some years ago; whether the untenanted farm of Mr. White, situated in the neighbourhood, was partly bought for the purpose; and, if so, will he explain the cause of the delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the holding from which James Broderick claims to have been evicted is situate upon the estate of Mr. H. P. Blake, for the sale of which to the tenants proceedings have boon instituted before the Commissioners. The Commissioners are in negotiation with the owner for the purchase of the untenanted land on the estate, and until they have acquired this land they will not be in a position to make arrangements for its allotment.

  Teaching of Irish in National Schools.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if a new
  1206
  scheme for the teaching of Irish in the national schools has been prepared for the National Board; if so, what is the nature of the new scheme; has it yet been considered by the National Board; and, if so, what decision have the Board come to with regard to it.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am not aware that any new scheme for the teaching of Irish has yet been prepared by the National Board. None such has reached me. Whatever proposals the Board may make will doubtless come before me in connection with the Estimates for the coming financial year.

  Population of Ireland.
  MR. FELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the population of Ireland at the date of the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, at the date of the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, at the last Census, and the estimate of the population at the present time.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) According to the Census of 1871, the population of Ireland was 5,412,377. At the Census of 1881 it was 5,174,836. At the last Census, namely, 1901, it was 4,458,775; and the Registrar-General's estimate of the population in the middle of the present year is 4,387,887.

  Irish Local Taxation Account.
  MR. COGAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will use his good offices with the Treasury so as to secure that moneys now paid into the general Exchequer, which properly belong to the Irish Local Taxation Account, shall be placed to the credit of this fund; and if he will endeavour to have the Law amended so as to attain that object.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am not aware that there are any moneys to

  1207
  which the statement in the Question applies, but if the hon. Member will inform me what are the specific moneys to which he refers I will have the matter inquired into.

  Sale of the Hort Estate, Kilcock, County Kildare.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any negotiations are going on between the Estates Commissioners and the tenants of Hortlands, on the Hort estate, Kilcock, county Kildare; whether the tenants are twenty-three in number and have offered a price for their farms, that is to say, twenty-one years purchase of the rental, provided that certain untenanted land on the estate was divided amongst them at the price of twenty-four years purchase of the rental; has an inspector been sent by the Commissioners to inspect and report upon the property; was he during his visit driven over the estate in his own trap by the eleven months holder of the said untenanted land; has the said eleven months holder offered a large price for the untenanted land; will the tenants continue their offer of purchase if the untenanted land is withdrawn from the subject matter of the bargain; have the tenants represented that the report of the inspector is inaccurate in many important respects; and will another inspection be ordered and the tenants asked to state their opinions on disputed points.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have issued a request, under Section 7 of the Act of 1903, in respect of the estate of Sir Fenton Josiah Hort, including the townland of Hortlands, which is for sale in the Land Judge's Court. There are thirty-six tenants on the estate, of whom twenty-nine are on Hortlands. The tenants have made an offer to purchase on the terms stated in the Question. The property has been inspected and reported on, and the report will shortly be con-
  1208
  sidered by the Commissioners. The Com" missioners have no information as to who drove the inspector over the estate. There are three grazing tenants on the estate, and these have made offers to purchase, but the offers have not yet been considered. The Commissioners have not yet estimated the price of the estate. The report of their inspector is a confidential document, not accessible to the tenants, and no representations as to its contents have been or could be made by the tenants. Until the report has been considered and a price estimated, it cannot be ascertained whether the tenants will be willing to purchase on the terms offered, or how the untenanted land will be dealt with.

  Sale of the Marquess of Ely's Estate, County Fermanagh.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any progress has been made in the negotiations for the sale of the estate of the Marquess of Ely in the county of Fermanagh; have the Estates Commissioners made any offer for the estate; or has any originating statement for a direct sale been lodged.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of any negotiations for the sale of this estate which may be proceeding. The answer to the remaining inquiries is in the negative.

  Expenditure on Barracks.
  MR. YOUNGER: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the sums spent on barracks in each of the ten years ending in April, 1906, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, giving the amounts separately in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The figures asked for are shown in the annexed statement:—

  Sums spent on Barracks* in each of the ten years ending in April, 1906, in England, Scotland, and Ireland.

  Year.

  England.†

  Scotland.

  Ireland.

  Total.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1896–7

  498,630

  14,774

  156,538

  669,942

  1897–8

  431,141

  18,868

  178,168

  628,177

  1898–9

  484,223

  29,645

  176,676

  690,544

  1899–1900

  577,194

  24,091

  222,842

  824,127

  1900–1

  1,449,343

  34,360

  209,437

  1,693,140

  1901–2

  964,938

  24,379

  264,176

  1,253,493

  1902–3

  926,777

  24,629

  230,689

  1,182,095

  1903–4

  1,398,436

  23,161

  231,505

  1,653,101

  1904–5

  1,554,673

  26,959

  196,736

  1,778,368

  1905–6‡

  875,309

  21,258

  124,136

  1,020,703

  Total

  9,160,663

  242,124

  1,990,903

  11,393,690

  *The figures given include hospitals, hut barracks, and coat of maintenance; also, to some extent, purchases of land for training grounds or rifle ranges, with works thereon. They exclude rents, furniture, fuel and light, cost of staff, &c.

  †Including Wales and Channel Isles, also a number of general items affecting all home stations.

  ‡The 1905–6 figures are subject to final adjustments.

  Officers' Payments for Upkeep of Furniture at Wellington and Chelsea Barracks.
  MR. GUY BARING: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether every officer in the four battalions quartered at Wellington and Chelsea Barracks is charged 2d. per diem for use of Government furniture, although the mess at each barrack does not afford half the normal accommodation for a single battalion; and whether he can see his way to readjust these charges.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) These officers pay, not 2d. a day, but 1d. a day for the use of furniture. An application for the reduction of the charge to ½d. a day has been negatived on account of the increased charges for up-keep occasioned by the extra
  1210
  wear and tear to which the furniture is subjected.

  Pay of Colour-Sergeants sent back from Militia to Line.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a line colour-sergeant posted to service on a Militia staff, and found unsuitable for the duty thereon, actually gains an increase of the pay he would be drawing on the Militia staff by being sent back to his own battalion; and will he say if a line colour-sergeant by being posted to a Militia battalion, in addition to getting one shilling a day less pay, loses chances of promotion in his own battalion, although the duties of a colour-sergeant

  1211
  posted to the Militia are More troublesome than his duties in a line battalion in dealing with less disciplined soldiers and in connection with recruiting.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A colour-sergeant of the permanent staff, if found to be inefficient, is usually reverted to the line battalion as a sergeant. If reverted as a colour-sergeant, he would get an increase of pay of 6d. a day. He is eligible for promotion in his own battalion, and also in his Militia battalion. As I informed the hon. Member on the 21st instant,† the duties of a Militia colour-sergeant are not considered as onerous and responsible as those of a line colour-sergeant.

  Bechuanaland Expedition 1884–5—Suggested Issue of a Medal.
  DR. RUTHERPOED): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to issue a medal for the Bechuanaland Expedition of 1884–5.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover explained to the House on 9th July, 1900‡, that there were really no active operations in this expedition that would justify the grant of a medal. I will, however, give the matter my personal consideration, though I cannot say at present whether I am likely to find grounds for differing from the conclusion already come to.

  The Colonies and the Merchant Shipping Bill.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: To ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider the advisability of submitting the provisions for the safety of human life, contained in the Merchant Shipping (No. 2) Bill, to the Colonial Conference to be held next year, with a view of applying its provisions for the safety of human life to all ships, both British, Foreign, and Colonial, sailing from ports in the Colonies.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) As soon as the Merchant Shipping Bill is passed,
  † See Col. 812–3.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, lxxxv., 953.
  1212
  the Secretary of State will communicate with the Governments of responsible governing colonies on the question of applying some of its provisions in those Colonies.

  Imports of British Cigarettes into Manchuria.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that discrimination is being made against British-made cigarettes at Antung, in Manchuria, upon which a Customs duty of 3½ per cent. is levied in addition to a tribute of 1¾ per cent., whilst no duty or tribute is levied upon the cigarettes manufactured by the Japanese Government Tobacco Monopoly, which are being freely sold by the monopoly agents; and whether he will take immediate steps with a view to placing the goods of both nationals on the same footing.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) We have received no official information that such discrimination is going on. I shall be obliged if the hon. Gentleman will supply me with all the information at his disposal, so that inquiry can be made into the matter.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Customs and Likin duties are imposed upon British-made cigarettes in Manchuria, whilst no Customs or Likin duties are imposed upon the cigarettes manufactured by the Japanese Government Tobacco Monopoly; and whether he will take steps with a view to establishing the same duties upon the goods of both nationals.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) We are not aware that discrimination as regards Customs duty or Likin is being made between British and Japanese cigarettes; but, as the evacuation of Manchuria is not yet complete, Likin would presumably not be paid upon tobacco imported for the use of the Japanese soldiers.

  Rebuilding of Westminster County Court.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: To ask the Secretary to

  1213
  the Treasury whether alterations are being made in the plans of the Westminister county court in accordance with the suggestions made by the judge and registrar of the court; and, if not, on whose responsibility have these suggestions been ignored.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Certain alterations were made on the representations of the court officials; but other suggestions were not adopted, as the First Commissioner of Works on the advice of his expert officers considered the extra expenditure involved to be excessive and unnecessary.

  Cleaning of Rag Flock for Bedding.
  MR. A. L. STANLEY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the intention of his Department, either by legislation or otherwise, to prohibit the use of rag flock in the making of bedding without first subjecting it to some cleansing and disinfecting process.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The compulsory cleansing of rag. flock could not be generally secured under the existing law. I am not at present in a position to promise legislation on the subject, but the point has been noted for consideration when a suitable opportunity offers.

  Brentford District Council Hospital.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that recently a child suffering from scarlet fever was put into a ward used for measles at the hospital belonging to the Brentford District Council, that the child took measles and died, that the sister of the same child, also affected with scarlet fever, was discharged from the hospital before peeling was complete, to the risk of the public, and that the nursing staff for thirty-six cases of infectious disease consisted of an aged woman and her daughter; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My attention has been called to this matter, and I have been in communication with
  1214
  the district council with regard to it: I understand that the father of the children made complaint to the council, and that they at once referred the subject of the reorganisation of the hospital to a committee, who discharged the nurse and her daughter and made a temporary appointment of a nurse as superintendent, and directed the medical officer to find two assistant nurses. They also advertised for properly certificated nurses to act as matron and assistant. Subsequently the nursing staff was fixed at one nursing matron and two certificated nurses. When the hospital was first erected it was contemplated that only scarlet fever cases would be treated there; but recently all forms of infectious disease seem to have been admitted, and it has become evident that the hospital must be enlarged. This, I understand, is now being done. I fear that the management of the hospital in the past has not been satisfactory, but, looking to the action taken by the district council since complaint was made to them, I have not thought it necessary to interfere further in the matter.

  Deaths from Cancer—Geographical Distribution.
  MR. STRAUS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can arrange that in future the Registrar General will, when he issues his Report upon deaths from cancer, show the geographical distribution of such deaths clearly stating the districts of each town or centre where these deaths occur.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Registrar General's Reports already give statistics as to the deaths from cancer in respect of each registration district, but he informs me that he has no materials at his command which would enable him to supply statistics of this kind in respect of the areas referred to in the Question.

  Education Bill and Schools for the Deaf.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether any of the provisions of the Education Bill would, it it becomes law, alter or affect the position of schools and other institutions for the deaf, public

  1215
  or private, with regard to local authorities, as to payment or otherwise.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) So far as I am aware, the Answer is in the negative.

  Value of Bees and Hives supplied to Parish of Dornoch.
  MR. MORTON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will state the value of the bees and hives supplied to the parish of Dornoch since that parish has been made a congested area.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Congested Districts Board have supplied to the parish of Dornoch fifty-two hives and swarms of bees. As the prices vary from year to year it is not easy to say, without getting the accounts from the Audit Office, what exactly the cost has been, but a fair average is £2 per outfit, which works out at slightly over £100.

  Sittings of the Railway and Canal Commission.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will say how many sittings were held by the Railway and Canal Commission in each year respectively from 1895 to the present time.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The number of days upon which the Railway and Canal Commissioners have held sittings are as follows:—

  days

  1895

  41

  1896

  38

  1897

  47

  1898

  25

  1899

  44

  1900

  40

  1901

  41

  1902

  16

  1903

  31

  1904

  14

  1905

  21

  Note.—This Return does not include the days the Commissioners sat out of court for purposes connected with the administrative duties of the Commission.

  Promotion on the Unemployed Supernumerary List of the Indian Army.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Secretary of State for India
  1216
  whether his attention has been called to the fact that under Section 56, c. 106, of 21 and 22 Viet., officers of the East India Company's military forces were guaranteed pay,. pensions, allowances, and privileges, and the like advantages as regards promotion, and otherwise, as if they had continued in the service of the said company; whether officers of the unemployed supernumerary list continue to receive promotion as if they had continued in the company's service; and, if not, from what date such promotion ceased to take effect and on what grounds.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) Promotion in and to the rank of general officer on the unemployed supernumerary list of the Indian Army was gradually discontinued after 1893, as being inconsistent with the system of promotion by selection which was then introduced. Before the transfer of India to the Crown, promotions to the rank of general officer had always been made by the Sovereign and not by the East India Company. The regulations under which such promotion was made followed generally those in force in the British service; and the section of the Act quoted in the Question did not affect the power of the Sovereign to modify these regulations in the interests of the service.

  India and the Merchant Shipping Act.
  MR. HARMOOD - BANNER: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (No. 2) Bill with a view of applying its provisions for the safety of human life to all ships, both British, foreign, and colonial, sailing from ports in India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I propose as soon as the Bill becomes law to consult the Government of India as to the Amendments which it may be desirable to make in the Indian law and regulations.

  The Government of India and the Aden Hinterland.
  MR. CHARLES WILSONTo ask the Secretary of State for India why the Indian Government are giving up the Aden Hinterland and the Hills of

  1217
  Dahla; and whether, seeing that these hills are a good sanatorium for British troops, being situated about 7,000 feet high on the edge of a rich country, they will reconsider their decision.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The permanent location of troops at Dahla, whether at a sanatorium or otherwise, has never been sanctioned either by the late or the present Government. It is, therefore, incorrect to speak of giving up the Aden Hinterland. The withdrawal of troops from Dahla, now that the delimitation proceedings are completed, is in accordance with the statement of policy made in the House of Lords on the 30th March, 1903,† as to the demarcation, viz., that His Majesty's Government had never desired to interfere with the internal and domestic affairs of the tribes on the British side of the boundary, but had throughout made it plain that they would not assent to the interference of any other Power with those affairs.

  Irish Land Purchase—Average Rate of Purchase.
  MR. LIDDELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Land Commission receive and record notices of the sales by tenant purchasers of the holdings bought by them under the various Purchase of Land (Ireland) Acts; and what is the average rate of purchase which the Land Commission records show as being paid by new purchasers for holdings so acquired to the purchasing tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The ownership of all lands sold by means of an advance under the Land Purchase Acts is registered under The Local Registration of Title Act, 1891, and all subsequent transfers of such land, upon sale or otherwise, are also registered. The Land Commission inform me that it is only upon receipt of the amended land certificates issued by the Local Registration of Title Office that the changes of ownership on such transfers are recorded in the books of the Land Commission. As, however, these land certificates do not usually disclose the consideration money which
  † See (4) Debates cxx., 545–6.
  1218
  may be paid by new purchasers, the collection books do not afford the information asked for in the concluding part of the Question.

  Rent on Estate of Crookenden and Casey, County Cavan.
  MR. LIDDELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings taken by the syndicate who purchased Lord Morley's Cavan estate against a tenant on the estate, named John Nixon, to recover rent at the rate of £46 a year, though so far back as 1882 Mr. Nixon's rent was reduced to £34 10s. by Lord Morley, and rent paid at that rate for over twenty years; and whether there is an application for sale of the estate before the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, will the Commissioners be informed that what ever rent Mr. Nixon may be technically held liable to pay in the present proceedings, the rent really paid and accepted for over twenty years was at the rate of £34 10s.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of the proceedings referred to in the first part of' the Question. The estate of Crookenden and Casey (late Lord Morley's) is at present before the Commissioners, who are considering the question of purchasing it under Section 6. An inspection of the estate has been directed, and the matter alleged in the Question will be inquired into by the inspector in due course.

  Purchase of Colonel Malone's Baronstown Estate.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Colonel Malone's Baronstown estate comprises twenty-one uneconomic holdings ranging from 15s. to £5 in valuation, nine holdings of higher valuation but uneconomic owing to poverty of soil, and three grass farms of over 150 acres each not within the Land Acts; that all the tenants, except the users of the grass farms, have petitioned the Estates Commissioners to acquire these farms for the relief of the congestion; that the law, as interpretated in the Blake-Foster case,

  1219
  empowers the Commissioners to do this as a condition of declaring the property an estate; that the inspector, who gives them contrary advice, inspected before the present instructions came into force, and has been a landlord's valuer and agent; and if, in view of these facts and of the needs of the people, he will ask the Commissioners to reconsider the proposed sale of this estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have already, on several occasions, informed the hon. Member, on the authority of the Estates Commissioners, that the estate in question does not comprise any untenanted land; that the grass farms on the estate are held under leases or by yearly tenants; and that the Commissioners have no power to compel farms so held to be sold to them as untenanted land. In view of these facts, it does not appear that any useful purpose would be served by entering into the details referred to in the Question.

  Ireland and the Licensing Question.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the expression of opinion of the Prime Minister, when receiving a deputation of the United Kingdom Alliance, that Ireland has peculiar claims by reason of its comparative poverty to a reform of the drink traffic; whether, in view of this recognition by the Prime Minister of Ireland's peculiar need, the Irish Government will at any early date introduce legislation to meet that peculiar need; is he aware that, owing to the decision in Clitheroe's case, justices in Ireland have no power to refuse renewals of licences or transfers on the ground that the licences are not required; is he aware that Clitheroe's case has been doubted and disapproved by high legal authorities, but cannot be overruled by any Irish Court; and will he consider the advisability of reversing it by statute.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am not aware that the Prime Minister has given expression to the opinion attributed to him. The effect of the decision in Clitheroe's case is, I understand, correctly stated in the Question. I am not pre-
  1220
  pared to express any opinion as to the soundness of that decision, nor can I at present make any statement as to the possible introduction of legislation dealing with the law as laid down in that case, or of temperance legislation generally.

  Grants to Tenants on Congested Estate at Collumbkille.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any relief can be extended to the tenants of congested estates in the parish of Collumbkille, county Longford, which have recently been sold under The Land Purchase. Act, 1903, with a view to the proper drainage, reclamation, and extension of their farms.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are unable to identify the congested estates referred to in the Question unless fuller particulars are given. If the names of the owners of the estates are furnished to them they will ascertain whether the estates have been sold under the Act of 1903, and will then be in a position to give information on the subject of the Question.

  Sittings of the Irish Congested Districts Commission.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to hold further sittings of the Congested Districts Commission in Ireland at convenient centres; whether he is aware that the rural districts of Granard No. 1 and Longford desire to have evidence given on their behalf in support of the case for scheduling the barony of Longford and parts of the barony of Granard as a congested district; and, if so, will he take care that the witnesses from these districts are called, and that sittings of the Commission will be held at Granard and Longford respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that it is the intention of the Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland to hold sittings at one or more centres in each county in which there are scheduled congested districts, and sittings will also probably be held in

  1221
  other counties afterwards, but no definite decision upon this point will be come to at present. All representations made in writing to the Secretary of the Commission in regard to the needs of different districts will be considered by the Commissioners before any decision is arrived at.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Thomas Walsh.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if an inspector has made inquiries into the case of Thomas Walsh, an evicted tenant on the Ormaithwait property, North Kerry; and whether he can state how soon Walsh will be reinstated.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that their inspector has made inquiries into the case in question. The Commissioners have communicated to the owner the price which they are prepared to advance for the purchase of the holding by Walsh, but have not yet received a definite reply to their offer.

  Sale of Estate of Lindsey Talbot Crosbie, of Arafert.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the agreement entered into by the tenants on the estate of Lindsey Talbot Crosbie, of Arafert, county Kerry, was filed; and whether he can state when the holdings will be vested in the tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the purchase agreements in respect of this estate were lodged with them in July, 1904. Twenty-eight of the holdings have since been vested in the purchasers, and the vesting of the remainder has been stayed pending the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on a question as to the legality of adding arrears of rent to the purchase money of holdings.

  Irish Poor Law Commission.—Publication of Evidence.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the evidence
  1222
  taken by the Viceregal Commission on the Irish Poor Laws will be presented.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Commissioners that the Minutes of Evidence and the Appendix to their Report are in the printer's hands, and will be ready for presentation in the course of the present week.

  Irish Railways and the Irish Railway Commission.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief, Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Iceland, whether he is aware that the Irish Railway Commission have acceded to the request made to them on behalf of the associated railway companies to be represented by counsel before the Commission; and, in view of this fact, will he see that the Department takes steps to have counsel appear before the Commission in the interests of the farmers, traders, and manufacturers of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I understand that the Viceregal Commission on Irish Railways has acceded with certain restrictions to an application made on behalf of the railway companies to be represented by counsel, and to a similar application from the general council of the county councils. The Department of Agriculture are authorised by Section 17 of the Act establishing the department to appear on behalf of aggrieved persons before the Railway and Canal Commissioners, but have no similar authority as regards appearance before other bodies. The answer to the latter part of the Question is therefore in the negative. In my opinion, complaints of the farmers, traders, and manufacturers of Ireland, and the whole case to be made on their behalf, can be adequately brought before the Commission without the employment of counsel.

  Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the Irish Constabulary Force Fund will be wound up and the assets, outside any Government contribution, distributed amongst those whose subscriptions produced them; and has he considered the statement

  1223
  prepared by the constabulary pensioners of Fermanagh, and adopted at their meeting on 30th October, 1906, and the reasons therein set out for the prompt winding-up of this fund.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer to my replies to the Questions of the hon. Member for South Sligo on the 19th instant and to the hon. Member for East Wicklow on the 22nd instant,† in which the present position in respect of the winding-up of the Constabulary Force Fund is fully stated. If the hon. Member will refer to Parliamentary Paper No. 118 of 1891 he will see that the subscribers have no interest in or claim upon the capital of the fund, seeing that when existing liabilities have been discharged any balance that may remain will be surrendered to the Exchequer. It was upon that condition that a grant from the Exchequer of £150,000 was made in 1891. There are still over 7,000 subscribers to the fund, and until these have disappeared it does not appear to be possible to say what the assets of the fund will eventually be. I have received the statement prepared by the constabulary pensioners of Fermanagh.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Manning of the Navy.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the proportion of petty officers to men borne on the books of the Portsmouth naval barracks, H.M.S. "Excellent," and H.M.S. Vernor," respectively?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): The proportion of naval petty officers to men at present borne on the books of the Royal Naval Barracks is 1 to 2·56, H.M.S. "Excellent" 1 to 1·36, and H.M.S. "Vernon" 1 to 1·82.

    Chocolate at Deptford.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the amount of chocolate manufactured at Deptford
    † See Column 370, 987.
    1224
    during the past five years; what is the amount purchased from private contractors during the same period; and whether he will consider the advisability of the appointment of a practical man to this department?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The amount of chocolate manufactured at Deptford during the past five years is 5,236,125 lbs. The amount purchased from private contractors during the same period is 1,167,200 lbs. Practical men are employed on this work, as is shown by the quality of the chocolate made and the cheap cost of its production.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: Can a resident engineer be accepted as a practical confectioner?
    MR. KEIR-HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): Is the proportion of chocolate obtained as between the private manufacturer and the Government factory maintained?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I imagine so.
    MR. J. WARD: If the chocolate made at Deptford is so good why not obliterate the private manufacturer altogether?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: We consider it advisable to keep on the private contractors so as to have some one familiar with the wants of the Admiralty to fall back on in times of emergency.
    MR. GIBBS: Is any of the chocolate manufactured in Bristol?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked for notice of the Question.

    Naval Reserved Pay.
    MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the 2d. per day extra pay allowed to men who, having joined the Navy for twelve years, rejoined for a further period of ten years, is withheld from those of them who are drafted into coastguard stations; what saving is made by depriving coastguards of this extra 2d. per day; and whether he will consider the claims of the coastguardsmen to receive it.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Reengaged pay of 2d. a day is not granted to men of the coastguard, but is confined to continuous service men of the seamen class in the Navy. This additional pay was granted as an inducement to men of the seamen class to re-engage in order to secure a sufficient number of men well qualified as petty officers for service in sea-going ships. It is not considered necessary to extend this additional pay to the coastguard, whose duties are not so arduous as those performed by seamen serving afloat, especially by petty officers. The cost of granting the extra 2d. a day to the coastguard service cannot be accurately stated, but on a very rough estimate it may be assumed to be about £7,500 a year. The Admiralty do not propose to make any alterations in the existing regulations.

    Docking War Vessels.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty at what intervals are the ships of the Royal Navy docked to prevent serious loss of speed through the growth of weeds; whether he can state when the rule came into force; and what was the former practice
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I must refer my hon. friend to the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, where he will find the regulations in regard to docking in Articles 1068 and 1099. They are generally similar to those which have been in operation for many years.

    Navy List.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has completed his investigations into the discrepancy by which fifteen cruisers, omitted from the list of ships of the Navy on page 270d of the Navy List for many months past, are yet included in the Return of Fleets (Great Britain and Foreign Countries); and whether all these ships were set aside two years ago as not worth the cost of repairs and maintenance.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The armament of the fifteen cruisers to which my hon. friend refers has not been surrendered, and the vessels would be
    1226
    available for service if required. As vessels of equal or less value appear in the lists of foreign navies, it was considered that for purposes of comparison these cruisers might properly be included in the Return referred to. As, however, these ships are not in commission and no appointments are being made to them, it is convenient to show them under a separate heading in the Navy List. With regard to the last part of the Question, I can only refer my hon. friend to the statement made in this House by the then Secretary to the Admiralty on the 6th March, 1905.†
    MR. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while cruisers are omitted battleships are included in the List?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Dockyard Wages.
    MR. JENKINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state the amount allocated to the various grades and trades in His Majesty's dockyards arising out of the promised advance of £60,000 per annum; and whether such advance will take effect as and from 1st October last.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The new schedule of wages will be sent to the Dockyards without delay, and copies will be handed to hon. Members interested.
    MR. JENKINS: Can we place as much reliance upon this reply as was to be placed on that given on 29th October last,‡ when we were told that we should receive such information within ten days of that date?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am sorry for the delay, but the hon. Member may take it from me that the schedule of wages will be sent.
    MR. JENKINS: Will the advance take effect as from October 1st?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes.
    † See (4) Debates, cxlii., 437 et seq.
    ‡ See (4) Debates, clxiii., 084.
    MR. J. WARD: Does this schedule refer to the skilled trades, or are unskilled workmen also included in it?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Certainly.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will this apply to the Irish dockyard?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I think Haulbowline is included, but I am not positive at this moment.

    The Hong Kong Typhoon.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the nature and extent of the injury caused to Government property at Hong Kong by the typhoon; and what sums are to be expended in rebuilding and repairs.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Damage was done to the Kowloon Coaling Jetty, the extension works, the torpedo range, buildings generally, and the matsheds on the Kowloon Coaling Ground, which were entirely destroyed. The total cost of making good the damage is estimated at £11,445, of which approximately £6,115 will fall upon Navy funds and the balance upon contractors, who are responsible for works still uncompleted.

    His Majesty's Ship "Phœnix."
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can hold out any hope of salving H.M.S. "Phœnix."
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I regret to state that there is no hope of salving the "Phœnix," which will be sold by public auction.

    Piershill Barracks, Edinburgh
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can furnish any information as to how long it will take to put Piershill Barracks in a satisfactory condition; and how soon the work will be begun.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): I presume the hon. and gallant Member means the remodelling of the barracks
    1228
    as well as its sanitary condition. I can only refer him to the replies I made to the questions put by the hon. Members for North-West Lanark and East Edinburgh on the 21st instant.†
    MR. MCCRAE: Is it not the fact that ground is available on the east side of the barracks for any extension that may be necessary?
    MR. HALDANE: I will inquire about that, but the character of the whole neighbourhood has changed. It is a question of health.
    MR. MCCRAE: That is being attended to.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER GRAY: Is the site to be abandoned?
    MR. HALDANE: It is impossible to make the Piershill site suitable for cavalry barracks, but we may perhaps put those barracks in another place.
    LORD BALCARRES: Can the site be made suitable for artillery barracks?
    MR. HALDANE: Certainly.

    Ipswich Barracks Building Contract.
    MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information as to the date the labourers' wages arbitration award for the Ipswich district ceased to be in force; whether the labourers' trade union, which were parties to the award, were consulted as to its abrogation; whether the wage of 5d. per hour is still the recognised current trade union rate, and paid by all the best firms in the town; and what action, if any, he proposes to take to compel contractors for his Department to comply with trade union rates of wages for all workmen.
    The following Questions were also on the Paper:—
    MR. ASHLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to maintain the trade union rate of wages in all War Office contracts, in view of the fact that the contractors for alterations at the Royal Artillery Barracks, Ipswich, are paying
    † See col. 817–8.

    1229
    labourers 3½d. and 4d. per hour, the trade union rate being ½d.
    MR. ASHLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the fair wages clause was inserted in the contract for alterations at the Royal Artillery Barracks, Ipswich.
    MR. J. WARD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the contractors for the alterations at the Royal Artillery Barracks, Ipswich, are paying the trade union rate of 5d. per hour to all labourers on their private work in the district, except that being executed under the War Department; that the local superintendent of works has expressed the opinion that War Office contractors ought not to be compelled to pay trade union rates of wages; and what action, if any, he proposes to take to enforce his pledges upon this subject.
    MR. HALDANE: I will answer this and the three following Questions together. A special inquiry has been made into this case, and it has been ascertained that although labourers at Ipswich were formerly in receipt of a definite rate of 5d. an hour under an award in 1899 made for three years, this state of things no longer exists, and the award appears to be no longer operative. The building trade is depressed and the supply of labour exceeds the demand, and labourers are at present receiving varying rates of pay according to their efficiency. It is impossible for this office to settle anything but what is in point of fact the current rate; when the masters and men have established it the War Office will see that its contractors pay it. The Department has had the utmost difficulty in ascertaining the exact facts in this case, and we are not certain that we have got at them yet, notwithstanding that much trouble has been taken, but to the best of my belief it is not possible to say that the War Department contractors have infringed the Fair Wages Clause of their contracts.
    MR. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that the War Office consider that 3id. per hour is a fair wage?
    MR. HALDANE: The award as a matter of fact has ceased to exist and there is no definite wage now ruling.
    MR. J. WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to the methods employed in arriving at this information? Is it correct that inquiry was only made of those contractors who are well known to have always sweated their workmen and to have paid low wages even when the award was in force? Was any fair employer of labour in the town asked what was the proper rate, or Was any trade society consulted in any shape or form?
    MR. HALDANE: What I did was to send down an official, who spent some time in the investigation. He found it extremely difficult to get the facts. The award was made in 1899 for three years, and after that, as trade was good, employers went on paying the same rates, although there ceased to be any definite standards, some men being paid 4½d. and some 5d. Our position is that we call on our contractors to pay a fair rate, and I cannot see that under the circumstances they are not doing so.
    MR. J. WARD: Is it not the fact that the award could not be altered without six months notice being given on either side? Was any notice given that the award was going to be abrogated?
    MR. HALDANEwas understood to reply that no such notice was given, but that after the three years elapsed as trade was good the parties went on working without any fresh arrangement, and when trade got bad the supply of labour exceeded the demand and the rates fell.
    MR. J. WARD: I shall raise the Question again.

    Field Guns for Volunteers.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with the conversion of the field gun which is to be placed in the hands of the Volunteers; how many guns have been completed; and under what head of the Estimates does the cost of conversion appear.
    MR. HALDANE: The trials are not yet completed. Alterations of the trial gun were found to be necessary and are

    1231
    now in hand. Moreover a good deal of organisation is essential before the guns could be used.

    Gravesend Garrison.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the reasons for discontinuing Gravesend as a station for regular troops, dismantling the forts, withdrawing the Royal Engineers, and utilising it only as a depot for musketry exercise.
    MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member has been misinformed. Gravesend will not be discontinued as a station for regular troops. The barracks there have only been occupied by an infantry Battalion since the South African War. As there is not now the same pressure on barrack accommodation, the barracks have reverted to the use for which they were designed, viz., to house musketry detachments. The reduction of the Royal Engineers is due to the abolition of submarine mines.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: What will the barracks be used for?
    MR. HALDANE: They will be used by musketry detachments.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Then am I to assume that regular troops will no longer be stationed there, as they have been since the war?
    MR. HALDANE: The musketry detachments will be regular troops, but they will not be there permanently.

    The Militia.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will give the number of resignations of officers and the wastage from all sources of men of the Militia during the current year to date; also the number of officers and recruits that have joined the same force during this period.
    MR. HALDANE: During the period referred to (1st January to 31st October, 1906) 263 officers resigned and the wastage of men from all sources was 30,932. 303 officers were appointed and 24,045 recruits joined.

    Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Chinese coolies employed in the mines in South Africa requested to be repatriated on the ground of dissatisfaction with the conditions of their employment; how many complained of their condition of employment as being servile or tantamount to slavery; and in how many cases were applicants for repatriation under the above headings actually sent back to their homes at the expense of the Government.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury), for Mr. CHURCHILL: Irrespective of those who applied under the Repatriation Proclamation, about 1,000 coolies have paid for the cost of their own return passages, being dissatisfied with the conditions or for other reasons. The precise number of the applications under the Proclamation is not known, nor is it known how many have complained of their condition as being servile, but 552 applicants have been sent back and over 100 will have been approved for state-aided repatriation.
    SIR. H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total number of Chinese coolies repatriated from South Africa up to the end of October, showing separately how many wore repatriated at their own expense, and how many under the terms of the repatriation proclamation issued by the Government.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The total number of Chinese sent back to China is about 6,500, of whom about 1,000 purchased their discharges, and 552 have so far been repatriated by Government, and others have since applied.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if 1,194 Chinese coolies were repatriated in October for reasons other than gross immorality and crime; and, if so, whether he can state on what grounds they were repatriated.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Of the 1,184 coolies repatriated in October for reasons other than immorality and crime, 437

    1233
    purchased their discharge, 462 were permanently or partially disabled by sickness or otherwise, and 285 were repatriated under the Government scheme of State-aided repatriation.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Why did they purchase their discharge?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I presume they were not satisfied with the conditions under which they were labouring.

    Crime by Chinese Coolies
    MB. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether both on the 14th and 22nd of this month farmhouses in the Transvaal were attacked by gangs of Chinese deserters from the mines, some of whom were armed with guns; whether the farmers were compelled to defend themselves by firing at and wounding the Chinese; and whether he can say how many coolies have deserted from the mines during July, August, September, and October respectively, and how many have been convicted of any offences during the same months.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I have seen newspaper telegrams as to the attacks upon the two farms referred to, but there is no official information of the occurrences. The numbers convicted of desertion, refusal to work and unlawful absence from work were in July, 664; in August, 786; September, 613; those convicted of the specific offence of desertion were in July, 55; in August, 34; September, 49. The figures for October have not yet been received. The total number of convictions for all offences were in July, 1,173; in August, 1,285; September, 1,261.

    Straits Settlements Currency.
    ME. EVELYN CECIL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Hythe, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the silver dollar, the unlimited legal tender currency of the Straits, has been recently debased by the Straits Government, so that it is now eight-tenths instead of nine-tenths fine silver; whether there is any precedent within the British Empire for such a tampering with the currency; and whether the Government will protect the holders of its dollar notes issued on the old system from payment
    1234
    and redemption in the degraded currency issued by them.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: As I have previously stated, an Order in Council has been passed by His Majesty providing for the reduction in fineness of the Straits Settlements dollar from ·900 to ·800. This measure was taken to preserve the fixed rate of exchange with gold, in accordance with the general wishes of the local community. The Governor has since recommended, as a result of the representations of the Singapore Chamber of Commerce and the unanimous vote of the Legislative Council, that further steps should be taken to secure the fixed rate in the direction of reducing the weight of the dollar, and the matter is now under consideration. If the weight is reduced it will be possible to retain the fineness of ·900. As regards Government notes, they have all been issued either against dollars of a lower value than 2s. 4d. or, since the rate was fixed, against gold or dollars worth 2s. 4d. They will be paid either in gold or with dollars worth 2s. 4d., i.e., with dollars worth in any case as much as those against which they were issued, and for the most part worth far more.

    Colonial Governorships.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether Governors of Colonies and Dependencies are appointed for a fixed term of years, or whether no such term is stated, but that such officers vacate when their successors are, after a more or less customary interval, appointed.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The Colonial regulation is worded as follows:—"Governors are appointed under the Sign Manual and Signet. Every such person is appointed during his Majesty's pleasure, but his tenure of office is, as a rule, confined to a period of six years from the assumption of his duties."
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Although the limit is six years the general tenure is only five.

    Canadian Tariffs.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to

    1235
    state that in the new Canadian tariff the preference hitherto granted by the Dominion to British goods will be retained.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I have received no official intimation of the intentions of Canadian Ministers, but I understand that a revision of the Canadian tariff will shortly be submitted to the Dominion Parliament, and that it is proposed to retain the principle of preference to British goods.

    Gambling in the Malay States.
    MR. A. ALLEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a petition presented to Sir John Anderson, High Commissioner of the Federated Malay States, and signed by nearly all the loading Chinese merchants, tin miners, and shopkeepers there resident, urging that legislative enactments providing for gambling farms in those States have been the direct cause of the degradation of tens of thousands of their countrymen, and praying that some change may be made in the financial arrangements of the States in order that the Government may cease to derive revenue from gambling farms, more especially as the revenues of the Government have for years greatly exceeded the expenditure and are continuing to show very large surplus incomes.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I can only refer the hon. Member to the Answer given in this House on November 12th to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.†

    Ceylon Councils.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office proposes to take any steps towards strengthening the Executive and Legislative Councils of the Governor of Ceylon.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.

    The Bahr-el-Ghazal.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Congolese troops have evacuated the Soudanese Bahr-el-Ghazal,
    † See (4) Debates, clxiv., 1053.
    1236
    in accordance with the terms of the Anglo-Belgian Convention; and, if not, whether any arrangement has been made as to the date on which such evacuation shall take place; and what has been the reason of the delay.
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Sir EDWARD GREY): Now that the season is becoming suitable for such an operation, we trust that no further delay will occur.

    The German Gipsies.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the collision which was narrowly averted last week between the constabulary forces of Leicestershire, Warwickshire, and Northamptonshire, in respectively endeavouring to defend their several counties from the invasion of the band of foreign gipsies recently admitted to this country; and if, having regard to the expense thus imposed upon the ratepayers, and the exposure of their property to depredation owing to the detachment of so many rural police for the circumvention of these alien immigrants, he will send down an officer of the Criminal Investigation Department, speaking Romany, to assist the gipsy chief with money and counsel to realise his alleged project of leading his forces to Hull and thence embarking them for home; or, failing this, to take steps against members of the band, in conjunction with the police, for one or other of the following offences: for having no visible means of subsistence (Aliens Act); for wandering abroad and lodging in any cart or wagon (Vagrant Act); for placing themselves in a public place to beg alms (5 Geo. 4, c. 83); for causing boys under fourteen or girls under sixteen to beg (57 and 58 Vic. c. 41); for pitching upon the highway (5 and 6 Will. 4, c. 50); for unlawfully taking and carrying property with intent permanently to deprive the rightful owners thereof (24 and 25 Vic. c. 96); or for overloading and working their horses in an unfit state (12 and 13 Vic. c. 92).
    The following Question was also on the Paper:—
    MR. FELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has arranged for the

    1237
    deportation of the large band of gipsies who have caused so much expense and trouble in the country; if so, who is going to pay the expenses of such deportation; and whether he has given or will give instructions under the Aliens Act to prohibit the landing of foreign gipsies in the future at any of our seaports.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): The accounts of the police incident referred to were, as I have already said, exaggerated. I have no power to deport the gipsies wholesale, nor have I any power under the Aliens Act to prohibit the landing of gipsies at the seaports; but I am endeavouring to see whether those now in the country cannot be induced to leave it. For the present I must ask to be allowed to limit my statement to this.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that hon. Members who are so anxious to get rid of these gipsies are equally anxious to keep the Chinese coolie in South Africa?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the German gipsies during their transit across Montgomeryshire put the district and county authorities to expense and inconvenience for police escorts, and in other respects; and whether he will take such steps as are possible to prevent further invasions of this description in future.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. I am aware that Montgomeryshire was in August and September last visited by gipsies in the same way as other counties. As regards the last paragraph I can only refer to the Answers I have already given to similar Questions.
    MR. REES: Is my right hon. friend aware that these impoverished aliens to the inconvenience of the lawful inhabitants drank all the hock in Welshpool?

    Alderney Abattoirs.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state on what grounds permission is
    1238
    refused to erect a station at Alderney for the slaughter of animals; and what sum would accrue to the Treasury and to the States of Alderney by the establishment; of such a business.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed that the project involves the importation into Alderney of large numbers of Argentine cattle. The importation of these cattle into Great Britain is at present, owing to the prevalence in the Argentine Republic of foot and mouth disease, prohibited by an order of the Board of Agriculture, so as to give British stockowners security against the introduction of the disease; and the States of Guernsey have also recently passed an Ordinance prohibiting the landing in Guernsey and its dependencies of cattle from certain countries, including the Argentine Republic. If this project were approved there would be great risk of infectious diseases being brought into Alderney, which would, with the constant traffic that now exists, spread to the other islands. The result would be to ruin the Channel Islands breed of cattle, one of the chief industries, and to destroy the use of the islands for stock-raising purposes. A petition has been presented against the proposal to establish the abattoirs from some of the principal farmers in Alderney, as being detrimental to the best farming interests of the island. I have not sufficient information of the extent of the proposed operations of the company to enable me to say even approximately what sum would accrue to the Treasury or to the States of Alderney by the establishment of such a business.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: If the States of Alderney impose the same restrictions as obtain in this country, will there be any objection?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am only the medium for conveying the information. I should therefore like to have notice.

    London Police and Sunday Duty
    MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now see his way to making such arrangements as will provide the members of the Metropolitan police force with one day's rest in seven.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid I cannot at present add anything to my replies this session to former Questions on this subject, and to what I said in the debate on the Estimates on June 7th last. The hon. Member's proposal could not be carried out without exceeding the present limits to the police rate, and imposing an additional burden of some £150,000 a year on the Metropolitan ratepayers. I am, however, having a detailed statement drawn up of the arrangements which would have to be made, and an estimate prepared of the exact cost which would be involved by the adoption of this proposal, but it is not yet quite completed.
    MR. REMNANT: When are we likely to get that information?
    MR. GLADSTONE: In a few weeks.

    Case of Mr. Maughan.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the charge upon which Mr. Maughan was sentenced at the Gateshead police court on May 7th last to be deprived of his son, and to pay a weekly fine of 1s. 6d. for ten years; and whether any direct evidence whatever was given in support of that charge.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Maughan, the father, was charged under the Youthful Offenders Act, 1901, with conducing to the commission by his son of the offence of begging by habitually neglecting to exercise due care of him. He was convicted on the same evidence on which the boy was committed to the school. He was fined 5s., with 6s. costs: the order to pay 1s. 6d. a week was not a fine. He had been once before fined for a similar offence and had been three times cautioned by the police. The direct evidence of the police constable who took Maughan in charge was to the effect that for five weeks he had seen the boy begging, and that at 9 p.m. on April 30th be saw him accost seven men in ten minutes. Several ladies had pointed out and complained of this boy to the constable. The boy was in a half-starved condition and filthily dirty. His home surroundings were indescribably objectionable. The reports I have received in answer to my inquiries absolutely
    1240
    confirm the action of the police and the Justices, and I am glad that this poor little creature will now have a chance of growing to be a decent citizen.
    MR. THORNE: What were the wages earned by this individual? Does the right hon. Gentleman know?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have ascertained the facts. I should hardly like to mention some of them to the House.
    MR. J. WARD: Was not this man a soldier with a splendid record in the Army? Had not other members of his family been brought up respectably?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am very glad if he had a splendid record in the Army. I very much regret he did not keep it up.

    Gateshead Bench Procedure.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parents have been imprisoned by the Gateshead magistrates during the last twelve months for having failed to contribute to the maintenance of children forcibly taken from them and confined, against the parents' will, in reformatory and industrial schools; what was the total term of those imprisonments during that period, and the average amount of the arrears proceeded for.
    MR. GLADSTONE: During the last twelve months twenty-one parents have been committed to prison by the Gateshead magistrates by non-compliance with contribution orders. The total of their terms of imprisonment, added together, is twenty-eight months, and the average amount of the arrears in respect of which proceedings were taken was £3 7s. 4d.

    Chinese Immigrants in the Thames.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the detention at Blackwall of thirty-two Chinese as undesirable aliens; and whether he proposes to take steps to discourage such immigrants.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware that thirty-two Chinese immigrants are detained in the Thames because they cannot show that they have in their

    1241
    possession or are in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting themselves. The question of their admission is one for the Immigration Board, and I have no reason to suppose that the Board are not fully alive to their responsibilities in this matter.

    Cutlery Imports.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Trade and Navigation Returns show that up to the end of October in the present year £93,395 worth of foreign cutlery was imported, or nearly double that in the same period of 1904, and £31,000 more than in 1905; and if, having regard to the effect of such competition upon the working cutlers of Old Sheffield, he can state whence those imports of foreign cutlery have come, and if they bore any proportion of that taxation which is levied upon Home industry; and if he can give any reason for the doubling of the amount of the foreign competition since the accession to office of the present Government.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): I am aware of the facts stated. While our imports of cutlery in the first ten months of this year have amounted to £93,000 in value or £31,000 more than in the same period in 1905, our exports of cutlery in the first ten months of this year have amounted to £585,000 or £39,000 more than in the same period in 1905. The increase in imports has been mainly from Germany and the United States, in which countries industry is certainly not free from taxation. I presume that the general expansion in trade accounts for the in-crease both in imports and exports.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Are these imports for foreign countries in proportion to the taxation levied on home industries?
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not the fact that the increase in the prosperity of any country is usually marked by an increase in the imports of manufacted articles?
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I would refer the hon. Member to the experience of the United States.

    Trade Trusts
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the growth of trusts, combines, and price rings in connection with the internal and export trade of the United Kingdom, he can see his way to appoint a Select Committee of this House to investigate and report upon the subject.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think any useful purpose would be attained at the present time by the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate and report upon the growth of trusts and other combinations generally. As my hon. friend is aware, a Royal Commission has been appointed to investigate the effects of one particular form of combination, namely, Shipping Conferences.

    Railway Rates.
    MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the difference in the railway rates for china and glass between London and Leeds and other parts of the country when packed in crates and casks and when in cases and boxes; and whether he proposes to bring this subject to the attention of the railway companies with a view to more reasonable races being adopted.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Complaint on this subject was made some months ago to the Board of Trade, who communicated with the railway companies concerned and transmitted their reply to the complaints. Since then the traders have not pursued the matter, but if they have any further representations to make, the Board of Trade will be happy to examine them and to consider whether a meeting could be usefully arranged for their discussion with the railway companies. I may, however, point out to my hon. friend that a difference in railway rates according to the nature of packing is expressly authorised by Parliament.

    Commission on Shipping Freights.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is yet in a position to give the reference to and personnel of the proposed Royal Commission on Shipping Freights; and whether

    1243
    his attention has been called to the fact that the names of several of the proposed Commissioners have already appeared in the public Press; and whether it is in accordance with practice for such names to be communicated to the Press until His Majesty's approval has been given to their appointment.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The terms of reference and the personnel of the Commission were published to-day. I have seen a newspaper paragraph containing the names of four or five out of the twenty-one Members of the Commission which appeared last week. Such unauthorised disclosure is not in accordance with the practice and is to be regretted.

    Fambridge Reclamation Works
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the total sum estimated to be expended by the central unemployed body on the reclamation works at Fambridge; and whether he has been able to form any rough estimate, by personal inspection or otherwise, of what will be the value of the land reclaimed.
    MR. CROOKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time say if work of this character is not better for the unemployed than stone breaking?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): I do not think I am called upon to express an opinion on that point. The total sum estimated to be expended is £17,950. I understand that so far as can be ascertained up to the present time, the value of the reclaimed land will be about £5 an acre.

    London County Council Expenditure on Parliamentary Bills.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Return of expenses incurred by the London County Council in promoting and opposing Bills in Parliament during the years 1903, 1904, 1905, and, as far as possible, 1906 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [H.L.] No. 214, of Session 1903), which was ordered on the 25th October, will be presented to the House.
    Ms. JOHN BURNS: The particulars necessary for the Return are being prepared by the County Council, and I understand that they will be forwarded to the Local Government Board in the course of a few days. The Return will be presented to the House as soon as practicable afterwards.

    County Surveyors.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether candidates seeking to become county surveyors have to undergo an examination; does this examination apply to existing county surveyors who may be candidates; and is the examination conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I can only answer the Question as regards England and Wales. So far as they are concerned, the appointment of a county surveyor rests with the county council. Candidates are not required by law to undergo an examination, and the Civil Service Commissioners do not conduct any examination of such candidates.

    Education of Children Under Five
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask: the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the Reports by women inspectors on children under five years of age in the public elementary schools, and in particular to the introductory Memorandum on these Reports by the chief inspector of public elementary schools, who states that there is complete-unanimity that the children between the ages of three and five yet practically no intellectual advantage from school instruction, and that the children admitted later can in six months or a year reach the same standard of attainment as those who have been in the school for two years previously; and whether this Report has been communicated to local education authorities throughout the kingdom.
    THE PRESIDENT or THE BOARD or EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): I have seen the Reports and the Memorandum referred to in the Question. It should be noticed that the "complete unanimity" referred to is not more than

    1245
    a general agreement on the part of five particular women inspectors, and it is doubtful whether even that unanimity extended so far as is stated in the Question. The volume was issued as a Parliamentary Paper and placed on sale in the usual way, so that every local education authority has had ample opportunity of obtaining it and perusing its contents. I understand that the actual number of copies disposed of exceeds 3,000.

    Education Grants.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what is the total sum granted by Parliament to public elementary schools throughout the United Kingdom, and what is the amount out of that total which is spent upon children under five years of age.
    MR. BIRRELL: The total sum granted by Parliament in respect of public elementary schools in England and Wales for the year ending 31st March, 1907, is £11,092,700. I have no information in regard to the second paragraph of the Question.
    MR. HAROLD COX: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman get the information as to the second part?
    MR. BIRRELL: I am afraid it is almost impossible.

    Swansea Education Dispute.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Swansea local education authority have declined and still decline to accord equal treatment to the teachers in the non-provided and provided schools there; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to put an end to a situation which the Board of Education declared in July last to be unjust to the teachers and to be gravely imperilling the efficiency of the schools.
    Notice had also been given of the following Question:—
    LORD R. CECIL: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in the numerous disputes that have taken place between the local education authority in Swansea and the
    1246
    managers of the National Parochial and York Place non-provided schools there, the Board of Education, when referred to, has invariably decided in favour of the managers; and whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence that has passed between the Board of Education, the managers of the schools, and the local education authority on the subject of these disputes.
    MR. BIRRELL: I think it will be for the convenience of the House that I should answer at one and the same time both the -Questions of the noble Lord. Considerable misunderstanding seems to prevail as to the nature of the matters now in dispute between the Swansea local education authority and the managers of certain voluntary schools. Article 15 of the Code requires that there shall be signed agreements for teachers employed in public elementary schools. The Board of Education found that this condition was not fulfilled in the case of certain voluntary schools in Swansea, and on seeking an explanation of this the Board of Education were informed that the managers declined to sign such agreements without the counter signature, or some other form of assent, of the local authority; and that the local authority declined to have anything to say to agreements between the managers of voluntary schools and the teachers who were appointed by those managers. The local authority stated that in their view it was the manager's business to make their own bargains and agreements with their teachers, and that the authority had no responsibility for such agreements and would not undertake any. Subsequent discussion elicited at last that this refusal by the local education authority was in part due to their view that they were not bound by the Education Acts to state beforehand what salaries they would pay in respect of the teachers in a voluntary school. On this, which was a point that had never before arisen under the Act, the Board of Education felt bound to ascertain authoritatively whether this contention of the local authority is consistent with the Act of 1902 or not; and I am taking the opinion of the law officers thereon. Until this has been done and this question has been decided, there are no steps that I can possibly take to settle this dispute; and in the meantime the local authority is

    1247
    maintaining the schools in question as heretofore. As a matter of fact, the local authority have hitherto paid, and are still paying, the teachers in these schools their regular salaries. But as the teachers consider these salaries to be insufficient, having regard to the scale prevailing in the council schools in the town, the teachers have declined to sign agreements containing these salaries. It is obvious that this further question of differentiation between the salaries of teachers in these schools and teachers in the council schools cannot possibly be considered until the other question that I have named, which is essentially a preliminary to it, has been disposed of. As the main basis of dispute between the authority and the managers is thus still under consideration, and cannot be settled for a little while, I think it would be highly misleading to publish officially the correspondence asked for in the Question, since it could not but give a misleading, because incomplete, presentment of the case.
    LORD R. CECIL: Is not the substantial cause of dispute the refusal of the local education authority to pay their teachers the same salaries as are paid to council school teachers?
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not think it has assumed that form at present. The difficulty arises from the local authority saying that they are not bound to pay any salaries at all. The other question may ultimately arise.
    LORD R. CECIL: What about the disputes which have already taken place?
    MR. BIRRELL: There have been a large number, and a good many, though not all, have been decided in favour of the voluntary managers.

    Crown Lands on Sheppey.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Commissioners of His Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues have still unlet a large grass farm and land of over 1,000 acres in the Isle of Sheppey; if so, whether a loss or profit has been made as a result of farming by the Crown receivers during the past year; and whether he will consider the advisability of handing over this farm to
    1248
    the Local Government Board with a view to experiments on behalf of the unemployed.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden, for Mr. MCKENNA): The Crown land in the Isle of Sheppey referred to is at present unlet, but negotiations are proceeding for letting parts of it. The farm account for the farm year ended on 31st ultimo has not yet been made up, but that for the year which ended on 31st October, 1905 (including the usual valuations of the stock, produce, etc., on the farm as at that date) showed a substantial surplus. The Commissioners of Woods have no power to hand over land to the Local Government Board free of rent.

    Scottish Churches Dispute.
    MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that notwithstanding the terms of The Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905, by which Commissioners were appointed to allocate property between the Free Church and the United Free Church in Scotland, and to make provision for the equipment of the Free Church in Leith, where there are fifteen United Free Churches, and in Aberdeen, where there are twenty-six United Free Churches, no church building of any kind has been allocated to or provided for the Free Church congregations in these towns; and, if so, and seeing that the Act gives the Commission power to make special arrangements in such cases, will the Secretary for Scotland bring the matter before Lord Elgin, the Chairman of the Commission, so that steps may be taken to remedy the existing hardships presently suffered by the Free Church congregations in Leith and Aberdeen.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): The whole responsibility for the proceedings under The Churches (Scotland) Act is with the Commission, but I am informed that the Churches in Leith and Aberdeen have been allocated in accordance with the statistical regulations of the Act, there being no dispute that the United Free Church congregations were entitled to this property under those provisions. The hon. Member is probably aware that the Commissioners have issued a Memorandum which explains their policy, and shows they are alive to the difficulties which the

    1249
    Free Church may experience in such circumstances. It does not appear to me that I can properly or usefully intervene.

    Barlinnie Prison.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what was the vacant cell accommodation in Perth Prison on the twenty occasions between 4th September and 10th October, when Barlinnie Prison was overcrowded; what was the average number of sick prisoners in the hospital ward of the latter prison on these dates; whether the regulations state that whenever any prison is overcrowded the governor must arrange for an instant transference of prisoners; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Answer is, to the first part of the Question: The vacant cell accommodation at Perth varied on the twenty occasions referred to from 210 to 310. To the second: The number of sick persons in the hospital ward averaged 9·3. To the third the instruction is as follows:—" Timely notice should be sent by governors to Commissioners of any likelihood of the cell accommodation being inadequate owing to temporary increase in the number of prisoners." And to the fourth: The erection of an enlarged prison for the Greenock district which has already been authorised will relieve the pressure upon Barlinnie.

    Electoral Reforms.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a recent address by the President of the Royal Statistical Society, in which it was pointed out, that whereas at the last General Election 2,818,050 Radical and Labour votes were cast, resulting in the return of 428 Radical and Labour Members, 2,200,898 Unionist votes were cast, resulting in the return of only 139 Unionist Members; whether he has taken note of the conclusion that while every Radical and Labour seat represents 6,584 votes, every Unionist seat represents 15,883 votes; and whether, in view of this condition of affairs, the Government intend to submit proposals for a reform in our electoral system before proceeding further with the Plural Voting Bill.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the president of this society is Sir R. Biddulph Martin, a former Member of this House, who at the last election lost a seat in the Birmingham zone?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORI) OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I have not identified the gentleman in question.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I know it is.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir, the figures quoted by the hon. Member, which I believe are of a kind not unusually quoted after a general election, escaped my notice, and I am afraid that I must ask him to wait for those further reforms that he desires to see introduced into our electoral system until the Plural Voting Bill has been passed into law.

    The Ridgeway Report.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister in view of the precedent set by the Colonial Office in permitting the Member for South Berkshire to read and take extracts from the Bucknill Report and to give the information so obtained to supporters of the Government, whether the same facilities will be granted to a Member of the Opposition, interested in land settlement in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, to read and take extracts from that portion of the Report of the Ridgeway Committee which deals with land settlement; or will he lay this portion of the Report upon the Table of the House, together with the petitions of the settlers to the Committee, if they are not contained in the body of the Report.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir, there is no such intention, but the House will be informed in due time of the course which the Government intend to pursue. The hon. Member must not assume that I admit the correctness of his analogy.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will no portion of the Report be laid on the Table?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know, I do not think it is likely.

    Land Settlement in South Africa.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister in view of the fact that opportunity has been given to the House of Commons to discuss the policy of the Government on all the main questions to be dealt with in the Letters Patent granting responsible government to the Transvaal, except in relation to land settlement, whether the Government will make a statement of policy on this question before the Letters Patent are issued and give facilities for discussion at the same time; and whether he will ask the Member for Wolverhampton to remove from the Order Paper the Motion standing in his name calling attention to land settlement.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member has called my attention to a notice of Motion standing in the name of my hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton with reference to land settlement in South Africa. That Motion I would point out to my hon. friend is wholly unnecessary in view of the fact that there will be a full explanation of policy and opportunity for discussion when the Letters Patent are explained to the House. If this should fail—and I do not see how such a thing could happen— to afford the necessary opportunity we should be prepared to give the latter part of some day's sitting for this discussion.
    MR. LYTTELTON: What is the reason for this pointed exception being made in the case of the land settlement question in which all Members on both sides are interested? Why are we not to have a full explanation of the policy of the Government before the Letters Patent are issued?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No exception has been made in this case.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement was made last August by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies that all important matters relating to this constitutional question would be discussed, but omission was made with regard to any explanation
    1252
    of land settlement? What is the reason for this omission, and will an opportunity be given to discuss the question before the Letters Patent become final?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid there was no omission unless it were accidental, and the statement to be made would not only embrace all details of the constitution of the Transvaal, but sketch generally the whole constitution of the Orange River Colony, and include the question in which the right hon. Gentleman was interested.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that when once the Letters Patent are issued the thing is irrevocable and it will be too late to discuss it? Has the right hon. Gentle-man determined to withdraw this important question from discussion by the House?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have already said the House will have full opportunity of discussing the matter.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Were we not led to believe by what was said in another place that the Government would make a full statement to the House before the Letters Patent were issued?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It would be extremely inconvenient to discuss the Letters Patent before they are in the hands of Members. I am under the impression that this was the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman himself when he produced his constitution just after the House rose. I may be wrong; at any rate, we had no opportunity of discussing his new constitution for the Transvaal. I do not mention this as any matter of recrimination, but only to show that there is no harm done in this case, where there has been a full statement of the general lines of the new constitution. The Government prefer that when the House comes to discuss it it shall have the actual terms of the constitution before it.
    MR. ASHLEYasked if anything would be done to obviate the scandal of a single Member preventing discussion of

    1253
    any Question, however, urgent by putting a Motion on the Paper.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We are familiar with that scandal.

    Chinese in the Transvaal.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state what steps are being taken by the Government to clear out of the Chinese compounds on the Rand all persons addicted to unnatural vice; whether the duty has been entrusted to the same officials who have hitherto failed to detect the offenders; and, if so, what further powers have been conferred upon them to insure that the work will be done more effectively than it was before.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that a careful search for such persons is being made in all the compounds. The officials and others entrusted with this work are those who know the Chinese coolies and their conditions best; and the mine managers themselves are fully alive to the importance from their own point of view of eradicating this grave source of evil. No further powers beyond those vested in the High Commissioner have been conferred, and as those powers in regard to the deportation of undesirable characters are already absolute and plenary, no extension of them is necessary or indeed possible.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Have any special instructions been given to these officials?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: General instructions, not detailed instructions as to the particular method and time.

    Chinese Labour Contracts.
    MR. BURT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is part of the policy of His Majesty's Government in dealing with the Chinese Labour Ordinance in the Transvaal to leave the renewal of the three years contracts under which the coolies were imported an open question.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I would appeal to my right hon. friend
    1254
    to await the publication of the Letters Patent of the Transvaal Constitution, where he will find the conditions governing the termination of the Chinese labour experiment set forth in full accordance with the declared policy of His Majesty's Government and their pledges to Parliament.

    Colonial Conference.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can inform the House as to the present state of the preparations for the coming Conference with the representatives of the Colonies and India, and as to the method of procedure and agenda for the Conference.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The preparations for the Colonial Conference have made considerable progress. The agenda will be settled by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in correspondence with the Colonial Governments. The procedure will follow the general line of the previous Colonial Conferences.

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
  MR. RIDSDALE: I desire to call the attention of the House to a question of privilege. In the "Political Notes" in The Times to-day there appears a letter, signed by sixteen electors of the Thanet Division, which constitutes undoubtedly a most gross libel upon an hon. Member of this House: It seems to me that it is entirely contrary to the public interest and to the interests and dignity of this House that such a strongly worded libel as that should be allowed to pass unnoticed. I am aware that there are difficulties about raising a question of privilege, and I will read a short extract from "May" on that point—
  "And although privilege cannot be claimed for a Motion containing imputations upon the character of a Member which are not immediately connected with his conduct in Parliament, yet owing to attendant circumstances these Motions occasionally have been treated as privilege Motions. For instance, when on 22nd July, 1861, a Motion was proposed concerning the conduct of a Member in connection with a joint stock company, such conduct being wholly unconnected with matters arising in the House, the Speaker said it was doubtful whether the Motion was properly a

  1255
  matter of privilege, but as it affected the character of a Member it could be proceeded with if it were the pleasure of the House."
  In an ordinary case I quite agree it would probably be better for this House to let the matter pass without notice. But this letter is of so strong a nature —and certain of its particulars are fresh since the election of the hon. Member to the House—that I think it is essential, having due respect to the dignity of this House and its influence on the country at large, that the matter should be dealt with at once. I beg to move, "That the questions raised in the letter addressed to Mr. Speaker and published in the 'Political Notes' of The Times to-day be referred to the Committee on Privileges for their report." I ask that the letter upon which my Motion is based be read by the Clerk at the Table.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think it would, perhaps, be more convenient if the hon. Member would point out the particular paragraphs to which he takes exception. It would be unusual to call upon the Clerk at the Table to read an article if the House does not eventually take proceedings upon it. Perhaps the hon. Member will read the particular paragraphs to which he objects.
  MR. RIDSDALE: I think the letter as a whole really calls for the attention of the House more than extracts from it. [Cries of "Read the letter."] I will read it all—
  "We, the undersigned electors of Thanet, deeply sensible of the high traditions of the House of Commons and of the respect due to you as the Speaker who presides over that great Assembly, think it right most humbly to bring to your notice certain grave matters which affect the character of Mr. H. H. Marks, the Parliamentary representative of Thanet, and his fitness to occupy that position.
  "Mr. Marks is the founder, principal proprietor, and editor of the Financial Sews, and we desire to call your attention to the following legal proceedings:—'Regina on the prosecution of H. H. Marks v. Butterfield,' tried at the Central Criminal Court, 1890; 'Andrews v. Mockford,' 1895, 1 Q.B., 372 (C.A.); 'Re E. T. Hooley,' examination in bankruptcy, November and December, 1898; 'Re London and Globe Finance Corporation,' examination by the Senior Official Receiver, January, 1902, and the Official Receiver's report, February 24, 1906; 'Head v. Glenesk,' May 28, 1903; 'W. T. Tanqueray-Todd,' examination in bankruptcy, November, 1905; ' Rex v. Young and Jonas,' Central Criminal Court, October,
  1256
  1906. We enclose copies of Daily News,. September 26, 1904, and Thanet Times, November 21, 1906. These two articles contain a summary of the proceedings in some of the eases alluded to, in so far as the evidence affects Mr. Marks. We have carefully compared these articles with the verbatim or recognised reports of the trials and find the extracts correctly made. We therefore enclose the copies as a convenient method of putting salient facts before you.
  "We venture with all respect to ask you to note that the foregoing cases prove that' Mr. Marks in 1890 brought an action for criminal libel, which raised in the fullest way two distinct charges of the gravest kind, one upon his private character and the other upon his financial integrity. Both charges were found to be true and published for the public benefit, and Mr. Marks has never since submitted his character to the examination of a jury. In substance the charge against Mr. Marks's financial integrity, which was proved in Court and found to be true, was that of promoting a company under discreditable circumstances, and while concealing his own interest in it, using his paper, the Financial News, which posed as giving independent advice, to puff his own. worthless promotion. The evidence given in the subsequent cases (the last occurred last month); and which we have specified, shows Mr. Marks either directly or through his newspaper accepting money as a bribe from promoters (more than one of whom have been sentenced to penal servitude) in order to do the same for their promotions. We conceive that a man who so uses a newspaper is guilty of gross dishonesty, and upon that point we would most respectfully call your attention to the words of Mr. Justice Bigham, who, upon hearing some of the evidence to which we have referred you, is reported as describing Mr. Marks as 'a scoundrel on his own admission' and a 'dishonest rogue.' You, Sir, will notice that the Daily News article was published in September, 1904, and we submit to you further extracts from the Press to show you that serious attacks have been made upon Mr. Marks and remain unanswered, although he might have taken legal proceedings.
  "We humbly submit that a person of this notorious character cannot continue a Member of Parliament without impairing the confidence of the public in the honour and purity of the House of Commons itself. It is obvious that such a Member cannot act in any business involving public interests such as the business of a Private Bill Committee without arousing reasonable misgiving.
  "Upon these grounds, Sir, we desire to represent to you, as the guardian of the honour and good name of the House of Commons,, and through you to the House itself, that Mr. Marks is unfit to be a member of the House, and especially, being tainted in character and reasonably to be suspected of corruption, that he could not serve upon a Committee upon a Private Bill or otherwise act where money interests were involved without grave scandal to the honour of the House and serious injury to the public interest."

  1257
  Having read the letter I now leave it in your hands.
  MR. SPEAKER: In my opinion, no breach of privilege has been committed in this case, because there is no charge against the hon. Member of having done anything in his capacity as a Member of this House and concerned with the transactions of this House. The charges which have been made are grave, but they do not concern the hon. Member as a Member of this House. That seems to me, looking back to the precedents, to be the rule which must be deduced in these cases. The hon. Member quoted a case in 1861. I think since then the House has very wisely narrowed rather than extended the question of breach of privilege. I am quite sure I am on sound ground in what I am saying, but, in order that the House may be quite convinced of the matter, I would like to quote two cases which have occurred—in the time of Mr. Speaker Peel and also in the time of my immediate predecessor. In the former case, the late Sir Wilfrid Lawson, on 22nd February, 1887, raised a question of breach of privilege where a newspaper had attacked a certain section of this House, and used some very strong language in regard to the Members comprising that section. Mr. Speaker Peel then said—
  "It has been the practice of this House to restrain privilege under great limitations and conditions. The rule is that, when imputations are made, in order to raise a ease of privilege the imputations must refer to the action of hon. Members in the discharge of their duties in the actual transaction of the business of this House; and, though I quite understand the hon. Baronet's having brought this matter to my notice, I cannot rule that this is a case of privilege."
  Mr. Speaker Gully, on 17th March, 1896: when his attention was called to a violent attack which was made upon the hon. Member for Middlesbrough by the St. James's Gazette, used these words—
  "In order to constitute a ease of privilege there must be some attack on an hon. Member in respect of his conduct as a Member of the House. In the present instance there is a violent attack no doubt made on the character of the hon. Member in respect of transactions outside this House altogether. Therefore I do not see that it constitutes a case of privilege, nor do I think the fact that the writer of the article draws or states an inference that if those charges were true then the hon. Member against whom they are directed would not be fit to sit in the House—I do not think
  1258
  that inference merely at the end of the attack, which is entirely an attack on the hon. Member in respect of matters outside the House, would make that a breach of privilege which would not otherwise be so. I think, therefore, the hon. Member cannot treat this as a breach of privilege."
  The last case quoted seems to be a case exactly in point. Therefore I follow the rule of my predecessors in saying no question of breach of privilege has arisen.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to private notice which I gave you to-day at the opening of the sitting, I desire to make a personal explanation. The letter addressed to you purporting to be signed by sixteen of my constituents, which has been published in The Times this morning, as I understand without your authority, contains charges against my personal character. These identical charges have already been made by these persons in my constituency during the past three years. The majority of the electors in the constituency have shown their opinion of those charges by twice, returning me to this House. The courtesy with which I have been received in this House, and the reception accorded to me elsewhere politically, together with the fact that I enjoy the personal friendship of many of its Members, has encouraged me in the belief that the falsity and the malice of those assertions, which are known to me and to those who make them, have also been obvious to those whose opinion I value. The issue raised has already been twice decided in my favour by my constituents, on the last occasion by a majority of nearly 4,000 votes, and in the proportion of six to one against a candidate selected and supported against me, on the ground of these very charges, by the persons who have again given them publicity. But, the matter having now been brought directly before the House, it is my intention to take such line of action as shall, after careful consultation with my friends, appear to them and to me to be most consistent with my own honour and with the honour of the House.

  PLURAL VOTING BILL—PROCEDURE.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I rise for the purpose of making the Motion which I at once say is an unusual Motion. I hope, however, before I sit down to make it plain that it is at once justifiable and necessary in the circumstances. We are now about to enter upon the Report stage of a Bill which in Committee was examined in most minute detail. This Bill, a short Bill, of a very simple principle, to attain which a somewhat difficult machinery is necessary, occupied six days in Committee, less by two hours and three-quarters on one occasion, when the adjournment of the House was moved. Of this time four or five days were devoted to Clause 1, which was debated down to the last line, and the closure on which was only moved at a quarter to seven o'clock on 30th October Of the Amendments of which notice has been given to the Report stage, nine Pages refer to this same clause, and out of 139 Amendments 111 are a repetition of those moved during the Committee Stage. Of the remaining twenty-eight very few differ greatly in substance from similar Amendments which were moved in Committee. There has been a change merely in the authors of the Amendments. The offspring is the same, but the father is different. Can there be any doubt whatever that the tabling of these Amendments show the intention with which the whole proceedings are conducted? I will not say anything offensive, but I will say that the intention is to occupy as much time as possible or as is decent on this stage of the Bill. Is this in accordance with the proper use of the privileges by Members of the House? For an answer to that question I will fall back on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who has had a long experience of these Motion, and is acquainted with all the circuitous methods by which business can be either accelerated or delayed in this House. The right hon. Gentleman in February, 1902, when he was First Lord of the Treasury, proposed a batch of new procedure rules. One of them embodied the right hon. Gentleman's idea of the proper method of treating the consideration of a Bill on Report. That proposed new Standing Order was as follows:—
  "When a Bill is considered on the Report of a Committee of the Whole House, no Amendment may be moved, except Amendments moved by the Member in charge of the Bill
  1260
  and Amendments arising out of any changes in the Bill made in Committee."
  That new Standing Order was, however, never reached, and was therefore not considered. It may be said that that is a long time since, and that the right hon. Gentleman may have changed his mind. But in May of this year, when he kindly appeared before the Committee on Procedure, he stated his views with a frankness for which the Government are deeply indebted to him. The right hon. Gentleman then said his general idea was that the Report stage should revert to what it was originally intended to be—
  "Not a re-discussion of the whole Bill, as if it were in Committee, but a procedure dealing with points which had been omitted in Committee, introducing Amendments which the Government had promised, and dealing with any subjects which were consequential on Amendments that had been introduced in the Committee stage of the Bill. I should like to see something of that sort tiled, and to give to the Member in charge of the Bill the sole right to make new proposals."
  There is the view of the highest authority I can quote. That is the deliberate opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. I entirely agree with those views, and if ever there was a case to which they apply with force and authority it is the case of the Plural Voting Bill, which does not come from a Committee upstairs, but has been amply considered by Committee of the Whole House. Recognising that if these multiplied and repeated Amendments are to be proceeded with in the ordinary leisurely fashion a great deal of public time which might be better employed will be purely wasted, I ask the House to prescribe a time limit of the kind which we are accustomed to see applied where a great Bill has lagged in its course and requires to be hurried towards a conclusion. I have said before that this is a clumsy and not very agreeable proceeding. It is unfortunate that it rests with the Leader of the House, who is of course a Party man, to make such a Motion. There will be immense advantage—if it can be accomplished— in setting up a dispassionate tribunal more or less of the nature and after the pattern of the Committee of Selection to decide with regard to a Bill, to each stage of the Bill, and possibly even to the parts of the Bill, what time ought to be allowed for discussion. That is what I hope we shall bear in mind, and

  1261
  endeavour to accomplish by-and-by if it can be accomplished. I am quite aware there may be difficulties in the way, but with good will they may be got over. In the meantime the Government has to do what it can, and if ever a Motion of this sort was justified, I think it is justified in this case by the repetition in the face of all that has happened of the same old Amendments which were discussed at such ample length a month ago. I wish to correct the idea implied in some statements in the Press that this day and Tuesday are the two allotted days. For the new clauses there will be allowed what remains of to-day and Tuesday, and the other Amendments will be taken on Wednesday. I beg to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That two allotted days be given to the Report stage of the Plural Voting Bill, and that the proceedings on new clauses, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day, and that the remaining proceedings on the Bill and the Schedule and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day. Any day after this Order comes into operation on which the Plural Voting Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, shall be considered as an allotted day for the purposes of this Order. At 10.30 p.m. on an allotted day, the Speaker shall, if the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on that day have not already been brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question or Questions on any new Clause, Amendment, or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next, so far as is necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded on that day, proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any new clauses or Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other clauses or Amendments), and on any other question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the clause be added to he Bill, as the case may be. At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as the first Order
  1262
  of the Day, or if that day is a Friday, at 5 p.m., the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to conclude the proceedings on that stage of the Bill. Proceedings to which this Order relates shall not, on an allotted day, be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House. On an allotted day and on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion for re-commitment of the Bill, nor Motion for adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without debate."— (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman).
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It seems almost ungracious after the speech to which we have just listened for me to rise and criticise either the Motion or the apology for the Motion which has just been made by the Prime Minister, for he has been good enough to say that I am the highest possible authority upon all questions of Parliamentary procedure, and he has discovered merits in those proposals and suggestions which I have from time to time made to the House with regard to the conduct of public business which I never remember him to have uttered when those proposals were made by me from the Ministerial side of the House and when it was the right hon. Gentleman's business to criticise and appraise their value from this side of the House. The Prime Minister has quoted with great eulogy two speeches which I have made upon subjects connected with the matter now under discussion. I observe that he carefully forebore to quote with or without eulogy any speeches made by himself upon the same subject. If I had time and the inclination and had I foreseen the particular line of defence of the right hon. Gentleman I think I could have discovered some gems of eloquence, not less pure and bright than those which he has spread before us, from an authority which the reciprocal character of common courtesy requires me to describe as the highest authority in the House upon matters of business—at all events next to myself. I was greatly surprised, I must frankly admit, at the line which the right hon. Gentleman took, for more than one

  1263
  reason. I was surprised among other reasons because one of the grounds on which he asked the House and the country to place him in the position he now adorns was that he wished to restore to the House of Commons that liberty which a tyrannical Government had taken from it. But that is not the only or even the chief cause of my surprise. What was the right hon. Gentleman's defence? In the first place he said that the proper time for discussing a Bill was during the Committee stage and not the Report stage, which ought to be restricted somewhat in the manner in which I have from time to time suggested it should be restricted. On that point I should like to ask how that is consistent with the very Standing Order which he is going to propose for the future conduct of our business. I have always thought, and still think, that the Committee stage in this House should be the stage in which all Members are invited to take part. I do not think you will ever get a substitute for this House in any Committee upstairs, but I have always recognised that if the right of fully discussing a Bill in Committee of this House is insisted upon, it would probably be desirable to lay down some general principle for restricting discussion on the Report stage. But that is not the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. That is not the Standing Order which he and his friends are proposing, for they are now proposing to abolish the Committee stage altogether, and throw all the weight of the discussion on the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted my authority for saying that there ought to be certain kinds of restrictions upon discussions on the Report stage of a Bill. The advantage of the plan I suggested, however, is that, though the area of discussion would be limited, in that area the freedom of debate would be complete; all the new proposals and their consequences would be discussed, and there would be no limitation on the freedom of debate except the broad principle that only certain things should be discussed. Under the proposals of the Government, on the contrary, there is sure to be a repetition of discussions which take place at the Committee stage, the Bill being one on which feeling runs high, and it is very likely that the lengthy and elaborate proposals made on behalf of the Government will not be reached in time to be debated.
  1264
  May I remind the House that they have only two days to discuss this Bill, and as the right hon. Member in charge of the measure has put down in his own name Amendments greater in length and greater in space on the Notice Paper than the whole of the original Bill, it is very expedient that we should have full opportunity of discussing that which by the admission of the Prime Minister is a proper matter to discuss on the Report stage. I cannot think that in quoting me the right hon. Gentleman could have understood exactly what my proposal was, because he really has violated it in all its essential particulars. All that is good in it he has omitted, and all that may be bad in it in the way of curtailing debate he has now sedulously retained. We have great reason to complain both of the matter and the manner of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. As regards the manner of it surely we might have had—I will not say the courtesy for I am sure that he is never lacking in courtesy—but the Government might have so arranged that this Motion should have been put down when Amendments could have been put on the Paper. There is nothing new in the condition of the Order Paper with regard to the matter. The Government knew perfectly well where they stood on Thursday as well as on Friday. If the Resolution had appeared last Friday morning it would have been possible for my friends to put down Amendments if they desired to do so, instead of having the Motion thrust at our heads on Monday morning when it was quite impossible to give the House any opportunity of discussing alterations which it may be proposed to make in the body of the Resolution. So much for the manner which the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to adopt. Now as regards the substance. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, while he is from time to time moving these gagging Resolutions, and while he has asked the House after a fairly laborious session in the earlier months of the year to meet for a prolonged autumn session, he has never condescended to give the House an account of the way in which he proposes to use the time at his disposal? He has had plenty of opportunities for doing so. He might have done so on the Motion for the adjournment in August, or during the present session, or this afternoon. We do not know now how he means to

  1265
  dispose of the time, or why he means to dispose of it in this way. This is vital and relevant to the Resolution before us. He cannot give us three or four days to discuss the Report stage of this Reform Bill, because, I presume, the pressure of public business is so great. If it is absolutely impossible to give more than two days, what is the pressure of public business? How does he mean to occupy the time that still remains to him before Christmas? Does he mean to stop at Christmas? He has given no outline of the scheme of the Government such as every other Minister in his place asking for these exceptional powers has always given to the House. When we consider in more detail how he is treating the House as regards time, the astonishment, and, I am bound to say, the indignation at the way we have been treated in this matter increases instead of diminishes. I will explain why I say so. He is giving only two days to discuss this Bill instead of three or four. [An HON. MEMBER: Three days.] He is giving only two complete days instead of three or four days which might reasonably be asked for. Why this limitation? He has announced to the House that he means to take the Second Reading of a very contentious Bill which he does not mean to pass—which he does not mean to carry further—namely, the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill. That is a Bill which embodies a principle which may be right or wrong, but it is of the most contentious description, and it is inconceivable that any debate on the Second Reading of that Bill should take less than two days, and it will probably take more. I do not suppose that the most sanguine of Government Whips would suppose that it would take less than two days. These two days are not going to lead to legislation, because, by the admission of the Government, that Bill is not to proceed further in the course of this session. Why cannot we have those days given to the discussion of this Bill? Why cannot we have one of them? Can any reason be assigned for refusing? Have we been brought up for an autumn session, not to discuss Bills that are to be passed, but to have abstract discussions of great principles embodied in Bills which are never to be carried further, at all events, in the course of the present year? That is one of the questions on which I
  1266
  should like to get some satisfaction from the Government. But observe, that is not the only thing. They have occupied the autumn session not with their own Bills, but with other people's Bills. The Labour Members have more than once, indeed on several occasions, begged the Government that one of their own Bills, which I understand must be passed, should be pressed forward, and I am sure that I personally desire to see it passed—I mean the Workmen's Compensation Bill. It never has been pressed forward, whether because the Government and the Labour Members cannot come to an agreement, I do not know. At any rate, it is not there. The time of the House will be occupied not with Bills which the Government themselves have prepared, not with Bills for which the Government are ready to be responsible, but with Bills brought in by other people, drafted by other people, which the Government have adopted, largely for the purpose of throwing them over when debated, and at all events, with no benefit, so far as I can see, either to the dignity of the House, or the propriety of the methods by which we carry on legislation. Are these circumstances under which it is fair or proper to ask this House to have its liberties curtailed on an important stage of what is a great disfranchising Reform Bill? I should have thought that if there was a Bill in this House with regard to which the Government would be careful not to ask the Opposition unnecessarily to surrender any of its rights of debate, it would be a Bill of the character of that with which this Resolution is concerned. Consider what this Bill is. In the first place it is a Reform Bill—the kind of Bill to which as yet no man has ever attempted to apply the closure by compartments. That is not all. It is a Bill avowedly and plainly directed against a small section of this House—a section whose numerical power in this House is by universal admission very much less than that of the constituencies which they represent in the country. We are relatively a small number in this House—and no doubt that is a matter on which the Government will legitimately congratulate themselves —but I venture to think that when a Government with a majority of 300 at its back brings in a Bill intended for no other purpose than to diminish that already numerically small band; when clearly and manifestly they are not animated or

  1267
  moved by any broad principles as to the manner in which the franchise should be distributed, either among classes or among sexes; when they have narrowed the whole issue to one in which they think that their own friends will not suffer, and that if there be a loss that loss will be confined to political opponents—then I am bound to say that I should have thought that any Government having to deal with that situation would have relaxed rather than tightened the opportunities for discussion in this House. When I think how easily that opportunity might have been given without sacrificing a single Government measure, without at all diminishing the discussion of any Bill intended to pass, without losing caste among their own friends or popularity in the country, I am amazed at the policy and the motives which seem to have animated the Prime Minister and his friends. It is of course impossible for us to make any successful opposition in the division lobby to this, or indeed any other Motion by which the Government choose to curtail the opportunities of debate which the small party to which I belong still possess. They have the power, they can use it, but at all events let it be remembered that the manner in which they have chosen to use it on the present occasion is not in accordance with the principles which, quoting from me, they say are the principles which ought to govern our behaviour on the Report stage, and let it also be remembered that they are applying this tyrannical method to a measure which is directed by an overwhelming majority against the interests of those who are in a small minority in this chamber.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,)said he could not refrain from congratulating the right hon. Gentleman upon the unexhausted and apparently inexhaustible capacity of his reservoir of Parliamentary indignation. Constant and copious as were the drafts which he had of late made upon it, the supply seemed to be as unfailing as the widow's cruse. When they remembered during the course even of this short autumn session the terrible things the right hon. Gentleman had said, first about the Trade Disputes Bill—the history of which he thought was a significant commentary upon the reality and genuineness of these blood and thunder displays—
  1268
  then upon the Bills of private Members which the Government, with parental care, had adopted and adapted to the stress of Parliamentary life—he did not think that on Friday last there was a very great or formidable array of opposition— and when they remembered further all the right hon. Gentleman had said about the Prime Minister's notorious slipperiness and chicanery in the management of Parliamentary business——
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said that.
  MR. ASQUITH: Well, something very like it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken as to what I said. It never occurred to me to suggest, and I never did suggest, that the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of chicanery or that he is a slippery customer. I never said it, and I never thought it. I did think, and said more than once that statements have been made which had, although unintentionally, the effect of deceiving the House as to the prospects of its business. That is quite a different matter.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he was glad to have elicited that statement. His words were not used in the sense supposed. He was only recalling the various previous occasions on which the right hon. Gentleman had used language very much like that to which the House had just listened. He would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman had now almost reached the end both of his faculty of reprobation and of his vocabulary of protest. But that was not the case. Here he was again, in a fresh coat of war-paint, not satiated himself, however his audience might be, by the constant display of his Parliamentary indignation, and if he might without offence, say so, imbued with a double portion of the spirit of Jonah and Jeremiah combined, delivering once more to the House his now well-worn message of denunciation and of warning. He asked again, as he asked once before, what was it all about? What did it all come to? What was this terrible innovation for which the Prime Minister had made himself responsible? He said without fear of contradiction that this

  1269
  Parliamentary institution of the guillotine, discovered by the right hon. Gentleman himself and now nearly attaining its majority, had never been applied so gently, so tenderly, and so considerately as in the Resolution now before the House. So far as his memory served, there had never been an occasion of the application of the guillotine by the right hon. Gentleman opposite when it had not been applied to the Committee stage as well as to the Report and Third Reading stages. In this case the Government had deliberately waited until the Bill had been exhaustively discussed in Committee with the minutest detail. Now, on the Report stage, they asked to give not two days, but part of three (because, if they chose to pass the Resolution, they would have that evening), to the revision of proceedings in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had complained of a new method. What was the new method which the Government had introduced? It consisted in this, that, the new matter introduced by the First Commissioner of Works being for the most part merely in fulfilment of undertakings given in Committee to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, the time had been distributed so as to suit what was believed to be the convenience of the House. As to the general complaint that the Government had not given sufficient indication as to how they were going to dispose of the time of the House, the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that the Workmen's Compensation Bill was to follow. It was in order to proceed with that Bill effectively, and at the earliest possible moment, that the Government, on seeing the enormous crowd of Amendments to the Plural Voting Bill on subjects already disposed of in Committee, thought it necessary, in the interests of both measures, to bring the Report stage of this Bill to an early conclusion. The Government could not say how the remainder of their time would be spent until they knew what took place in a different atmosphere and under different conditions for which they had no responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman could be sure that it was the earnest intention of the Government to carry into effect their legislative programme, and, in particular, to pass into law the Workmen's Compensation Bill. They believed that when this Plural
  1270
  Voting Bill—the principle of which had been decided on the Second Reading, and the details of which had been thoroughly threshed out in Committee — had, in three more days, reached its final termination as far as this House was concerned, there would be time left for the passing of those measures without the passing of which they would not consider that they had done their duty to the House and the country.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that after listening to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he certainly thought the right hon. Gentleman had no right to make use of the argument that this Resolution ought to be adopted in order to give time for the Workmen's Compensation Bill. That Bill, it was very well known, was a Government Bill, which the Government meant to pass, and the time given to the Land Tenure Bill and the Irish Town Tenants' Bill should have been taken for it. After the evidence given before the Procedure Committee, and the argument used by himself, as to the proposal to remove all Bills, except those which the Government chose, from consideration at Committee stage in the House itself, a Party majority voted down any suggestion of dealing with the Report stage after the manner adopted now by the Prime Minister. He thought it was necessary for independent Members to rise and protest against this Resolution. If the House allowed the procedure to be pursued in regard to this Bill, they might find next year a Resolution introduced that on certain Government Bills the Report stage should be reduced, and the general and detailed discussion of the Bills removed from the House. The very danger of the argument used by the Prime Minister compelled him to protest against it, because the Chairman of the Procedure Committee had said that there was nothing in the mind of the Government which would impel them to cut short discussion on the Report stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Amendments might be roughly divided into two parts —one half to new clauses, and one half to Amendments, to which a day and a half were to be given. And one day was to be given to the Third Reading. The Report stage was of peculiar importance to hon. Members on the Opposition side of the

  1271
  House, and it was impossible to discuss in one day all the Amendments put down for that stage as well by the Government as by private Members. Whatever might be the merits or demerits of the Resolution, he contended that it was a very strong one; and, moreover, it was the first guillotine Resolution which had been applied to a Reform Bill. If they could not make any impression with regard to the general rule itself he earnestly urged upon the Government that they should give them further time to consider the clauses so that the proposals of the Government might be open to further consideration.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYagreed that the defence of this Motion by the Prime Minister called for a strong protest by all the Members of the House. The Leader of the Opposition had pointed out that when their Party was in power, not only the Prime Minister but all his supporters in the Press were continually saying that the tyrannical action of the then Tory Government had flouted the House of Commons, deprived Members of their rights, with the result that no one except the Tory Government had any power of action. The first action on the part of the Liberal Party, if they come back, it was said, would be to restore to the House of Commons the supremacy which the Tory Party had taken away. But instead of, restoring the supremacy of the House of Commons, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had treated the Opposition with a greater want of consideration than, during the fourteen years he had been in Parliament, he had ever seen exhibited by any Party towards its opponents. The Prime Minister said that his reason for this Motion was that he thought the Report stage should be very much curtailed, but if the right hon. Gentleman thought that he should have made certain rules with that object, and should have brought those rules forward and applied them to all Bills. The right hon. Gentleman had not done that, but had taken this one particular Bill, and at the commencement of the Report stage, before the Bill had ever been discussed, moved the guillotine, on the ground that his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had made some proposals sometime ago which had never been
  1272
  discussed. Instead of being curtailed he thought the proceedings on Report should be extended, and that Members should be permitted on that stage to speak not only once but twice or thrice upon any particular subject. That, however, was not what the right hon. Gentleman proposed. The Prime Minister merely said that there would be two allotted days, and that whatever Amendments came up in those two short days would be discussed and if Amendments did not come up they would not be discussed. To take a Bill of this sort, a disfranchising reform Bill, and to prevent Members on that side of the House who would be affected by it, while hon. Members opposite would not be so affected, from discussing it was unfortunate. It was a Bill for diminishing a very small Party, and to take away from the people who by their ability and energy had acquired a stake in the country what little power they had, simply because they did not support hon. Members opposite. The Prime Minister might have paused before he made this particular Motion on this particular Bill. As to the Amendments on the Paper, they were nearly as long as the Bill itself. As a matter of fact, he believed that the Amendments moved by the First Commissioner of Works covered 117 lines, while the Bill itself, as originally drawn, covered only sixty-seven lines. The very fact that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had nearly to double it on the Report stage showed that the Bill was not well drafted. It was all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the Amendments meant nothing, and that they were brought forward in deference to pledges given to hon. Members of the Opposition. That did not mean anything and did not alter the nature of the Bill, which was only brought forward as a sop to hon. Members below the gangway. He had never before heard such a ludicrous defence. If these Amendments were unnecessary and did not mean anything, why should they be brought forward at all? He contended that these Amendments or series of Amendments were vital, because they dealt with the machinery of the Bill. As the Bill was originally introduced it was impossible to carry it out without

  1273
  disfranchising a very large number of people whom he really believed the Government had no intention of disfranchising, and in order to remedy the defects of the Bill they had been obliged to bring in these new Amendments, which would take up a large portion of the time allotted to future discussion. Was the fact that they had been obliged to do that any reason why the Amendments of the Opposition should not be dealt with, and that they should be prevented from expressing their opinions upon a Bill which affected them so vitially? They were told that some of the Amendments had been moved on the Committee stage, and that was true, but it was the first time that he had heard that because an Amendment had been moved on the Committee stage it might not be moved on the Report stage. It was quite possible that between the Committee and the Report stages more mature consideration might have changed the opinions of those who objected to an Amendment. It was not only useful but necessary to bring up Amendments which had been moved in Committee. The Prime Minister had given no reason for moving the guillotine before the discussion had commenced, and, as far as he remembered, in all cases in which the guillotine had been moved it had always been after the Committee or Report Stage, whichever it was, had been entered upon, and had been in existence for some time. He could not see what justification there was for moving the guillotine at that moment. There never had been a case in which a Government had commanded such an immense majority, and yet they had not been able to carry on their business without sitting up all night, suspending the eleven o'clock rule, or moving a guillotine Motion. A more striking commentary upon their proceedings in this House he could not conceive, more especially as when the Party opposite were returned they said they were going to manage business in such a way that members of the Opposition and private Members would have an opportunity of expressing their opinions, which opportunity it was said they had not before had. Yet the Opposition, small as they were, had been treated in such a way that their opportunities of expressing their
  1274
  opinion and of criticising had been curtailed and their privileges diminished.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that one of the most significant points about the alliance of the Nationalist and Ministerial Parties was the conspiracy of silence between the two benches. They were indeed becoming accustomed to silent and absent Ministers or to Ministers who were unwilling or unable to reply to the arguments advanced. A still more serious aspect of the question was the muzzling order which it was now sought to apply, not only to hon. Members above the gangway, but to those below the gangway, who used to be the most ardent supporters of liberty of speech. Where were those Members now? They had all of them become miserable slaves of the closure. He asked hon. Members below the gangway to shake off this yoke which he knew must be galling to all of them. He appealed to the Prime Minister in the name of freedom of debate and of common humanity to take the muzzle off and to put an end to the conspiracy of silence.
  SIR FRANCIS LOWEagreed with the remark of the Prime Minister that this was an unusual Motion. It was unusual as regards both the Bill to which it related and the time at which it was brought forward. The time was most inappropriate, for the reason that a Reform Bill which was to alter very materially the electorate of this country ought to be brought forward in the lest session of an old Parliament rather than in the first of a new one. Not only was this the first session of a new Parliament, but it was an autumn extension of a first session, a thing which in itself was almost unprecedented. Therefore to bring forward a Reform Bill in an unusual autumn session in the first year of a new Parliament was an unprecedented proceeding, and if a course so unprecedented was adopted at all it ought to be adopted in a broad-minded, fair, and reasonable manner. There were many anomalies in the present electoral system which ought to be carefully considered and if possible removed, and if this anomaly of plural voting had been embodied in a Bill dealing with all the

  1275
  anomalies of our electoral laws he was not prepared to say that he would not have voted for it. But the Government had picked out this one anomaly and embodied it in a Bill which they wished to pass into law in order that they might gerrymander the constituencies, and especially the county constituencies, in their own interests. If the Bill were passed it would have the effect of taking away a great many voters in constituencies already small, while other constituencies which were a good deal larger than they ought to be were left alone. That the present electoral system worked unfairly was made quite clear by a Question addressed to the Prime Minister earlier in the afternoon. Those who sat in opposition represented three times as many electors as those who sat on the Ministerial benches below the gangway, and under these circumstances the Plural Voting Bill was the last Bill in the world to which such a Resolution as this should be applied. Another reason why further time should be allowed for the consideration of this Bill was the admission of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it, during the earlier stages of the Bill, that a large portion of it was unworkable and that a great many Amendments would have to be made in it. The right hon. Gentleman had found it necessary practically to redraft the measure—to bring before the House on the Report stage such a largo number of Amendments as practically to alter its character. That was an unanswerable reason why a larger amount of time should be allowed for the Report. It was, he supposed, quite impossible now to persuade the Prime Minister to withdraw the Motion, but he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to allow a little further time, and suggested that if three or four days were allowed instead of two they would be able at once to get to the discussion of the Bill itself.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the unusual course of immediately following his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition everybody supposed that he was prepared with a case that would shatter the arguments of his right hon. friend, but that was not so. The Prime Minister in moving his Motion relied on authority
  1276
  because there was no precedent for the course which he pursued. Never before had closure by compartments been applied by any Government to more than one Bill in one session. It had been applied originally only when urgently needed. Then it was applied to the principal measure of the year when it became evident that that measure could not be carried even with an autumn session, and it was against such a case that no one so violently protested as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. The right hon. Gentleman talked about blood and thunder, but if anybody contrasted the closely reasoned and courteously presented speech of the Leader of the Opposition with the method which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought applicable to totally different circumstances when such procedure was necessary in order to prevent the whole legislation of the House being brought to naught at the end of the session, they would see that there was no blood and thunder so far as his right hon. friend was concerned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1904 did not condescend to arguments.
  MR. ASQUITH: What was the Bill?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the Bill was the Licensing Bill. The right hon. Gentleman devoted several long passages of his speech to showing how important the Bill was and how it affected the whole country; that it was the Bill of the session; and he complained of this procedure being applied to it but he did not condescend to argue the matter.
  MR. ASQUITH: At what stage of the Bill was the closure applied?
  MR. WYNDHAM: After it became evident that no other business could be done and that that business could not be done.
  MR. ASQUITH: It was in the early stages of the Committee.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the interruptions of the right hon. Gentleman did not refute his (Mr. Wyndham's) argument that this method of procedure should be applied once only in the course

  1277
  of a Parliamentary year and to the principal Bill of the year. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman described it as "an outrage to the dignity of the House of Commons," but when the Leader of the Opposition in a moderately worded speech pointed out that this was not directed against a principal, but a secondary Bill, the right hon. Gentleman accused his right hon. friend of indulging in blood and thunder. When the right hon. Gentleman was confronted with a far less drastic interference with the liberty of debate when in opposition, he said the Government could not complain of any difficulty in getting through their business because criticism must bear come proportion to the area of criticisable matter. The Government were now dealing with a far more drastic procedure, and he (Mr. Wyndham) also said that their criticism must bear some proportion to the criticisable matter. What did that matter consist of? It consisted of an adopted, or as the right hon. Gentleman termed it, an adapted Bill which, the Government had taken over from a private Member.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman knew quite well that this Bill would have been taken two or three weeks ago had it not been for the unfortunate illness of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. WYNDHAMasked whether they were to understand that the Land Tenure Bill and the Town Tenants Bill would not have been carried through by the Government if the right hon. Gentleman had been present to conduct this Bill.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he was explaining why it was they took them before this Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid they would have been taken after. Having dealt with all the Government business the House was then to be invited on the eve of Christmas to deal with private Members' Bills. They had to deal with facts as they found them. Here were measures introduced by private Members, which had to be re-drafted from the first line to the last, occupying their attention day after day and week after week, and then the Government said they were under
  1278
  the necessity of allowing only two days to the Report stage of one of their own Bills. It upset all one's notions as to the conduct of parents, and if parents had so behaved towards their offspring in days past Solomon's wisdom could not have rested upon the incident that was connected with his name. The Government had added to the time allocated for the discussion of two Bills brought in by private Members, but when the Government came to their own child the Chancellor of the Exchequer said they were prepared to deal with it in a rough and ready manner. It appeared that the Government cared more for the two private Members' Bills than for their own Bill. He thought that was rather ungracious of the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards his colleague. In this Bill there was a considerable area of criticisable matter. The Prime Minister had urged against them that they were quarrelling with Amendments put down to meet their wishes. That was not so at all— at least it was not so in any great measure. The bulk of the Amendments, or at any rate the voluminous Amendment, was called for by the fact that the Government found their original Bill would not work at all. They talked about a Plural Voting Bill, but when it was discussed in Committee it turned out to be not a Plural Voting Bill but a Bill to deal with a man who had a dual qualification, and because they had drafted the Bill upon those lines they found that they would disfranchise altogether a number of men who had a vote. The Government discovered that a man with one vote, if he subsequently secured another vote, would be disfranchised altogether and lose, not one vote out of two, but the vote he had originally. It was because of the fundamental objection to the method in which the Government treated the problem that they had to recast their measure and put down this voluminous Amendment which they wished to be hurried through without adequate discussion. Since the Amendments had been put down not as a favour to the Opposition, but because the Government Bill was not much better drafted than the private Members' Bills for which they had made themselves responsible, and since the Government were applying a

  1279
  method to a Reform Bill for which there was no precedent, he wished the Opposition could emulate the indignation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed on a previous occasion. He would conclude as the right hon. Gentleman concluded, but for far better reasons—
  "Is the House prepared at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman to take this last step on the road to humiliation and impotence? I trust it is not. At any rate, it is to save ourselves from an ignominous surrender of our privileges and to save those who come after us from a disastrous precedent that the right hon. Gentleman moved the Amendment."
  He trusted the Opposition would have equal courage with far greater cause.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONprotested against the procedure of the Government. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given the slightest reason for forcing on the guillotine; nor had they disclosed the business they intended taking during the remainder of the autumn sittings. He could not help thinking the reason for this was that the Government intended to make an early appeal to the country, and before the next general election they wished to disqualify a few voters who were opposed to them. It might be that the reason was the health of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. They had all regretted his absence, and were glad to see him back among them; but he did not see why the right hon. Gentleman's health should be a reason for applying the guillotine to the measure. There were the names of other right hon. Members on the back of the Bill. There was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance. He had taken a part in the discussion and he probably might be able to sit up with them for one or two nights while they thrashed out a few little details. The way the Bill was going to be forced through the House was an example of how legislation should not be carried out. The measure was probably one of the worst drafted that had ever been before the House of Commons. When the Report stage was concluded the Bill would become nearly twice as long as it was when first introduced. He very much doubted whether it ever would be made a workable Bill. The right hon.
  1280
  Gentleman in charge of it had had to put down Amendment after Amendment in the effort to make it workable—a most extraordinary proceeding. He would suggest that for the benefit of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman should accept a few of the Amendments which he had put on the Paper. At any rate they would make the Bill much more workable. The measure as it stood imposed a penalty upon men who owned property. It had always been said that taxation should go with representation, but the policy of the Government in this Bill was to make it a crime for a man who owned property and paid taxes in two places, to vote in two places. The reason the Government had introduced the measure and were forcing it through the House by guillotine was solely political; it was an endeavour to disfranchise political opponents. Their policy was the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade who had been going up and down the country in the capacity of a private Member inveighing against the House of Lords. The Government were following the policy dictated by the President of the Board of Trade, namely, that of piling up the agony against the House of Lords, but he hoped the Upper Chamber would show no fear.
  MR. LEIF JONESappealed to the sense of humour of Members, more especially of those who sat upon the Front Benches on both sides. This was the second time this session they had listened to this debate. It was always the same when the guillotine was proposed: the Prime Minister invariably gave as his reason, apart from the state of the business, the precedent of former speeches of the Leader of the Opposition when he was in office; the Leader of the Opposition then followed and spoke against the Motion which when. Prime Minister he had urged in exactly similar language to that used by his successor in office. The speeches were always the same for and against the Motions whichever Party was in power. This was true, but it was not very impressive, and seeing that they all knew how this debate was going to end surely they

  1281
  might be allowed to spend all the time in considering the Bill itself. He intended to vote against the Resolution, because he did not think it was the proper way to deal with legislation. He voted against closure by compartments on the Education Bill. This was not perhaps a very strong case; for 111 Amendments had been put down dealing with questions which had already been discussed in Committee. He thought that that matter required to be dealt with, but instead of taking steps to meet that difficulty the Government had adopted this clumsy method. Under the system of closure important matters would leave the House wholly undiscussed, and it was the duty of the Government to see that all measures were fully discussed and all important Amendments dealt with. The responsibility could not be thrown upon the Opposition. It was the duty of the Government of the day so to revise the rules of procedure that their measures might be properly dealt with by the House, and so long as they relied upon closure by compartments so long would he feel constrained to vote against them. The case of the closure of the Licensing Bill had been properly described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as an outrage, for that Act would never have been passed without the closure, and he thought the present Bill could have been got through without resorting to this Resolution. He hoped this clumsy weapon would not be used another session, and in order to impress that matter upon the Government, he intended to go the full length of voting against the Motion, and he appealed to the Government not again to place him in that unpleasant position.
  SIR. E. CARSONsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken had appealed to the sense of humour of the House, but he could hardly have done that unless his own sense of humour had also been appealed to. The chief reason he had put forward why this discussion should be closed was that they knew how it was going to end. The hon. Member's idea of how the Opposition should act seemed to be that they ought to consider how a debate was going to
  1282
  end, and the moment they made up their mind on that point they ought to stop all discussion. In that case the Members of the Opposition might as well all go home. No doubt that would be a convenient thing for the Government, and it might suit those who like the hon. Member opposite supported the Government upon all occasions except when they knew how the debate was going to end. Upon such occasions the hon. Member for the Appleby Division appeared as a valiant defender of the rights of the House. But even that show of strength the hon. Member opposite displayed with a good deal of misgiving, because he was afraid that the Opposition had not got a very strong case. He contended that they had a very strong case, and he would like the hon. Member opposite to recall any occasion upon which the Government of the day had ventured to closure by compartments two Bills in the same session. During the time he had been a Member of Parliament he did not recollect such a proceeding. In all cases up to the present it had always been laid down that the drastic measure of closure by compartments and the consequent stifling of debate was only justified in relation to the main measure of the session. Those who were laying down this new procedure should not forget that, although they were now in a majority, the time might come when they would be in a minority, and then they would find this weapon used against them in a manner which would make them regret the new precedent they were now creating. It was the very first time a Government had applied this drastic remedy for the second time in one session. He had never known a case before where the Government had thought it necessary on the Report stage to more than double the length of their Bill. The Government Amendments alone would take very nearly the whole time allotted to the Report stage. Seldom, if ever, had there been brought forward a measure which took the form this Bill would assume by the number of new clauses which had been put down on the Paper by the Government. No doubt he would be told that these Amendments had been put down to meet certain objections raised in Committee, but he

  1283
  could not believe that the Government had put them all down simply for the convenience of their opponents. They had been put down because the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill knew perfectly well that without such Amendments the Bill would be not only absolutely unworkable but unfair. When the Bill was discussed in Committee it was treated as a measure merely to put an end to plural voting, but they had now discovered that it was a Bill to disfranchise all those who by good or bad luck happened to possess two qualifications. The right hon. Gentleman had been compelled under stress of criticism to put these Amendments down. The first clause to be proposed showed clearly that six or seven different matters had been purposely omitted from the Bill as originally introduced, and they were all points which would have disfranchised a man because he happened to be the owner of two qualifications. Under those circumstances what was the use of the hon. Member opposite telling the House that the Opposition had not a strong case? When these points were raised in Committee the Government promised to see what could be done on Report, and when the Opposition pressed the right hon. Gentleman to put down his Amendments during the Committee stage he told them to wait until the Report stage. And now when they had reached the Report stage they were told that ample opportunities had been given them during the Committee stage, and that was good enough for them. By the guillotine process, or by what was called the curtailment of debate, the Government were going to prevent them discussing those very matters which they had promised the Opposition would be dealt with upon the Report stage In reference to private Member's Bills the Government deprived the House of the Committee Stage, and in relation to their own Bills they were going to deprive the House of the Report stage. He and his friends resented this curtailment of their right of discussion of a Bill of this kind in all its stages and to the fullest extent. At the best it was an aggravating Bill. It was idle to tell them that the people of this country were going to sit down and allow them-
  1284
  selves to be disfranchised without the fullest opportunity being given for the discussion of the Bill. If there was any course the Government could take which was more likely than another to irritate the people it was to tell them at the same time that their purpose was to diminish even the small numbers which their opponents already had in this House though they represented a large body of electors in the country, and that they were determined to perform this task by making use of their commanding majority to stifle debate on a question which of all others should be fully discussed.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the debate had been a delightful contrast to the debates they had had in the last two or three sessions. The Opposition were now getting a dose of the medicine prepared from their own prescription. Where were the Unionist Members when in the last Parliament the then Opposition protested against closure by compartments? Where then were their cares about the freedom of debate? Everyone of them voted for the the guillotine proposals introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. He and other Liberal Members had told hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were forging a weapon which would one day be used against them, but it had no influence whatever, and on every occasion they voted for the right hon. Gentleman's closure Motions irrespective of the merits of the proposal. [OPPOSITION cries, of "No."] Therefore he had little sympathy with these belated appeals for freedom of debate. Personally, he had never favoured the principle of the guillotine. It was a bad principle. Some vital points in a great measure were bound to be shut out of discussion. But what wore the alternatives? The Liberal Party had suggested that as the House was too congested to discuss in detail the great measures the country expected them to consider, local affairs should be delegated to local assemblies, and that the House of Commons should be kept for purely Imperial questions. There would then be no need for the guillotine. But the Opposition would not discuss that solution. The other alternatives were

  1285
  to sit up all night, or drop the Bill. The first proposal was not satisfactory, and he thought the Government must go on with the Bill. If they did not carry out the programme which they were returned to fulfil, the country would hold them responsible. He did not think the Government could do anything else than bring forward this proposal. The present Bill was not a complicated Bill, but he would have preferred a simpler measure of one or two lines at most. The Amendments raised no new subject; they were simply a rehash of what had been discussed in Committee. He thought the Government had been ill-advised in not giving time to put down Amendments to the Motion, but after all, the Leader of the Opposition used to do the same thing. He believed the great mass of the people were in favour of the principle of the Bill, and the House ought to support the Government in carrying it through.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked whether the Government could not give one more day to the Report stage. The Prime Minister in introducing the Motion stated that the principle of the Bill was simple, but that the machinery was difficult. It was because the machinery was so difficult that hon. Members had fought the Bill as they had done. Why could not the First Commissioner of Works have brought in a simple measure? He could have brought in a Bill stating that it would be illegal for an elector to vote twice. In his speech on the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman himself said that he did not anticipate that plural voters would break the law by voting twice. If that was so, why have all the complicated machinery which the Bill proposed to set up? There were on the Order Paper eighteen pages of new clauses and Amendments, and he found that fifteen pages of Amendments circled round the question of "notice." The reason for that was that hon. Members were anxious to protect the lights of voters. Voters were careless, and they expected their votes to be looked after for them. The machinery of the Bill made it obligatory for the voter to look after himself, and if he did not do so he would run the chance of losing his vote altogether. The Leader of the Opposi-
  1286
  tion had appealed to the Prime Minister to tell the House what the programme of the Government was for the rest of the session. It would be convenient if they knew what time was to be given for future Bills. He could say for the Opposition that they would not obstruct the Workmen's Compensation Bill. That measure was based largely on the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the last Government. It was not contentious, and he did not think that it ought to occupy more than three or four days. He hoped the Government would state some reason why one more day could not be given to the Plural Voting Bill. It was of importance that a Bill which they considered a disfranchising Bill should be thoroughly discussed. They were only doing their duty to their constituents and to working men who were entitled to vote in more than one constituency when they asked that their rights should be safeguarded.
  MR. FELLsaid that the Prime Minister had stated that the principle of the Bill was simple, but that the machinery was complicated and presented great difficulties. He agreed, and if anyone consulted election agents and returning officers, he would find that in their opinion the proper working of the Bill was impossible. What he complained of in the Resolution was that a great many of the Amendments which hon. Members had put down, including one by himself, would never be reached, discussed, or even divided upon. That was a great hardship to the Opposition [Cries of "Divide."]
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYmoved to amend the Resolution so as to give four allotted days to the Report stage instead of two. The Government did not seem to have been impressed by the arguments of their own supporters. It should be remembered that most of even the Governments Amendments came in at the end of Clause 1 of the Bill, and the time allotted did not give hon. Members an opportunity of seeing whether those Amendments really carried out the intentions of the House. He seriously appealed to the Government to give more time for the Report stage. He by

  1287
  his Amendment asked for two more days; but if that was too much to aspire to, the right hon. Gentleman might grant one day. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 1, to leave out the word 'two' and insert the word 'four.' "—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Question."
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDon a point of order, asked whether an hon. Member could make a speech on the principle of a Resolution and then make another speech on the principle on an Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that practice was in order and had been followed in all cases of debate on the procedure of the House.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he was sorry that the Government could not respond to the appeal which the hon. Gentleman had made with moderation. They had considered most carefully all the Amendments and were quite satisfied that if any Amendments which had been already discussed at length in Committee were not pressed there would be ample time to discuss all the new clauses and Amendments on the Report stage. It was very disagreeable for any Government or Minister to bring forward Resolutions of this kind.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting a rather novel form of procedure when he said that the Government in deciding how much time should be accorded for discussion of Amendments on the Report stage considered that certain Amendments had been fully discussed in Committee, and that if they were not pressed there would be ample time for the discussion of the other Amendments. Large questions of principle were properly brought under review at the Report stage no matter whether or not they had been fully discussed in Committee. The discussion of these
  1288
  matters had not been unduly prolonged having regard to the large number of electors who were going to be disfranchised and the complicated nature of the machinery of the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that in previous discussions he had found some fault with the machinery of the Bill and had offered some suggestions making it automatic in a large number of cases, leaving the system ingeniously invented by his right hon. friend to work only in a small number of cases. The reason why he did not press his plan was that he recognised it would involve the reconstruction of the Bill. He did not like the enormous length of the Amendments of his right hon. friend dealing with the principle on which the Bill was to be worked, but he thought that they were an absolute redemption of the promises made by the right hon. Gentleman to hon. Members on both sides of the House. There was an alternative plan of dealing with the Amendments which he confessed the Government would have done well to follow, although for some time past that system had dropped out of use. It was that when such a Bill was passed through Committee the Government should immediately ask leave to have it recommitted pro forma in order to incorporate all their Amendments in the Bill and have the Bill printed with them inserted. In that way the House was able to see more easily than now whether the promises the Government had made in regard to Amendments had been carried out. He could not oppose the course the Government had taken merely because the principle of his suggestion had not been frankly accepted. He repeated that he regretted that the Government did not take the simple course of passing the Bill through Committee pro forma and incorporating their Amendments, but he did not in consequence oppose the policy which they had adopted, because he was sure that their Amendments redeemed the promise they had made. The not effect of the Bill would be that while, on the one hand, it was most ingeniously framed for carrying out the scheme of the light hon. Gentlemen, on the other hand, its enforcement would take place chiefly in

  1289
  the case of those electors who yielded to the law, because it would be very difficult to enforce in the case of those who resisted it. His objection to the Bill was that it would be even more costly to work effectively than it was before the Amendments were introduced. The extreme complications caused by even the very excellencies of the scheme were their real objections to the Bill. But he could not expect support for his own views, because they were more hostile to the
  opinions of hon. Gentleman opposite than the provisions of the Bill. Therefore he end his friends could not do more than accept the Bill and the Amendments of the Government in the belief that they had fully redeemed by them the proposals they had made.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 316; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 434.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Agnew, George William

  Clough, William

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Alden, Percy

  Clynes, J. R.

  Glover, Thomas

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Collins, Stephen (Lamboth)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Astbury, John Meir

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Halpin, J.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Barker, John

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cox, Harold

  Harwood, George

  Barnard, E. B.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Crean, Eugene

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Crombie, John William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B.(Hexham)

  Crooks, William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Benn, W. (T'w'r H'mls, S. George)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Bertram, Julius

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Billson, Alfred

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hogan, Michael

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)

  Dillon, John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Boland, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Duffy, William J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brace, William

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hudson, Walter

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Branch, James

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Elibank, Master of

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Brunner, J. L. F. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.

  Erskine, David C.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jenkins, J.

  Bryce, J. A (Inverness Burghs)

  Essex, R. W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jowett, F. W.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Joyce, Michael

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Findlay, Alexander

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Cairns, Thomas

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lambert, George

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lamont, Norman

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  O'Malley, William

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Mara, James

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lough, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strauss, E. A (Abingdon)

  Lundon, W.

  Paul, Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Summerbell, T.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Maclean, Donald

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset, E.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Thorne, William

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Toulmin, George

  M'Crae, George

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Radford, G. H.

  Ure, Alexander

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Verney, F. W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wallace, Robert

  Massie, J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Rees, J. D.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Menzies, Walter

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wardle, George J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Mond, A.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradford)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robinson, S.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whitbread, Howard

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rose, Charles Day

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Morse, L. L.

  Rowlands, J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Runciman, Walter

  Whitchead, Rowland

  Murnaghan, George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Murray, James

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Myer, Horatio

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Napier, T. B.

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne)

  Williamson, A.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wilson, J. H (Middlesbrough)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Winfrey, R.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Young, Samuel

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sinclair, Rt Hon. John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  O'Grady, J.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cave, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lord.)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S. Edm'ds)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Hills, J. W.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  1292

  1293

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Moore, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Younger, George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

  Nield, Herbert

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Starkey, John R.

  Percy, Earl

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to omit the words "or if that day is a Friday, at 5 p.m." His reason for moving the Amendment was that in regard to such an important Bill they should have a full Parliamentary day of seven hours in which to consider the Third Reading, especially in view of the fact that the Report stage would have been curtailed to such short dimensions. Not only was it desirable to have a full Parliamentary day, but Friday was a very inconvenient day, as they knew, and especially in the case of autumn sittings, hon. Members found it convenient to leave the House at two or three o'clock.
  Amendment proposed,—
  "In line 24, to leave out the words ' or if that day is a Friday, at 5 p.m.'"—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he accepted the Amendment. He quite agreed that Friday would be an inconvenient day upon which to take the Third Reading of so important a measure.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words omitted.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 320; Noes, 87. (Division List No. 435.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bethed, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Billson, Alfred

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Agnew, George William

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clough, William

  Alden, Percy

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Boland, John

  Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brace, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Branch, James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Corbett, CH.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Barker, John

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)

  Cox, Harold

  Barnard, E. B.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crean, Eugene

  Beauchamp, E.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Crombie, John William

  Beaumont, Hn W. C. B.(Hexham)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crooks, William

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.)

  Benn, W (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Bertram, Julius

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Dillon, John

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Duffy, William J.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lambert, George

  Price, Robt. John (Norfolk, E.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Radford, G. H.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Pea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Essex, R. W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lough, Thomas

  Rees, J. D.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lundon, W.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Fenwick, Charles

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Markarness, Frederic C.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Maclean, Donald

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Macnamara, Dr, Thomas J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Robinson, S.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Crae, George

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Runciman, Walter

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Marnham, F. J.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Massie, J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Meagher, Michael

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Halpin, J.

  Menzies, Walter

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mond, A.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Harwood, George

  Mooney, J. J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morse, L. L.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murray, James

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Myer, Horatio

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Napier, T. B.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Summerbell, T.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Hogan, Michael

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Thorne, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Toulmin, George

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Grady, J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Ure, Alexander

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Verney, F. W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  Walker, H. Do R. (Leicester)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Mara, James

  Wallace, Robert

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Paul, Herbert

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  1296

  1297

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Wardle, George J.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Winfrey, R.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Young, Samuel

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Williams, T. (Glamorgan)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Williamson, A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Percy, Earl

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury, S. Edm'ds)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bockett, Hon. Gervase

  Hills, J. W.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Starkey, John R.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Keswick, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cave, George

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. A. E.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Moore, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolved: —"That two allotted days be given to the Report stage of the Plural Voting Bill, and that the proceedings on new clauses, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day, and that the remaining proceedings on the Bill and the Schedule and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day. Any day after this Order comes into operation on which the Plural Voting Bill is put down as the first Order of the day, shall be considered as an allotted day for the purposes of this Order. At 10.30 p.m. on an allotted day, the Speaker shall, if the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on that day have not already boon brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question
  1298
  or Questions on any new clause, Amendment, or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next, so far as is necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded on that day, proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any new clauses or Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other clauses or Amendments), and on any other question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the clause be added to the Bill, as the case may be. At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as the first Order of the day, the Speaker shall put forthwith any question necessary to conclude the proceedings on that stage of the

  1299
  Bill. Proceedings to which this Order relates shall not, on an allotted day, be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House. On an allotted day and on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as the first Order of the day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion for recommitment of the Bill, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without debate."

  PLURAL VOTING BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WOPKS (Mr. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale)THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WOPKS (Mr. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale) moved a new clause to deal with cases in which electors may apply to a court for leave to select a constituency. He said that he might be making a tactical mistake in speaking immediately on his own clause, thereby sacrificing his right to reply to criticisms. But the House, no doubt, would wish him to explain as far as it was necessary the meaning of the clause, though he thought that it was evident on the face of it. One principal point to be dealt with was suggested by the right hon. Member for Dublin University, who desired that a man absent from this country or prevented by illness from making his selection at the proper time, should be enabled to put that right at a subsequent date by application to the High Court. He thought that reasonable, but put in a caveat against the High Court being the only or even the main place at which such an application should be made. Accordingly, he put in the High Court, but, as in the ease of a Latin or German sentence, one must look for the governing verb at the end, so at the end of the clause he had put in a comprehensive definition of "court." The next subsections, he hoped, were fairly intelligible, except perhaps sub-sections (f) and (g) which were designed to meet the peculiar case of the elector who had a qualification in Scotland, and in this connection it was essential
  1300
  that the words "without unreasonable delay" should be inserted, because there had never been any intention on his part to encourage people to make a late selection out of time without a reasonable and strong case for doing so. That was his interpretation of the whole clause as it stood. With reference to what had been said about the Amendments on the Paper, he had watched for a good many years the proceeding:-, and methods of those sitting on the Opposition side in opposing a measure of this kind. He had observed that when a well-informed and well-coached Opposition had been able to exact concessions designed entirely to meet their views they used those very concessions as a stick with which to beat the Minister in charge of the Bill and his colleagues. That was the usual form of gratitude shown by an Opposition, and he did not complain of it on this occasion. There had been a suggestion made that the time allotted for the consideration of this stage of the Bill had been affected by questions relating to his own health. The House would allow him to say that that had not influenced the Government in any way. He was quite sure that if the House devoted themselves to a businesslike discussion of the proposals which were brought forward largely to meet the views of hon. Gentleman opposite, he might look forward to a very pleasant evening.
  New clause—
  "(1) Where a court, within the meaning of this section, is satisfied on the application of any person made in accordance with rules of Court—(a) that he has been prevented by illness or absence beyond the seas from giving a notice of selection on or before the day required by this Act; or (b) that, since the day on or before which a notice of selection is required to be given under this Act, he has become aware that he is registered in more than one constituency; or (c) that he has given a notice of selection in a constituency in which his name is not upon the lists of voters, or in which his name has been struck off the lists of voters on revision or on appeal; or (d) that he has given a notice of selection in manner required by this Act, and that his name has not been marked on the register in accordance with that selection; or (e) that he has given a notice of selection, but that through inadvertence or ignorance he has given the notice in respect of the wrong constituency or to the wrong clerk; or (f) that having been registered in one constituency only at the commencement of the calendar year, he is about to be registered or

  1301
  has become registered before the end of the calendar year in more than one constituency owing to the inclusion of his name in a Scottish Parliamentary register which comes into force on the first of November in that year; or (g) that having selected a constituency in Scotland he has ceased or will cease before the end of the calendar year to be on the register of the selected constituency; and that there has been no unreasonable delay in making the application, the court may by order allow the applicant to select for the purpose of this Act the constituency specified in the order. (2) The clerk of the county council or town clerk responsible for printing the Parliamentary register of the selected constituency shall act in accordance with any such order of the court as if the | order wore a notice of selection given within the time required by this Act, and if the register has come into force shall transmit a copy of the order to the sheriff or returning officer having the custody of the register, and the sheriff or returning officer shall make the necessary mark on the register. (3) For the purpose of this section "court" means the High Court or a court of summary jurisdiction or county court having jurisdiction in the constituency which the applicant under this section desires to select."—(Mr. Harcourt.)—
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that, as far as he could make out, there appeared to be one vital omission from the clause, and that was the case where the elector made no selection at all. There were many thousands of electors who would never read the Act and they would still be disfranchised.; He did not say that the right hon. Gentleman had not fulfilled all his promises, but he thought some provision ought to be made for the elector who was suddenly warned that he had not made a selection and who had omitted to do so in ignorance of the law.
  Clause read the second time.
  MR. LUKE WHITE*MR. LUKE WHITE (Yorkshire, E.R., Buckrose) moved to leave out the opening lines of the clause, and to insert words allowing an elector to make a statutory declaration instead of having to go to a court. As one who had had considerable experience of registration work in counties he thought 5th September a very early
  1302
  date on which to ask the elector to nuke a selection on the register for the following year. He had no doubt a great many cases would arise in which a voter would find he was registered in more than one constituency. In the case of a man finding himself registered in two constituencies it might happen that in one of them he had no qualification, but had been left on by the overseers and put on for a residence which he occupied in the new constituency. In such a case it ought to be sufficient for the voter to state the fact in the statutory declaration. The Amendment would make the matter much more simple, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept his proposal in order to make this question of selection simple and easy.
  LORD ROBERT CECILformally seconded.
  Amendment proposed to the clause—
  "To leave out lines 1 and 2, and insert the words, 'Whenever an elector shall have made and transmitted to the clerk of the county council or town clerk responsible for printing the Parliamentary register of the selected constituency a statutory declaration made by him, stating.' "—(Mr. Luke White.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'where a court' stand part of the clause."
  MR. HARCOURTregretted he could not accept the Amendment. He attached considerable importance to the voter having to go, except in the case of a final emergency on polling day, before a court—the court being now a bench of magistrates or a police court—because they, if they had reason for doubt, could satisfy themselves of the bona fides of the application and that there had been no unreasonable delay. If power of selection was given, after the given date, it was important that it should be given in that way. The expense was small, the cost of a statutory declaration was about 1s. 6d., and the cost of an order from a bench of magistrates would only be about 2s. 6d.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to accept this Amendment. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman did not quite realise what

  1303
  was meant by expense to the electors. It was not merely the cost of getting a statutory declaration or an order of court. The right hon. Gentleman must remember there was often entailed in attending a court considerable expense in the shape of loss of time, and in the case of rural or county voters the grievance would be very real. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter, because he was for the first time putting electors in a difficult position. The Amendment only suggested that if a voter found himself in a particular position he should be provided with a means of getting out of his difficulty.
  MR. WALLACEexpressed his conviction that the House would never consent to make the county council clerk or the town clerk a judicial officer and to leave them to determine whether or not there had been unreasonable delay, which was apparently what the right hon. Gentleman desired. The determining authority must be a judicial authority. If the words "unreasonable delay" were left out altogether and the voter allowed to make a declaration when he pleased, the question of a judicial authority would not arise, but in that case there would be another difficulty, because the elector then would leave it to the last day before he sent in his declaration. He thought under all the circumstances the House would be unwilling to accept the Amendment.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken seemed to assume that this Amendment was an attempt to enable an elector to obtain a vote; on the contrary, it was an attempt to prevent his being disfranchised. If a man, admittedly, had two qualifications, either of which entitled him to vote, surely it was not going too far to say that if under this Bill he sent in a declaration the declaration ought to be sufficient to give him, not a vote, but a selection as to the constituency in which he was to vote. Every hon. Member would agree if a man was only to vote in one constituency he should be allowed to vote in the one he selected. This Amendment went a little further and
  1304
  said that before an election the voter might by statutory declaration state in what constituency he wished to vote, The circumstances under which this question would arise were circumstances for which the voter was not to blame, and it was to secure the voter against those circumstances that the Amendment was moved. Surely if no blame attached to the voter under the five or six circumstances mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, they ought to make it as easy as possible for a gentleman who had the misfortune to be doubly qualified to record his vote once. The right hon. Gentleman had said the expenses would be trivial. He (Sir Edward) did not see why any expense at all should be put upon a man who had two qualifications and who wanted to exercise one of them. It was quite sufficient to take away one of the qualifications without putting any expense on the elector. Besides that, the expense might not be so trivial. In his own case he had had up to the present a vote in England and a vote in Ireland. If he was going to be deprived of one of them, would it not be unreasonable, if through illness or some other reason he had not selected, that he should have to go over to the County of Dublin to appear before a bench of magistrates or some other court? And this was to cost him only 1s. 6d.! The thing was too absurd. Surely a statutory declaration of the constituency in which a man intended to vote, in a case like that, should be sufficient. If the plural vote was abolished, it ought to be abolished in the most reasonable way. The truth was the Bill was framed in such a way as to throw every obstacle in the way of the man who had two qualifications, and to upset the entire basis on which the franchise laws of this country had been framed. Up to the present, it had always been considered that the list once settled by the revising barrister would be final. He thought the Bill ought to be so framed that all this should take place before the revising barrister. In future when the lists were settled and signed by the revising barrister, they were to be tampered with by the town clerk, and after he had finished with them a great expense was to be put on the voter in making an application to the

  1305
  High Court or the county court, and evidence had to be produced before the town clerk that all these formalities had been complied with. A more cumbrous procedure to take a vote from a man it was impossible to conceive. The Amendment was an absolutely fair proposal. All it said was that when a man had been precluded through circumstances over which he had no control from making a selection that select on might be made by a statutory declaration. Could anything be more unreasonable than to put expense on the voter in such a case? He hoped no difficulty would be put in the way of a man making a selection even up to a late hour.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid the right hon. Gentleman had complained that he had not gone far enough in his Amendment, but the Amendment went far beyond the right hon. Gentleman's own suggestion. The only point in the right hon. Gentleman's argument would be met by the statement which he (Mr. Harcourt) ought to have made in his previous remarks, that he intended to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex, whom he was glad to see back in his place.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid the hon. and learned Member for Perth and others on the Ministerial side of the House who had spoken against this Amendment seemed to think it was an easy matter to go before the courts of summary jurisdiction in this country. He should like to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the courts of summary jurisdiction in the rural districts very often sat only once a month. He had no doubt that they would, under the present proposals of the Bill, shortly have more experience of these courts than they possessed at present. A court with which he was personally connected sat in a rural district only once a month. There is very little crime in the neighbourhood, and very often they got the business done in three quarters of an hour. Unless a voter could attend during the three-quarters of an hour once a month he would have to go to town in order to make his selection, which, through no fault of his own, he had been prevented from making at the
  1306
  proper time. He hoped right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would consider the great difficulty there would be in the rural districts when making these claims before the courts. It might often occur that the selection had not been made, or that the discovery that a voter had more than one qualification was only made after the last opportunity of attending the petty sessional court had passed. Had the elector in order to secure his right to vote to journey to town and make his claim before the High Court? The right hon. Gentleman had accused them of ingratitude. He would like respectfully to remind the right hon. Gentleman that they were not finding fault with the fact that he had or had not made the concessions he promised, but with the fact that he had refused a very good Amendment coming from his own side of the House. He did not think the question of gratitude or ingratitude for promised concessions came into the matter at all. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the difficulty which would arise owing to the very rare intervals in which petty sessional courts sat in the rural districts and that he would add some words to meet the difficulty, which was a very real one.
  MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid that unless it was desired to destroy the object of the Bill it was impossible to accept this Amendment. It would involve the exercise of the judicial faculty on the question whether or not there had been unreasonable delay, and the person who was to exercise this judicial discretion, according to the Amendment, would be the person who had been guilty of delay. As he understood the Amendment, all that was required was that a declaration should be made in order that the person concerned might be treated in the same manner as if the notice of selection had been given within the time required by the Act. The proposal was not that the clerk of the county council or the town clerk should have any right to decide as to whether there had been any unreasonable delay. All that the person had to do was to make a statutory declaration that in his opinion he had not been guilty of unreasonable delay, and the moment he had made that declaration he was to be relieved from the consequences which otherwise would result from not having

  1307
  made the selection in time. Every person who had been guilty of delay would find some reason for making this statutory declaration, and there would be an end of the whole matter. They might have a printed form in which the voter would simply have to make a statutory declaration that he had not been guilty of unreasonable delay, and the effect of that would be to make the whole process of selection a nullity.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. and learned Member had made an ingenious contribution to the debate. He had left the House under the impression that the subject matter of the statutory declaration was whether there had been reasonable or unreasonable delay. But everyone of these statutory declarations, besides containing a statement that there had been no unreasonable delay, would state that the voter had failed to make his selection because of a reason outside of and beyond his own control. The number of cases in which there could be unreasonable delay must be very small, so small that he could not see how the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill attached importance to the adding of these words. They were really not very important words. He did not think that unnecessary obstacles should be put in the path of those who wished to use their votes in selected constituencies.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he took it that this Amendment must be considered in connection with another Amendment which the hon. Member for the Buckrose Division Intended to move later. Reading the two Amendments together, it was clear that the hon. Member did not contemplate leaving discretion to any person. He thought the procedure suggested by the Amendment would save the voter journeys, expense for professional assistance, worry, and loss of time, and it certainly would be as effective as what was proposed in the new clause. The application to the court would be something in the nature of a form. The court would accept the statutory declaration of the voter in every case. If the voter made a false declaration he would do so with all the penalties of perjury before his eyes. He could not understand why the Government were unable to accept the Amendment.
  MR. NIELDsaid that not only in the courts of summary jurisdiction but especially in the county courts there was already great congestion. The county courts were constantly having additional work put upon them, and Judges were constantly protesting that they were unable to get through the work. It had been argued that these applications would only be made at certain times of the year, and that it would be easy to hold special courts for dealing with them. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would consult the County Court Judges, he would find that it was impossible for them to grant additional facilities. It was a fact that already the courts were held as frequently as it was possible, and there was no prospect of the Judges being able so to rearrange their circuits as to give additional courts at the time when the burden of the work under this Act would fall upon them. Besides, September and the early part of October were regarded as the vacation period, as was the case with the High Court. Many of these tribunals were only able to be held in the same place at intervals of a month, and in some places six weeks, while courts of petty sessions were, as had been stated, only held in parts of the country once a month. He submitted that this difficult and complicated work should not be put on courts which were already sufficiently occupied. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept this reasonable Amendment. By doing so he would act in the interest of those whom he desired to see exercising the vote once.
  MR. BOWLESsaid that the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on this Bill had long ago accustomed those on the Opposition benches to the idea that they regarded the plural voter as a person altogether out of the ordinary—as a man, in some respects a public enemy, who was to be hedged round in the exercise of his vote by provisions which did not apply to any other voter in the community. But recently they had been informed by right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite that, not only was the plural voter a public enemy, but a kind of a man who would make a false statutory declaration, and from whom perjury

  1309
  was to be seriously anticipated. He really thought that Ministerialists had not altogether appreciated the effect of this Amendment. This was not the case of any man asking for more than one vote or for anything to which he was not entitled; but he was asking that if, through no fault of his own, he, an innocent man, appeared on more than one register he should not be entirely deprived of all voting power at an election. He maintained that a man in that position was entitled to serious and sympathetic consideration; and instead of the Government making it as difficult as possible for a man to exercise his right to vote it should be made as easy and cheap as possible. What was asked was that a man who found himself in serious danger of being unable to exercise his electoral right
  by inadvertence or error should be allowed, instead of going to a court at considerable expense, to correct the mistake or inadvertence by making a statutory declaration. A false statutory declaration carried with it all the penalties of perjury. If the right hon. Gentleman would not accept this Amendment it would be very difficult for the Opposition and the country to resist the conclusion that the Bill had been dictated not from the view of general public advantage, but for the disfranchisement of those men who had the great misfortune to possess at the present moment a double or triple electoral qualification. He thought the Amendment was reasonable.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 295: Noes, 60. (Division List No. 436.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Essex, R. W.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Agnew, George William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Alden, Percy

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ferens, T. R.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Cairns, Thomas

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Baker, Joseph E. (Finsbury, A.)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Barker, John

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Clough, William

  Glover, Thomas

  Barnard, E. B.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Barnes, G. N.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Beale, W. P.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

  Halpin, J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Bertram, Julius

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

  Cox, Harold

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Billson, Alfred

  Crombie, John William

  Halsam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

  Crooks, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Boland, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brace, William

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Branch, James

  Dillon, John

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Bright, J. A.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Duffy, William J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brodie, H. C.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hodge, John

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J.T. (Chesh.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Hogan, Michael.

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Montagu, E. S.

  Sears, J. E.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Mooney, J. J.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Hudson, Walter

  Morrell, Philip

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Morse, L. L.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Murray, James

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Myer, Horatio

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Napier, T. B.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Jenkins, J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Summerbell, T.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  O'Malley, William

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lambert, George

  O'Mara, James

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thorne, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Paul, Herbert

  Toulmin, George

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Ure, Alexander

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Wallace, Robert

  Lough, Thomas

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Lundon, W.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Lynch, H. B.

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkeny)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Maclean, Donald

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Whitbread, Howard

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  White, J. D. (Dumbarton shire)

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Rees, J. D.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  M'Crae, George

  Richards, T. F. (Wolver h'mpt'n

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wiles, Thomas

  M'Kean, John

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Winfrey, R.

  Marks, G. Croyon (Launceston)

  Robinson, S.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Young, Samuel

  Massie, J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Meagher, Michael

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Menzies, Walter

  Samuel, S. M. (White chapel)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. A.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Forster, Henry William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hills, J. W.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Keswick, William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Fell, Arthur

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cave, George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  1312

  1313

  Moore, William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Nield, Herbert

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Smith, P. B. (Liverpool, Walton

  Younger, George

  Percy, Earl

  Starkey, John R.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Luke White and Mr. Samuel Roberts

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  MR. NIELD*MR. NIELD moved an Amendment providing that the application to the court should be made under rules "to be hereafter made in accordance with the existing practice and in the same manner as the rules and orders at present in force in such court and regulating the procedure thereof, and duly confirmed and allowed as provided by the statutes relating; thereto." The hon. Member said the High Court was familiar, particularly in regard to electoral law, with questions of this kind, because hitherto it had been the only tribunal to deal with registration franchise and electoral questions, and the judges had laid down well-defined rules which governed applications to the court and it was the almost invariable practice, when relief was sought, to require that notice should be given in a more or less public manner. The moment, however, they left the High Court there had been no such rules framed, because there had been no such jurisdiction to exercise. The petty sessional courts had only power to deal with offences,' and there was no machinery in the courts of summary jurisdiction or in the county courts whereby it was possible that those tribunals should make rules under the new clause without such an Amendment as he now proposed. It was true that the magistrates sitting in petty sessions were entitled to make certain rules under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, but only with the consent of the Secretary of State. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be the last person to say that the magistrates sitting under the Summary Jurisdiction Act all over the country should have power to make rules which would differ in each part of the kingdom, but would agree that the rules should come up before one authority and be made uniform in all cases. It would not be desirable to have one bench making one set of rules and another bench making another. In the county court a committee of the judges sitting under
  1314
  the County Courts Act might make their rules and they were then approved by Lord Chancellor. But what he wanted was that there should be uniform rules made in accordance with the Amendment which he now moved.
  Amendment proposed to the clause—
  "In line 2, after the word 'Court,' to insert the words 'to be hereafter made in accordance with the existing practice and in the same manner as the rules and orders at present in force in such court and regulating the procedure thereof, and duly confirmed and allowed as provided by the statutes relating thereto."'—(Mr. Nield.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the clause."
  MR. HARCOURTassured the bon. Member that his Amendment was unnecessary, because the Bill as it stood carried out his object. There was no desire at all to give the power to make these rules to magistrates, and it was provided by Clause 4 of Section 14 of the Interpretation Act that where rules of the court were specified they should be the rules of the authorities for the time being authorised to make those rules. Under the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879 the rules in regard to courts of summary jurisdiction were made by the Lord Chancellor. The hon. Member had quite correctly stated the way in which rules were made in county courts, and in the High Court the Lord Chancellor made them. His words in the new clause were quite sufficient to carry out the hon. Gentleman's intention.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CAVE*MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston) moved an Amendment providing that if a voter through inadvertence or some other reasonable cause besides illness or absence beyond the seas omitted to give notice of selection within the proper time he should be able to obtain relief from the court. He thought that his Amendment raised a matter of substance.

  1315
  It was indeed the very point which was raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London on the Second Reading of the clause. The clause provided for a number of possibilities, but he thought that his Amendment was necessary in order to make it complete. If the Bill had proceeded upon the simple plan that a man should not vote in more than one place in the same year the whole of this elaborate machinery would have been unnecessary, but if, as the Government proposed, a selection of the place of voting was to be made they ought to provide that a man should not be punished who innocently voted in more than one place. He had taken the words which he proposed from the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act of 1883. Under that Act if a man committed an illegal practice without any corrupt motive he was entitled to go into court and get relief, and why, if a man who committed an illegal practice was entitled to relief, the man who made a mistake and omitted to make a claim for his franchise in time was not, he could not for the life of him understand. A man might omit to make his selection through mere forgetfulness, and it should be remembered that this selection would have to be made at a very inconvenient time, namely in September, when men were away from home on their holidays or when, having returned from their holidays, they were subjected to great pressure in their business. It was quite natural under those circumstances that a man might omit to make his selection, and he should not be disfranchised for mere forgetfulness. The Government had said that they did not wish to disfranchise the plural voter, but unless this Amendment was accepted it would be difficult to accept that assurance. Under his proposal the man would have to satisfy the court that he had been guilty of inadvertence merely and not of any unreasonable delay, and if he satisfied the court of this it seemed to him that it was only reasonable and just that he should still have power to make his selection.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYseconded the Amendment, which he said would remove the objection which he had raised on the Second Reading of the clause, when he pointed out that while the right hon. Gentle-
  1316
  man had put in many sub-sections providing for a great number of omissions he had not put in a sub-section providing for omission by reason of inadvertence. During the first four or five years after the Bill became law there would be any number of oases of inadvertence, because thousands of plural voters would not have studied the Bill or read the proceedings of the House, and unless some proposal such as this was adopted they would be disfranchised altogether. The right hon. Gentleman had stated over and over again that the Government did not intend to disfranchise anybody by this Bill, but unless they accepted this Amendment it would be very difficult for them to adhere to that statement. He agreed with his hon. friend, who with his usual clearness had put his argument very cogently, that if the Government had simply provided that the man should not vote more than once they would not have required all this machinery, which would result in people who were entitled to three or four votes having none at all. Men who by their frugality and industry had obtained property in four constituencies would not only under this Bill be disfranchised in three out of four constituencies, but unless they were careful they would be disfranchised altogether. He was opposed to the principle of the Bill, but he wished to make it a workable measure, and it was with that object in view that he supported the Amendment. A man who had more than one vote committed no crime; on the contrary, he ought to be encouraged because it showed that he had been industrious and frugal, which he thought were rather good traits, although hon. Gentlemen opposite did not seem to think so. September was, as had been pointed out, a very difficult month, because in nine cases out of ten people were away at the seaside or abroad. That certainly was the case in regard to lawyers, merchants, and people of that description, and a man after having enjoyed a short and hard-earned holiday would come back and find that having forgotten to serve the notice of selection he was disfranchised. There was no class of the community except lodgers who had to make this claim, and even now, through the careless ness of officials, as had been pointed out by the right hon. Baronet the Member for' the Forest of Dean, even they did not have to make a claim in some cases.

  1317
  Therefore it came to this, that the unfortunate plural voter was the only person who would have to make a claim. He failed to see any possible argument that could be advanced against this Amendment save that in the first place a person ought not to be inadvertent, and, secondly, that he ought to have knowledge of the law. But that brought him back to the old proposition. He wanted to make this Bill a workable Bill. Everybody must admit that nine out of every ten voters on the register had no knowledge of the law, neither did they take sufficient interest in political questions to go out of their way to got themselves placed on the register. It was one of the most difficult things in electioneering work to get people to take this trouble, yet it was now suggested that under this measure a voter was to go through all these complicated formalities in order to find out whether he was registered in Scotland and in England, whether the qualifying period in Scotland was different from that in England, and whether the result of the two periods being different might land him in having no vote at all. It was absurd. It would be admitted by everybody that inadvertence was likely to occur, and all that this Amendment asked was that the voter should he protected against his inadvertence. The fact that the voter in such a case had to go before a court of law would deter the great majority of people and prevent them taking advantage of the provision, and the right hon. Gentleman need not be much afraid that if he accepted the Amendment he would find the register flooded with plural voters who had gone before the court to remedy their inadvertence. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the clause—
  "In line 3, to leave out from the word ' that' to the end of line 5, and insert the words 'his omission to give a notice of selection within the time required by this Act is due to inadvertence, illness, or absence beyond the seas, or to some other reasonable cause of a like nature; or.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid the hon. Member would not be surprised to hear that
  1318
  this Amendment was much too wide to be accepted. It would in his view abolish selection altogether, and would be an encouragement to voters to become inadvertent. The word "inadvertence" under this Amendment was synonymous with the word "evasion," because it would encourage a man to be inadvertent till the last moment, when he could by declaration obtain his vote. The inadvertent voter was a negligent, heedless, and careless voter. He had no wish to protect him. He had in this Bill provided for those who acted in ignorance of the law, and hon. Members could not ask lor protection for a man who was merely indifferent. He knew the source from whence the hon. Member had taken these words, but there it was a case of relieving a man from a penalty and not merely in order to give him a selection. The hon. Baronet who seconded the Amendment took exception to the time at which the selection was to be made, saying that September was an inconvenient month and that the selection ought not to be made then. He would point out to the hon. Baronet that before September there were eight months in which the voter might with great deliberation make up his mind which constituency he selected and with equal deliberation write a letter and post it to the town clerk or the county council clerk giving that information. There was no obligation to wait until the 5th of September before making the selection, and it was perfectly obvious that the hon. Baronet would not wait, when the whole of the year was available for that purpose, until the middle of his holiday to make his selection. The word "inadvertent" was far too wide if it was intended to retain selection at all, and he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid the Amendment was so reasonable that while his friends were proposing it he wondered what answer the right hon. Gentleman had to it, and he felt sure that he would have to fall back upon what the Opposition considered to be the unnatural selection contained in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the inadvertent voter had no right to be considered, and that nobody was to have a vote save those who took the trouble to secure it, Why should not this apply all round? Why should this disability be put only upon the man

  1319
  who had two qualifications? He would have thought anybody in the House would have sympathy for inadvertence. These applications would be very rarely made by the voter himself. It would depend almost entirely upon the registration agents. They would make the selections, and why the right hon. Gentleman should penalise a man who through carelessness or heedlessness failed to make his application at the right time he could not understand. He thought, however, the reason was to be found in the remarks of the hon. Member for Reading on the last Amendment, who said the effect of that Amendment would be to neutralise the whole object of the Bill. If that object was not to prevent a man voting twice, then this Amendment would not neutralise it. If the object of the Bill was to prevent a man having a vote at all, this Amendment would neutralise it. The mover of the Amendment said he moved it as a test of the Government's declaration that they did not intend to disfranchise anybody. The hon. Member was long suffering. No one could have gone through these discussions without seeing that the Bill was unfair and was devoted to securing that as large as possible number of people who had a double qualification should not exercise even one vote. It was the duty of the Opposition to make the Bill, even from the point of view from which it was introduced, fair. But he would say that this Bill was simply a Bill to disfranchise political opponents.
  MR. R. PEARCEsaid he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill had not seen his way to provide some remedy for the inconvenience which would certainly arise from inadvertence. The right hon. Gentleman bad stated that selection could be made at any time during the eight months before 5th September. He had however overlooked the fact that the list for which the selection was to be made was not in existence or even in draft, or in embryo, until the overseers published it in the month of August. There was really not more than ten days in which the selection could be made. To show the inconvenience which would result he would give two illustrations. In the City of London in every thousand voters
  1320
  there were 940, or 94 per cent., who would have to make a selection under the Act. Unless these persons had before September sent the requisite notice to the town clerk or the clerk of the county council they would find themselves altogether disqualified from voting at the next election. If they took a county constituency, such as the one he represented, of 500 square miles of country, where the overseers' lists were printed in the same way, and where the revising barrister finished his work in the middle of September, they would find the same thing applied to 10 per cent. of the overseers' lists. It would happen that during the first three or four years, at any rate, of the working of this measure they would find voters, really from nothing but inadvertence or ignorance of the Act, losing votes wholesale. It would not only disfranchise some voters, but it would give an immense amount of trouble to all concerned and create dislike in the minds of large numbers of voters, who would make the greatest possible stir about the loss of their franchise, although he believed it was not the intention of the Government to disfranchise anybody. He begged the Government to consider whether some such words as those proposed by the hon. Member ought not to be inserted in the Bill.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTERagreed that unless the Government accepted the Amendment, or something of the kind, it would be said of them in the country that their intention in passing this Bill was to disfranchise certain people. The principle on which this Bill had been ostensibly based was that it was unjust that one man should have several votes while the ordinary elector had only one, and that the Government desired to place the plural voter in the same position as the single one. The position of the single voter was that he had one unconditional vote. If they wanted to place the plural voter in the same position why did they not give him one unconditional vote? They could have done it in three lines. They could have provided for a similar procedure to that employed in the case of municipal elections.
  THE DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the hon. and learned Member was out of order in discussing that point.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid the Amendment proposed to remove from the path of the plural voter some, at any rate, of the restrictions which gave him a conditional vote as against the unconditional vote which the single voter had. If they were to treat the single voter as they were proposing to treat the plural voter, and were to hedge round his vote with the restrictions with which they were proposing to hedge round the one vote left to the plural voter, it would be found that the restrictions were very serious indeed. Surely it was not a liberal principle to hedge round the exercise of the franchise by any man. One could understand the argument that all men should be equal in their electoral power; but in that case why not make them equal and put the plural voter in the same untrammelled position as the single voter?
  THE DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman was going outside the point of the Amendment.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid in that case he would not trouble the House further.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had made the extraordinary statement that this proposed new clause had been carefully drafted in order to provide for any case of failure of selection owing to ignorance of the law. There was a proviso to cover failure of selection owing to ignorance of fact, but he could not see that failure owing to ignorance of the law was covered. He would, therefore, urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider his refusal to accept this Amendment, because, unless it or a similar Amendment were adopted, the avowed intention of the Government would not be accomplished. The right hon. Gentleman had also stated that he strongly objected to anything being done to relieve the inadvertent voter, but he would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to subhead (e) of his own proposed clause, which expressly provided for the man who through inadvertence or ignorance had given notice in respect of the wrong constituency or to the wrong clerk. The right hon. Gentleman provided for it in the one
  1322
  case and stated that it was provided for in the other; but it was not, and therefore he urged the acceptance of this Amendment. It was well known that years passed before the public understood a new statute, and it was quite conceivable that an election might come on in November or December, and that the instructions for polling, etc., sent out by Party agents might be the first moans by which a voter became acquainted with the fact that this Act was in existence. Again, the right hon. Gentleman said that a man had eight months in which to select. But a pluralist might reasonably wish to postpone his selection until he knew whore he should cast his vote to the greatest benefit to his Party. He then might forget the matter owing to urgent business or through some other cause allow the 5th September to pass, and so become disfranchised. Surely the Government did not intend this. On the three grounds to which he had referred he urged the Government to accept this Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,)said the hon. Member for Rye had given the real reason for the Amendment when he described a voter who delayed until the last moment making up his mind in which constituency he should vote in order that his vote might carry the greatest political weight. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] Whatever sympathy there might be for such action, it did not come under the cover of inadvertence. So far from having brought about his misfortune by inadvertence, he would have brought it about by over calculation and by being "too clever by half." The question they had to ask themselves, assuming there was a duty, was whether in a ease in which inadvertence explained the breach relief ought to be given. If they gave relief to every man who, owing to forgetfulness or carelessness, had failed to discharge the duty imposed upon him by the statute, there would be no sort of sanction by which the careless elector might be quickened to the necessary degree of diligence to discharge that duty. It was in reality a case of carelessness, of forgetfulness, and of postponing an application——
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: Or ignorance of the law.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: That would not be an inadvertence. For a man to be able to go to the Court and admit he had been very careless and get relief would bring the statute into contempt. It was almost essential to the working of the Act that this duty should be performed. If it was honoured in the breach and not in the observance, the main object of the Act would be defeated. He asked the House to reject the Amendment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the House recognised in the speeches of the Attorney-General a real endeavour to meet the points the Opposition made, and the speech just delivered was an illustration of that fact. At the same time the Attorney-General would not expect him to say that he had met them satisfactorily. At any rate he would try to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments with equal fairness and directness. Some hon. Members below the gangway said the hon. Member for Rye had given away the Opposition case by suggesting as an illustration the case of a man who deliberately postponed until the last moment making a choke of constituency in order that his vote should be most effective. If the voter deliberately left his decision over until after the proper time for making the choice, of course the words of the Amendment would not cover his case at all, and, if it had meant that, his hon. friend's illustration would not have been germane. But the case he understood his hon. friend to put was that of a man who deliberately refrained in the early months from making his choice, with the intention of making it within the proper time though at the last opportunity allowed him by the law. When that time arrived, however, owing to pressure of business, or some other cause, the man inadvertently failed to make his choice. What possible argument was there against a man who had more than one qualification selecting that which would make his vote most effective?
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid what they took exception to was the hon. Gentleman's making that out to be a case of inadvertence.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINdid not think the hon. Gentleman bore in. mind the earlier course of the debate. It had been urged against the Amendment that, as a voter had eight months in which to make his selection, he must be a singularly careless citizen if he did not make the selection by the time September came round. It was then urged by his hon. friend that he-might have good reason, and this was a good reason, for delaying his selection till the last moment. If they granted that the voter might reasonably defer his choice until the last moment they must also grant that at the last moment he might omit to send in his notice. After all, the 5th September was not a date familiar to them like Christmas Day, or even quarter day, and unless persons were actively concerned in the work of registration the date might easily slip from their minds. It was admitted that voters if left to themselves did not take steps to get upon the register, so that for the safeguarding of the right of duly qualified men to vote under this Act they would have to depend upon party agents. That was not a right thing to do. They did not do it now in regard to the mass of voters, whose rights were safeguarded by the overseers; and where the overseers did their work well, as was the case in his constituency, the work of the party agents was reduced to a minimum. The effect of this Bill would be to throw on the Party agents the whole burden of securing the votes of every man who had more than one qualification. He objected to that in toto. He objected to any machinery which made it more difficult for a citizen to discharge the first duty of his citizenship. He also objected to anything which would make the ordinary business of the political struggle more costly. They would be increasing the difficulty for a poor man to get into the House by putting an additional strain upon him. He objected in toto to the principle on which the Government were proceeding, and he would support every modification, however small, which would mitigate the grievance and the hardship they were inflicting. He was anxious to make the exercise of a vote once by any qualified voter as easy and simple as possible, and to provide the easiest and simplest remedy in cases where through inadvertence, omission, or ignorance on the

  1325
  part of the voter the selection of a constituency had not boon made within the time required by the Act.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid this Amendment would enable a voter to exercise his option in the selection of a constituency after 5th September on two conditions, namely, "inadvertence" or "some other reasonable cause." A man who had two qualifications and failed to send in notice of selection was not a criminal. Under the 23rd section of the Corrupt Practices Act an offender who had committed an offence could obtain relief if he had offended through inadvertence. The case to which the Amendment referred was that of a man who had not committed any offence, but who had simply omitted to send in his notice of selection, and surely he also ought to be able to obtain relief if his omission was due to inadvertence. If the Government really intended to prevent plural voting, everything ought to be made as easy as possible to a man who had committed no offence or crime. Hon. Members sometimes did things which they ought not to do simply from inadvertence. He himself was guilty of that kind of offence every day. He hoped that even at the twelfth hour the Government would see that the argument in favour of this Amendment was unanswerable.
  MR. RAWLINSONpressed on the Government the importance of this small Amendment. Relief ought to be given to a man who had been honestly inadvertent or honestly ignorant. The Attorney-General and also the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said that if this Amendment were accepted there would be practically no penalty for not sending in notice of selection by 5th September. He thought they both failed to remember the words at the end of the clause, which were as follow—
  "For the purpose of this section 'court means the High Court or a court of summary jurisdiction or county court having jurisdiction in the constituency which the applicant under this section desires to select."
  They knew what the penalty of having to make application to the court was. The lawyers' fees which the voter would
  1326
  have to pay would be a sufficient penalty for the inadvertence of not sending in his application at the proper time. He took the view that this was a perfectly fair test Amendment. If the Bill was a genuine attempt on the part of the Government to deal fairly and rightly with the matter of plural voting and they desired to make it a workable measure, what possible reason was there for not accepting the Amendment? If the real object of Bills of this kind was not that they should be workable measures, the object must be, as some Radical papers had said, to "fill up the cup" of another place.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see that this has anything to do with the Amendment.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he was explaining the reason why this Amendment was not accepted by the Government. He was showing the possible motives which might induce the Government to accept or reject an absolutely reasonable Amendment. The Government had not given any good reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. The power which the Amendment proposed to give to the court was safeguarded on every side.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTwas not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman had heard the argument of the Attorney-General, that if a man had two votes and did not feel keenly and earnestly enough in an election to give notice in time that he intended to vote in a particular constituency, such a man was not entitled to a vote at all. But if that argument was to prevail, why should not the same notice be required from a man who had only one vote that he intended to cast that vote at the forthcoming election. He thought that that was a perfectly fair proposal. Every man ought to give notice that he intended to vote, and if that were the law he believed that it would exclude a very large number of people from the poll who were not entitled to vote.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he did not intend to give a silent vote. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues did not appear quite to appreciate the

  1327
  difficulty which would be caused by the non-acceptance of this Amendment. There were instances where inadvertence might honestly prevail which might tend to the disfranchisement of those whom the House had no wish to disfranchise. This Amendment would really show whether the object of the Bill was not merely to equalise the voting power of all citizens, but actually to disfranchise many of those who now possessed more than one vote. The Attorney-General had said that any man who had so little interest, knowledge, and appreciation of current politics as not to make a selection between two constituencies in which he happened to be a voter was rightly and justly disfranchised. But was it not the case that many of those not mixed up with political work might honestly be ignorant of the various rules, and thus be disfranchised by no fault of their own, or might be so nervous about contravening some unknown rule, that they would almost be forced to withdraw altogether from the exercise of their voting power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was one who would have suffered from that, because the right hon. Gentleman had recently, in moving terms, described how he had failed to become an elector in the University of Oxford; but he forgot that at the same time, without the payment of any money, he was a constituent of the University he himself had the honour to represent, and had the right hon. Gentleman carried the inadvertence a little further, and forgotten his duty to make a selection, he would have been disfranchised altogether. He shuddered to think of the frightful penalties to which the right hon. Gentleman would have been subjected in such an event, and he wanted to save him from possible imprisonment. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to accept the Amendment if only from consideration of the risks which his distinguished colleague would incur.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGwished to emphasise the very important point raised by the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment, especially as it affected the north of Ireland, where the Party machinery was not so perfect as in England and Scotland. He held that the great purpose of an election was, in the first instance, to ascertain the real feelings of the country on
  1328
  any question brought before it. The Attorney-General had said that if a man who was doubly or trebly entitled to vote failed to make a selection, and thereby lost his vote, that would be brought about by his being too clever by half. He knew cases in which genuine inadvertence had occurred in making a selection—cases with which he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman would heartily sympathise. The great majority of electors were not so clever as the hon. Gentleman who used the expression "too clever by half" would have the House believe. He contended that a man who, through industry and enterprise, had built up businesses in different parts of the country should be entitled to a vote in each, as having special knowledge of the locality and of its trade interests. Such a man, instead of being penalised as he would be under this clause, ought rather to be encouraged to have as many votes as he had industrial premises in different constituencies. This question had undoubtedly been debated in Committee, but only on the Opposition side of the House, and no real argument against it had been offered on the Government side. In the City and county of London and various other parts of wealthy England the Party organisations saw that men were placed on the register, but there were most important isolated parts of the country with which Party agents had hardly anything to do, where the inhabitants were good citizens of the empire and were anxious to do their duty by voting when the time of election came, and who were desirous of having their names placed on the register without any interference by Party or political agents at all. On an election on an important point, when this House went to the country to decide whether there should or should not be war, or when the House went to the country on some great question such as tariff reform, this clause would destroy the proper determination of the particular point which was submitted to the country. It might happen that in the particular year in which the question was to be decided and in which the Government sought to test the feeling of the country, that there might be an abnormal amount of inadvertence. Take the case where a Government which had been in power for four or five years and everything had been running smoothly

  1329
  and without any appearance of what might be called a, political cloud upon the horizon; suddenly something of great interest occurred and the Government of the country appealed to it on some vital point. Were they on occasions of that sort to find that those who had by their industries built up many of our cities and towns and had become the backbone of them were to be deprived of their right to exercise the franchise. He thought they ought to see that those who were the backbone of our great industries should not have their privileges jeopardised by leaving out the word "inadvertence." He did not see why great employers of labour who had onerous duties to perform should be penalised in this way. They were busy men who had onerous duties to discharge at one time in one part of the country, at other times in other parts of the country. Why should not their votes be looked after as well as those of the constituents of hon. Members below the gangway. He saw nothing unreasonable in the Amendment, and he had not heard one argument of any weight which had been advanced in contravention of the points which had been urged with such eloquence by his right hon. friend on the Front Opposition Bench.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONin supporting the Amendment said he should like to put his own case before the House. At the last general election he was qualified for a vote in London, having been the possessor of property there for a year or two. But until the election was in sight he had not the vaguest idea that he was on the register, nor did he know until the day when he received an election address. Supposing this Bill had been law before the last general election, what would his position have been if he had voted in one place whilst having two qualifications? Nobody could say that he had done it intentionally, but he would have found, unless some such Amendment as this had been accepted, either that he was disqualified from voting, or if he had gone and voted he would have been liable to be put into prison. [Cries of "No, no!"] It was a genuine case he was bringing before the House, one which might happen to anybody, and he did not think that they should disfranchise men who had inadvertently forgotten to say
  1330
  where they were going to vote. He once more appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the Amendment.
  MR. HARCOURTexplained to the hon. Member who had just spoken that his hard case had been met already by a new clause which he would find on the Paper.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Then why not accept this Amendment?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid this was probably the last Amendment on the Paper marking the dividing line between the Government and the Opposition, and the latter would support their views in the division lobby. The object of the Government appeared to be to put a man who had more than one qualification under serious difficulties, to which the owner of a single qualification would not be subject. He had listened with astonishment to the speech of the Attorney-General. Was the view seriously held on the Ministerial benches that if a man had more than one qualification it was an improper thing for him to reserve to the last moment steps for securing the right to vote? It might happen that there would be no contest in two out of three constituencies for which he was qualified. What the Government wanted, but were afraid to do directly, was to prevent a man voting more than once. If this grievous disability were to be laid on an elector he ought to have every opportunity of exemption in cases in which he had acted honestly. That the Government declined to provide. The Opposition were justified in pressing this question as it had been pressed, because it marked the line which divided them from the Government. The Opposition said that every possible exemption should be given to the elector if he acted honestly. The Government said that every penalty should be placed upon him and every obstacle put in his way if he tried to exercise his vote. That was a new step to take. It was a novel proceeding to impose these difficulties on plural voters, and as this was the last opportunity that they would have of protesting against it, they would support this Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 299; Noes, 79. (Division List No. 437.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cox, Harold

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Crean, Eugene

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Agnew, George William

  Crombie, John William

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Alden, Percy

  Crossley, William J.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jenkins, J.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dillon, John

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Barker, John

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lambert, George

  Barnes, G. N.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lamont, Norman

  Beale, W. P.

  Elibank, Master of

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B (Hexham

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Essex, R. W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Levy, Maurice

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bennett, E. N.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lundon, W.

  Bertram, Julius

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lynch, H. B.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Maclean, Donald

  Billson, Alfred

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Boland, John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Brace, William

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Crae, George

  Brigg, John

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Bright, J. A.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Halpin, J.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Marnham, F. G.

  Backmaster, Stanley O.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh)

  Massie, J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Meagher, Michael

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Menzies, Walter

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Syndey Chas.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Mond, A.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Henry, Charles S.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morse, L. L.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Murray, James

  Clough, William

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Myer, Horatio

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Hodge, John

  Napier, T. B.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hogan, Michael

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Nicholls, George

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cooper, G. J.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Corbett, C H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hudson, Walter

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Coulmin, George

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Rowlands, J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Runciman, Walter

  Ure, Alexander

  O'Grady, J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wadsworth, J.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wallace, Robert

  O'Malley, William

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Walters, John Tudor

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Paul, Herbert

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sears, J. E.

  Wardle, George J.

  Pearson, W. H M. (Suffolk, Eye

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Pollard, Dr.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Price, Robt, John (Norfolk, B.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Priestley, W.K. B.(Bradford, E.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Rees, J. D.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kendall, Athelstan

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roberts, G. H (Norwich)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Winfrey, R.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Summerball, T.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Young, Samuel

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Robinson, S.

  Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Thorne, William

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fell, Arthur

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berkes, East)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Binbary, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Harvey, F. W. F. (Bury, S. Edm'ds)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry)

  Hills, J. W.

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Keswick, William

  Stone, Sir Banjamin

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'fd Univ.)

  Cave, George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Moore, William

  Wedgwood, Josah C.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Nield, Herbart

  Younger, George

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Percy, Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  MR. HARMOOD-BANNEKmoved to omit from paragraph (c) the words "or in which his name has been struck off the lists of voters on revision or on appeal." He
  1334
  said that hitherto he had been very fairly treated. This was the first hole picked in the Bill in the Committee stage, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who then led the Government accepted the view

  1335
  that it was a manifest injustice to the plural voter that if he was struck out of the lists on revision he should have no opportunity of setting himself right and claiming a vote in the election. The promise made to put that right, with due deference to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, had not been very well fulfilled. It was perfectly clear that where a man suffered this injustice the only remedy given by this Bill was an application to a Court. A man stood on the register and the notices rejecting his vote were received in a somewhat haphazard way. Men might be careless about these matters, but there was this injustice, that every voter, for one reason or another, stood a very good chance of having his vote objected to and having it thrown out. The opposing agent had only to serve notices, and there was sure to be a number of electors who would not attend the Court to substantiate their votes, and their votes would be disallowed. These men would have no right to vote in elections unless they applied to the Court for leave. That was a very poor compliance with the promise to remedy this omission in the Bill. It would have been easy to put in a clause requiring the revising barrister to give a certificate to the plural voter whose vote had been disallowed, so as to afford him another fortnight in which to make a choice. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider what was fair and reasonable and not to permit a hardship of this kind to be inflicted. The suggestion he made would provide a simple and ready remedy, and would do away with undoubted persecution. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he could not make this a more acceptable measure, freer from hardships to the plural voter? Even if hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like the plural voter they ought at least to do him justice.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGseconded the Amendment. The Bill from start to finish was extremely difficult to follow considering the simplicity of the object which was aimed at. Unless this Amendment or something of the kind was accepted an unnecessary expense would be cast on a class of the community who were not offenders against the law in the sense of being objectionable citizens.
  Amendment proposed to the clause—
  "In line 10, to leave out the words from the word 'voters' to the end of line 11."—(Mr. Harmood- Banner.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid that it was not often that a Minister in charge of a Bill was appealed to to omit a concession which had been made in Committee in order to meet the wishes of the other side. He certainly promised no more than this. The hon. Member, he thought, was under a misapprehension as to the sort of man he was providing for in the Amendment. He had omitted to notice that before the voter could be struck off by the revising barrister or on appeal he must receive notice of objection. That notice of objection he would receive before 5th September, and, therefore, if on that date he still left the objection in force he was running a sporting risk of being able to secure the selection of a vote which he knew was objected to, and if he lost it he was only paying the penalty for the risk he chose to run. It had nothing to do with the revising barrister as was settled in Committee. He thought the difficulty suggested as to the voter having to go to a Court had been met to some extent by the promise he had given that he would select words for insertion at the end of the clause. This Amendment being to leave out a concession made in Committee, he could not accept it.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid it was true that the right hon. Gentleman promised to consider this matter in Committee with a view to preventing a man under these circumstances from being disfranchised altogether, but the House had a right to discuss whether he had really adopted the best and fairest method. Here was an elector with two qualifications, who had served his proper notice of selection as regards one of them, who had done so at the proper time and place, and yet, because his name was struck off on revision or on appeal, he became disfranchised unless some Amendment of the kind suggested was put in. Why should such a man not have the rights and privileges of the elector with only one qualification? How could it be fair to ask a man who had served the right notice at the

  1337
  right time and place, because his name was subsequently struck off the list, to make an application to the Court for the purpose of giving him the right to exercise his single qualification? Anything more absurd it was hard to imagine. It had been pointed out that the attempt was being made to penalise a man who happened to have two qualifications in a manner which would never be thought of in the case of a man who only had one qualification. All that they asked was that the moment the plural voter was reduced to the position of having only one qualification, he should be in exactly the same position as other voters.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that if a man having two qualifications before 1st
  January was struck off in respect of one, on 1st January he would have only one qualification. Therefore he would not be a plural voter and would not need to make any application. The only case for which the Amendment provided was the comparatively rare case of the man who had three or four qualifications, and selected one in respect of which he was ultimately struck off. The result would be that on 1st January he would be registered in two or more places, but not in the place he had selected. He ought, therefore, to apply to the court.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 315; Noes, 69. (Division List No. 438.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Essex, R. W.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Burnyeat W. J. D.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Agnew, George William

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Alden, Percy

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fenwick, Charles

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Ferens, T. R.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Asthon, Thomas Gair

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Charnning, Sir Francis Allston

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Barker, John

  Clough, William

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't)

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Barnard, E. B.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Beale, W. P.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Beauchamp, E.

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cowan, W. H.

  Halpin, J.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cox, Harold

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Crombie, John William

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Crooks, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Crossley, William J.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Bertram, Julius

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Billson, Alfred

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Boland, John

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire N. E.)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Brace, William

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Henry, Charles S.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Dillon, John

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Brigg, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bright, J. A.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Hodge, John

  Brodie, H. C.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hogan, Michael

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hope, W Bateman (Somers't, N.

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Elibank, Master of

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Hudson, Walter

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Erskine, David C.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Illingworth, Percy, H.

  Murray, James

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Myer, Horatio

  Simon, John Allesbrook

  Jacoby, Sir James Alferd

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bessetlaw)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Nicholls, George.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Jenkins, J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Spicer Sir Albert

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chestoper)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Strauss, E. A.(Abingdon)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  King, Alferd John (Kuntsford)

  O'Grady, J.

  Summerbell, T.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  O'Malley, William

  Tennant, H. J. (BerWickshire)

  Lambert, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lamont Norman

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Layland-Barrat, Francis

  Paul, Herbert

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E,)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Toulmin, George

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Ure, Alexander

  Levy, Maurice

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Verney, F. W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lough, Thomas

  Pollard, Dr.

  Wallace, Robert

  Lundon, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walters, John Tudor

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk,E.)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds S.).

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Radford, G. H.

  Wardle, George J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Raphael Herbert H

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Water, D. S.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Rees, J. D.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpton)

  Whitebread, Howard

  M'Crae, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  White, George (Norfolk)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  M'Kean, John

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Manfield Harry (Northants)

  Robinson, S.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Marnham F. J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Williamson, A.

  Marnham, F.J.

  Rose Charles Day

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Massie, J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Winfrey, R.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wodehouse. Lord

  Mond, A

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wood, T. M'Knnon

  Money L. G. Chiozza

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Young, Samuel

  Montagu, E. S.

  Scott A. H. (Ashton underLyne)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sears, J. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Seely, Major J. B

  Morse, L. L.

  Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewishaw)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

  Aubery-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Boyle Sir Edward

  Corbett, A, Cameron (Glasgow)

  Balcarres Lord

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Cave, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dixon Sir Daniel

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

  Doughty, Sir George

  1340

  1341

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Fell, Arthur

  Morepth, Viscount

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nield, Herbert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Percy, Earl

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury, S. Edm'd)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Hills, J. W.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Younger, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Bull and Mr. Harmood-Banner.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Keswick, William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N. W.)MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N. W.) moved an Amendment to provide for the difficulty that arose from the difference in dates of the English and Scottish Parliamentary registers in cases where electors had votes in both countries. In Scotland by Act of Parliament the Parliamentary register came into force on 1st November, but in England not until the 1st of January. Four difficulties arose from that, two only of which had been met by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. When this subject was discussed in Committee the Lord Advocate met him very courageously and fairly, and said he proposed to provide for the difficulties he had mentioned by Order in Council under Clause 6. He did not attempt to conceal the fact that the object of the Amendment was to give an opportunity to the Government to say what was their opinion as to the desirability of giving the Secretary of Scotland such powers under an Order in Council, against which he protested. He contended that if such great constitutional alterations were to be made it should be done by Act of Parliament, and not by Order in Council. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the clause—
  "In line 26, after the word 'constituency, to insert the words ' (h) that having selected for the currency of the last Parliamentary register a constituency in Scotland, he has ceased, or will cease before the first day of November, to be marked on the register of that constituency; (i) that, having selected for the currency of the ensuing Parliamentary register a constituency in Scotland, he will cease, before or at the end of the calendar year, to be marked on the register of his present voting constituency."—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW, Hawick Burghs)said he had been very much interested to notice the provisions of Sub-sections (f) and (g) of the new clause which applied to Scotland. He must say that, like his hon. and learned friend, he had thought it would be possible to pick some holes in those sub-clauses, and he gave his hon. and learned friend some credit for attempting that task. Obviously, however, his hon. and learned friend had found that those clauses were perfectly sound and he now started two fresh subsections, which obviously were not meant to be discussed at this point of the Bill at all, because there was something in them which would absolutely reverse Section 6, dealing with the power to be exercised by the Secretary for Scotland He was one of those who preferred to take difficulties as they occurred, and he was not going to be led into discussing the subsections of Clause 6 upon Clause 2. The Amendment would introduce absolute confusion. Under the Bill the selection to be exercised by the voter was for the currency of the year from the 1st January until the 31st December, and if they made the selection for the currency of the year in Scotland from the 1st November till the 31st of October the result would be absolute confusion, because the Scotsman's selection would end on the 31st October and the Englishman's on the 31st December. Whoever heard the like of that? Surely they had plenty of national grievances in the North without his hon. and learned friend introducing this new era of confusion in every register of the two countries. Many men were not only on the register

  1343
  of Scotland, but on the register of the three countries, and they must have one option capable of being exercised at one time under the provisions of Subsection 1. In order to do this it was necessary that the selection should run from the 1st January till the 31st December in all three countries. He had considered the matter and had communicated with high authorities in Scotland on both sides of politics, and they all agreed that the Bill was now in shipshape condition.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman instead of communicating with high legal authorities had put questions to the ordinary elector in Scotland he wondered how that elector would have understood them. The difficulties to which the right hon. Gentleman referred did not arise from the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend, but were inherent in the Bill itself. The right hon. Gentleman had given a learned disquisition on the Amendment, but he had not provided a way out of the difficulty which he said would he made clear when Clause 6 was discussed. But would he give a guarantee that Clause 6 would be discussed in this House? It appeared from Clause 6 that the Secretary for Scotland might issue instructions for this purpose under an Order in Council. The register in Scotland did not exist for the calendar year, and what would be the effect of those regulations so far as the Scottish elector was concerned? In some cases he would be registered as a voter in England and also in Scotland, and then he would have to refer to the Order in Council. What would be the effect if this unfortunate man made a
  mistake? Some terrible consequences might happen and he might find himself in the position of a perfectly innocent man going to prison for a long time. He had not full confidence in Orders in Council made on a political question such as this by any Government, although he made no reflection on his right hon. friend the present Secretary for Scotland. But to place in his sole and undivided charge a power under which he might deprive men of the franchise was not desirable. He himself hoped he would not suffer the penalties of those who possessed more than one vote, but he had a certain sympathy for those people, and he certainly thought that the House should not make it possible for a man to be made liable to such penalties. Hitherto it had been the practice in Scotland not to carry out matters of this kind by the ipse dixit of the Secretary for Scotland. An Order in Council had to be by the Privy Council and had to be signed by the King, and it would be a far greater safeguard than anything signed by a mere Secretary for Scotland. He admitted that there were considerable difficulties, and he did not know how this clause would work even if amended by his right hon. friend. Instead of permitting these regulations to be made by the Secretary for Scotland he submitted that they ought to be placed in the Bill so that an elector who wished to perform his obligations could see what they were. If the right hon. Gentleman had failed to make this clear a great responsibility rested on the Law Officers of the Crown.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 75; Noes, 313. (Division List No. 439.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fell, Arthur

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cave, George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Forster, Henry William

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore)

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (City Lond)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury, S. Edm'ds)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hills, J. W.

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Keswick, William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Moore, William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Peters field)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Percy, Earl

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Younger, George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Remnant, James Farqhuarson

  Starkey, John R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Mitchell-Thomson and Sir Henry Craik.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Clough, William

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Agnew, George William

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harms worth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Alden, Percy

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Harms worth, R. L. (Caith'nss-sh

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Armstrong, W. C. Beaton

  Corbett, C.H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cox, Harold

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Crombie, John William

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Crooks, William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Barker, John

  Crossley, William J.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Barnard, E. B.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hodge, John

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hogan, Michael

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Beaumont, Hn W. C. B.(Hexham

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dillon, John

  Hudson, Walter

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Duffy, William J.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Bertram, Julius

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Billson, Alfred

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Jenkins, J.

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Elibank, Master of

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Boland, John

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Erskine, David C.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Brace, William

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Essex, R. W.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Brigg, John

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bright, J. A.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Brocklehurst W. B.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Brodie, H. C.

  Fen wick, Fharles

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Brunner, J. F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lambert, George

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lamont, Norman

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.).

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Glendinnnig, R. G.

  Levy, Maurice

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Glover, Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lough, Thomas

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lundon, W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Halpin, J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

  Lynch, H. B.

  1346

  1347

  Maclean, Donald

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Sullivan, Donal

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Summerbell, T.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Pickersgill, Edmund Hare

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  M'Crae, George

  Pollard, Dr.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Micking, Major J.

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

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Radford, G. H.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Toulmin, George

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Marnham, F. J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ure, Alexander

  Massie, J.

  Rees, J. D.

  Verney, F. W.

  Meagher, Michael

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wadsworth, J.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Menzies, Walter

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wallace, Robert

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Mond, A.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wardle, George J.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robinson, S.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Morrell, Philip

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Morse, L. L.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rowlands, J.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Murray, James

  Runciman, Walter

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Myer, Horatio

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Napier, T. B.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Nicholls, George

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Wiles, Thomas

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sears, J. E.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Williamson, A.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.

  Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Winfrey, R.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wodehouse, Lord

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  O'Kelly, Jas (Roscommon, N.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Young, Samuel

  O'Malley, William

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Paul, Herbert

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  And, it being after Eleven of the clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

  NAVAL PRIZE BILL [LORDS].
  Order for Committee read and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  BOND INVESTMENT COMPANIES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Eleven o'clock.

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR SCOTLAND.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had received (by post) from the Lord Clerk Register of Scotland minutes of the election of the Earl of Rothes as one of the sixteen Peers of Scotland, 8th November last, in room of Ronald Ruthven Earl of Leven and Melville, deceased; and separate return by the Lord Clerk Register of certain titles of Peerage called at the said election, in right of which respectively no vote had been received and counted at any election for fifty years then last past (pursuant to Act 14 & 15 Vict. chap. 87.). Ordered, that the said minutes of election, etc., be printed. (No. 217.)
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Edinburgh Corporation (Superannuation) Order Confirmation Bill, Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a. (The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell), and reported from the Committee.
PETITION.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition against; of inhabitants of Hatherop. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY.
  Report of the War Office Committee on promotion to colonel and general.

  POLICE (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return relative to the appointment of matrons at police stations and police courts.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1878.
  Order in Council, dated 16th November, 1906, approving certain new denominations of standard measures of length.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACT, 1865.
  Order in Council, dated 16th November, 1906, sanctioning the payment of Greenwich Hospital special pensions to persons residing in his Majesty's Dominions abroad, in the same way as if they resided in the United Kingdom.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH, who had the following Notice on the Paper, "To call the attention of the House to a statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty on the 23rd of July, in which he said that ' most elaborate instructions were being drawn up to be given to captains of merchant vessels,' in case of war or imminent danger of war; and also to ask His Majesty's Government what punishments could be inflicted under our present laws on alien officers serving on board of British ships in the event of their infringing or divulging the secret instructions confided to them, and thus increasing the risks incurred by other British vessels; and if, on inquiry, such punishments are found to be less severe than the penalties to which officers of British nationality would be liable; whether His Majesty's Government would bring in a Bill to put the alien officers of British ships in the same position as British subjects as regards punishment for such conduct," said: My Lords, as your Lordships will have an opportunity of discussing the subject of alien captains when the Merchant Shipping Bill comes up for Second Reading to-morrow, I beg to put without further comment the Question that stands in my name.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, I am sure I am voicing the feelings of your Lordships when I congratulate the noble Lord on the happy prospect that is opening up before him. The noble Lord has put to me something in the nature of a legal conundrum rather than anything else, and I think

1179
the best thing I can do by way of answer is to read the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown which I took on the subject.
The Law Officers report that under the law of high treason; (a) officers who are British subjects would be liable for communicating to the enemy secret information to the prejudice of this country wherever the offence was committed; (b) aliens employed as officers on British ships would incur the same liability if such information were communicated either on the high seas or in the territorial tidal waters of any other State. It is probable, but not certain, that this liability would attach even though the information were communicated on foreign territory, provided the alien officer retained at the time his position on the British vessel to which he was attached. Under the Official Secrets Act (a) officers who are British subjects would be liable for communicating secret information within the meaning of that Act anywhere; (b) alien officers would clearly be liable if the communication were made within His Majesty's dominions in the ordinary sense of that term, and probably, though not certainly, the Court would hold that this expression applied to a British ship on the high seas and in the tidal territorial waters of other States. No distinction is made between the punishments imposed on British subjects and aliens after conviction. Of course there is no intention of giving any great opportunity to captains to distribute information as to the intentions of the Admiralty. The idea really is that we are to have all the instructions drawn up; and then, if necessity arose, instructions for a particular voyage would be given to the captain of a particular ship as to the course he ought to take in the event of dangers arising.

LABOUR RECRUITING.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is true—(1) That effective licences to recruit in Portuguese East Africa for the mines in the Transvaal have been or are about to be issued to Mr. J. B. Robinson; (2) that the Colonial Government of Portuguese East Africa has objected and
1180
still objects to the issue of more than a licence for one individual; (3) that Diplomatic pressure has been brought to bear to force the Colonial Government to issue more than one licence against their will; (4) and that His Majesty's Government will similarly assist other groups of mining companies to obtain the same privileges; and to move for Papers.
On two occasions during the summer I addressed Questions to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies on this subject, and, relying on the very frank statement he made that he had nothing to conceal, I am proposing to give him the opportunity of affording your Lordships the fullest possible information upon the steps that have been taken by the Foreign Office to assist the noble Earl in his policy as regards labour in South Africa. Perhaps I may be permitted to recapitulate very shortly what I stated on those occasions. Previous to the war the mining houses, feeling how detrimental was the system under which recruiting went on for the mines, and the grave objections that there were to many of the processes which had been introduced in the shape of touts and the resources they adopted to filch recruits away from other touts, decided that it was necessary to form a system of co-operation, and during the war that co-operative system was founded and it subsequently came into effect.
One of the principal results of the cooperative system was that it assisted the weakest mining properties; that is to say, the chain was no stronger than its weakest link. The scale of remuneration had to be adapted to the means of the poorest mine. Therefore, the wealthier mining houses had to forego some of the advantage which they could have secured by their larger capital and larger resources. The system of co-operation was certainly advantageous in doing away entirely with the objections—I think I might use a stronger term and say the iniquities— which were prevalent under the touting system. In order to carry out co-operation effectively the acceptance of the system had to be secured from the Governor General of Portuguese East Africa, and that officer, having also experience of the objections that existed under the touting system, did approve of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association being, with its officers, permitted

1181
to recruit within the colonial territories of His Most Faithful Majesty. That system went on. I do not pretend to say it was absolutely perfect.
It is said that if other methods had been adopted more recruits could have been obtained. It is within the experience of every mine manager on the Band that men come to him and say, "If you will give us an order we will bring in so many thousand recruits." These are only statements, very often put forward by men who are dissatisfied with the abolition of the old touting system. There is no proof whatever that competition would be any more successful in securing recruits than the system adopted by the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association. Then last summer the noble Earl announced that His Majesty's Government thought it would be advantageous to obtain for a group—the Robinson group—a licence to recruit in Portuguese East Africa, and I took the liberty of pointing out at the time that this change of policy would inevitably lead to competition and might partially reintroduce those objectionable practices which had been swept away with the old touting system, I pointed out that this was largely a matter of local concern, and I did not understand why the noble Earl was interfering with the local arrangements of a colony which was so shortly to receive local self-government. However, His Majesty's Government were positive that it would be advantageous to introduce competition.
My information—and I believe it to be quite as reliable as that of the noble Earl—is that the Portuguese Government object in the strongest possible way to competition being reintroduced. They had experience of what went on as regards His Most Faithful Majesty's subjects under the old system, and they entertain the strongest possible objection to anything of the kind being reintroduced. They have had some years experience of the methods of working of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association; they know the men who are trusted as recruiters, and they prefer to go on with that system. But my information is that His Majesty's Government have brought every possible diplomatic pressure to bear upon the
1182
Governor-General of Portuguese East Africa to compel him, if possible, to grant what I have described as effective licences. The result of the noble Earl's negotiations last summer was that, after some pressure I believe, the Governor-General did issue a licence to the nominee of the Robinson group. It was a licence for an individual only and did not convey rights or powers to any delegates; and the Robinson group, so I understand, find that that is not an effective licence, and they have, I presume, approached the Government to induce them to use their diplomatic power to obtain further licences for a number of recruiters.
A licence for one individual is, I suppose, found ineffective, and the Robinson group is not getting anything like the number of boys that it received when it was a member of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association. The Robinson group was one of the original members of the association, and remained a member until quite recently, when, having broken the rules, it was invited to withdraw, and it did withdraw, and it is no longer a member of the association, though it can become so at any moment by complying with the rules. I want your Lordships to understand clearly what will be the effect of competition if the policy of the noble Earl results in competition, as I think it must. The wages of Kaffirs in South Africa are already extortionate, and the poorer mines can ill afford to pay even the present rate. If the wages and the expense of bringing East African Kaffirs to the mines are increased, as they inevitably will be by competition, it is highly likely that the margin of profit now made by many of the smaller mines will be swept away, and it will be a matter for the consideration of the directors whether they can go on working at all. If the mines are closed it will result in a certain number of Europeans losing their employment. There is no doubt that that will be the effect if the wages of the Kaffirs rise.
What I want the noble Earl to understand is that it is inevitable, if this pressure which I am given to understand he is causing to be brought to bear on Portuguese East Africa is successful and

1183
effective licences are granted, that the result must be competition — for this reason, that the supply being limited the Robinson group will undoubtedly try to secure the best boys and will give a longer price either in wages or in the initial bonus to the Kaffir. In one way or the other, prices will be raised by a system of competition. The effect will not be only as regards the mines; many other industries in South Africa will be affected. As I have already pointed out, the result of co-operation is that the general body of mines have to adapt their rate of wages to the capacity of the weakest mines, and if some of these mines have to discontinue working and cease to be members of the association they will undoubtedly approach His Majesty's Government in the same way as the Robinson group did and ask to be allowed to obtain effective licences to recruit in Portuguese East Africa. I ask the noble Earl, who has nothing to conceal, what answer he would give to such an application. If his answer is that he would not endeavour to secure effective licences for any other groups, I would ask him to explain why one group is to be treated more favorably than another, why partiality is to be shown to one group, and why others are not to receive the same favour. I cannot think that your Lordships will hold this to be a very dignified position on the part of Great Britain. If it was for some great object I could understand diplomatic pressure being brought to bear upon a not very wealthy, not very important, and not very large Portuguese Colony. But what is the object? I cannot see that there is any other end than to attain some very petty advantage for the party and the policy which the noble Earl represents. I daresay the gentlemen who represent them out there, the engineers who are somewhat discredited—your Wybourgs and your Creswells — will make some capital out of it. But is that a very dignified proceeding on the part of His Majesty's Government?
I cannot understand what the object of the noble Earl is. The Government profess to desire, so I understand it, that Chinese labour shall cease in South Africa, and they profess to believe that there is plenty of native labour. They will not accept the opinions of the two
1184
Commissions which have reported that there is not sufficient labour in South Africa. They will not recognise the facts as regards the cost of native labour, and they are now pursuing a policy which, in my opinion, and in the opinion of every one who has gone into the matter closely, must inevitably lead to the raising of the cost of labour—a result which will effect not only the mines, but every industry. Under these circumstances I think I am justified in submitting the Motion that I do for Papers to be laid on the Table, in order that your Lordships may understand what are the communications that have passed between His-Majesty's Government and the Government of His Most Faithful Majesty on the subject of recruiting in the Colony of. Portuguese East Africa.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the issue of licences to recruit in Portuguese East Africa for the mines in the Transvaal."—(Lord Harris.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble Lord's Question, I have, of course,. to say that it is our desire that effective licences to recruit in Portuguese East Africa should be issued to Mr. Robinson. I have said so before and I repeat it again. With regard to the two following Questions I am put in rather a difficult position by what the noble Lord has just said,. because he has informed your Lordships that he is in possession of information to which he attaches more importance than to anything that I can say. In these circumstances it is rather hopeless for ma to attempt to convince him.
LORD HARRIS: What I said was that I believed my information was quite as. reliable as that possessed by the noble-Earl. I did not say that it was more important.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: The noble Lord. said he considered it quite as reliable, and. I can see from the tone of his speech, where he would place the reliance most implicitly. I have only to say, with regard to the negotiations—I object to the term "diplomatic pressure "—which

1185
have taken place with the Portuguese Government, that it is not the case that they have been in any way unfriendly. Certain questions have arisen which have necessitated correspondence, and delay has ensued which is not unusual in such circumstances; but the Portuguese Government have expressed a desire to meet our wishes, and the negotiations are still proceeding. Until they have been concluded I cannot, of course, go into details, and I cannot lay the Papers upon the Table of the House.
With regard to the fourth Question of the noble Lord, it seems to me to presuppose one of two things—either that there should be further secessions from the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association or that the association should entirely break up. I have seen both suggestions made, but I am not quite sure from the noble Lord's speech to which he inclines. I can say—and the noble Lord challenged me on the particular point that I had nothing to conceal —that I have nothing to conceal in this matter. In either case we should certainly wish to deal fairly with those members of the association. If it were a question of secession, I do not see that we could object to applications being lodged for further licences, and we should certainly consider them fairly, subject to the conditions which were imposed upon the Robinson group, namely, that we were satisfied from the substance, the status, and the responsibility of the group that good management could be secured. If, however, it were a question of the break up of the association as a whole, I think, perhaps, it would be light for the Government of the Transvaal to be satisfied that a scheme of groups would really cover the whole situation.
But while I say this, and while I mean what I say that we should wish to deal fairly with any applications of the kind, I think it is right to point out to the noble Lord, of which, indeed, his Question and his speech are very good evidence, that there would be great possibilities of delay in the matter, not only under the same circumstances as have occurred in the one with which we are now dealing, but also because, as, I think, your Lordships have been informed, we have engaged with the
1186
Portuguese Government that we would not apply for more than a licence for one additional group until an inquiry had been held into the whole question. I cannot tell how long an inquiry of that kind would take, but pending that inquiry it would no doubt be impossible for us to support the issue of fresh licences. I may, perhaps, remind the noble Lord of what he is no doubt well aware, that this proposal for an inquiry was supported, if, indeed, it was not originated, by the Chamber of Mines, itself in July last. In these circumstances I think it might be imprudent for members of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association to separate themselves from the association with undue haste, because undoubtedly there might be delay in their obtaining the other licences on which they would rely for their recruiting. I hope the noble Lord will allow me to say that I make this observation as a friend. I have no wish, and have never had any wish, to quarrel with the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association. On the contrary, I think that I have admitted before, and I am willing to say it now, that I entirely agree that the methods which were adopted under the authority of that association were a great improvement on those that existed before. We have said most distinctly that we wanted nothing less than the resurrection of those old methods. But, my Lords, what I ventured to insist upon on a previous occasion, and what I must repeat, is that the association is throughout entirely a voluntary association. It is, I believe, constituted by articles of association, and I think the noble Lord himself has said that any member can retire from the association, or, as he put it, be expelled.
LORD HARRIS: I did not use the word expelled.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I thought the noble Lord said that—
LORD HARRIS: I said that Mr. Robinson was asked to withdraw as he had broken the rules, and he did withdraw.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I think it comes to nearly the same thing. At

1187
any rate, the noble Lord said that a member might be asked to withdraw and have a right to withdraw. In that case the whole point turns, I think, on the question whether the action of the association is acquiesced in or not by its members. If it had been acquiesced in throughout I do not suppose that it would have been disturbed yet, but if it were to be put in any other position than that, it would practically become a monopoly, and all I can say is that I do not think anything would justify the creation of a monopoly officially recognised in the hands of an association of that kind. I think some of the remarks of the noble Lord were a little discouraging on that particular point. He spoke of the results of — shall I say the breaking up of the association? —at any rate of any large secessions from the association, as meaning the closing down of the poorer mines and the increase of wages to the natives. With regard to the wages of the natives, which I suppose is the determining point in both cases, the noble Lord has said that they are exorbitant. That may be so; I do not wish either to deny it or to affirm it; but I think it is rather difficult to see why natives should not choose whether or not they wish to work or why they should not get for their labour the amount of money which they can legitimately procure for it. I can well understand that it is to the interest of the mining industry that even the poorer mines should not be crushed out, and personally I should be sorry to see any mines not being able to work as they have been accustomed to. On the other hand, I do not, in the least advocate any inflated rate of wages for the natives. But I do say that the native of South Africa, whose whole position is one of the great problems that lie before us in the future, has, at any rate, a right to fair play and to be treated with the consideration which is due to him as a free labourer in the country to which he belongs.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, if the noble Earl says that the Papers are not full enough to give your Lordships the information that I suggest you are entitled to, naturally I will not press my Motion; but I trust that Papers will be laid as soon as the noble Earl feels that they are complete. May I in reply,
1188
before actually withdrawing my Motion,, point out that what the noble Earl calls a monopoly is only a monopoly as regards the East African native; there is no monopoly as regards the whole of the rest of South Africa. What I am afraid of is that without any advantage to the natives themselves, except I admit as regards an increase of wages, the noble Earl may find as a result of his policy the introduction of a portion of that old touting system in Portuguese East Africa, which, from all the professions of his Party as regards Chinese labour, he most certainly would not wish to see introduced; and I must repeat what I only said prophetically just now, that I cannot see the justice of selecting one particular group, and granting that group privileges without an inquiry which the noble Earl now says he will grant to no other group except after an inquiry, and he does not know how long that inquiry might take. In the meantime, if there is a break up of the association all those mining groups have got to suffer. It has been proclaimed with some bombast in another place, that the result of this confederacy between His Majesty's Government and the Robinson group is that an experiment is to be tried with white labour on that group. Perhaps the noble Earl on some other occasion will tell us how far that experiment has gone. Another result of it is that the Robinson group were able to announce with a flourish of trumpets that they resign any claim they had on Chinese labour. Those were the two political moves that the Government had ir. their minds in making this offer to obtain additional labour for the Robinson group. But I understand that Mr. Robinson has not obtained the additional labour sought for, and that he has no intention whatever of making this experiment with white labour. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LAND TENURE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 218.)
House adjourned at ten minutes past Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, Two o'clock.